When funding fails: Planetary exploration at NASA in an era of austerity, 1967–1976
- O jeito com o qual ccs lidam com dinheiro não é muito transparente.
- Propõe um estudo a partir da falta de financiamento.
- Nasa sempre teve cc aplicada em seu fundamento. Era uma instituição de engenharia, não de pesquisa pura.
- Mercury como estudo de caso lowbudget. Nasa já era criticada anteriormente por seu sensasionalinismo e faraonismo.
- Austeridade levou a várias melhoras no processo de constução da Mariner.
- The austerity of the post-Apollo period inspired the search for a more fiscally conservative mode of doing planetary science. Mariner 10’s cost-driven paradigm attests to the
lengths participating scientists, engineers and science administrators would go to maintain their research programs amid fiscal crisis. Though NASA’s science budget briefly
recovered by the mid 1970s, support for planetary science never returned to the peaks of
the 1960s. The 1980s brought new challenges, as the Space Shuttle’s cost overruns,
delays and tragic 1986 disaster led to a ‘lost decade’ for planetary scientists as they
waited for a suitable launch vehicle (Logsdon, 2013). Neither new international partners
nor repeated drives to lower space exploration costs have since eliminated the financial
struggles of space scientists. And while not all subsequent NASA missions have been
explicitly cost-driven like Mariner 10, the mission’s lean science would be familiar to
any space scientist today. Limited budgets, mandatory descopes, continual cost surveillance, donating labor, reusing existing designs and trading brain power for rocket power
are all regular features of contemporary spaceflight missions even in the best of times
(Conway, 2015). 20
- Artigo bastante interessante. Ver seus fundamentos metodológicos para tentar o mesmo com o financiamento das vbiaens do beagle e outros navios.
Comentários
Postar um comentário