Customer Review

14 of 28 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Feynman protects some NASA careers, 29 May 2005
This review is from: What Do You Care What Other People Think?: Further Adventures of a Curious Character (Paperback)
This book is pretty funny. Although NASA knew exactly what had caused the Challenger disaster, they found it convenient to lay a trail for Feynman, enabling him to rediscover what they had known all along. To what purpose? you might ask. Simple: so they could then say, "My God! So it was the O-rings then! Thank-you for enlightening us, O Great One!" and thereby protect a few careers. What gets me, though, and what comes through clearly in the book, is that at no point does Feynman ever consider the possibility that anyone less brilliant than himself could have reached the same conclusions. This no doubt made him the perfect stooge.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

[Add comment]
Post a comment
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Amazon will display this name with all your submissions, including reviews and discussion posts. (Learn more)
Name:
Badge:
This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.
There was an error. Please try again.
Please see the full guidelines ">here.

Official Comment

As a representative of this product you can post one Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
The following name and badge will be shown with this comment:
 (edit name)
After clicking on the Post button you will be asked to create your public name, which will be shown with all your contributions.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.  Learn more
Otherwise, you can still post a regular comment on this review.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
 
System timed out

We were unable to verify whether you represent the product. Please try again later, or retry now. Otherwise you can post a regular comment.

Since you previously posted an Official Comment, this comment will appear in the comment section below. You also have the option to edit your Official Comment.   Learn more
The maximum number of Official Comments have been posted. This comment will appear in the comment section below.   Learn more
Prompts for sign-in
 

Comments

Tracked by 1 customer

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-3 of 3 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 29 May 2013 08:32:17 BDT
Rustygecko says:
What evidence was there for this theory that NASA set up a trail, rather than tried to cover it up?

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Jul 2013 16:34:49 BDT
Wikipedia states that Feynman himself suggested that he had been led to the evidence in the very text under discussion. I would question the assertion that the reason for the trail was to enable NASA to feign innocence over the inadequacy of the O-rings, since the findings of the inquiry explicitly stated that engineers had raised their concerns over the O-rings but been ignored by the management. "The Commission found that as early as 1977, NASA managers had not only known about the flawed O-ring, but that it had the potential for catastrophe." (Wikipedia) It seems to me that the inquiry discovered precisely that the management could not reasonably claim innocence. If heads did not roll, it is surely down to the then government's response to the findings of the inquiry, rather than some egotistical deficiency on Feynman's part. This is a case in point for what could almost be described as another law of nature: the fact that the findings of public inquiries are invariably ignored in all but tokenistic ways.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Apr 2014 22:10:55 BDT
Sorry - only just saw this. The evidence, as thetada points out, is in the book itself.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›

Review Details

Item

Reviewer


Location: Dunstable, Bedfordshire United Kingdom

Top Reviewer Ranking: 6,037,603