NASA: We're sending humans to Mars

Re:NASA: We're sending humans to Mars by maaku on Wednesday December 03, 2014 @02:21AM (#8692328)

And Google is orders of magnitude bigger by every reasonable measure than NASA both today and at the height of the Apollo programme. There are a dozen of other organizations we could point to (e.g. the largest oil or mining companies) which demonstrate that the private sector can organize on this scale quite well, thank you.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:NASA: We're sending humans to Mars by Daishiman on Wednesday December 03, 2014 @02:48AM (#8692421)

Google doesn't have products that are expected to operate perfectly 15 years from now in outer space. Google's products can survive significant defects, have bug fix turnaround times measured in minutes, and worst case, can take some downtime without too much harm.

When you talk about oil and mining companies, you mention the same ones that suffer dozens of spills, contamination incidents, and accidents? Or is there some sort of hypothetical perfect oil company with no accidents whatsoever?

I think you have absolutely no clue of just how stupifying difficult it is to get equipment into space and surviving a reasonable amount of time.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:NASA: We're sending humans to Mars by nitrogen on Wednesday December 03, 2014 @03:55AM (#8692578)

I think you have absolutely no clue of just how stupifying difficult it is to get equipment into space and surviving a reasonable amount of time.

And yet the latest football game is broadcast worldwide flawlessly.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:NASA: We're sending humans to Mars by jasonlotito on Wednesday December 03, 2014 @10:23AM (#8694150)

You say the latest, but 2013 wasn't that long ago.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2012/story/_/id/8911864/2013...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:NASA: We're sending humans to Mars by dragonwriter on Wednesday December 03, 2014 @04:33PM (#8696442)

> And yet the latest football game is broadcast worldwide flawlessly.

I dunno, I've often seen flaws in the broadcast of the latest football game. I think it would be more accurate to say "the latest football game is usually broadcast worldwide with flaws that are within the tolerances viewers are willing to accept", but then, people rarely die because of broadcast glitches in football games, so the tolerances there may be fairly lenient.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:NASA: We're sending humans to Mars by Daishiman on Wednesday December 03, 2014 @08:59AM (#8693725)

Because it's the exact same rehearsed process that's performed for years at a time on hardware and software that is considerably safer than off-the-shelf computer hardware.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:NASA: We're sending humans to Mars by rwallace on Wednesday December 03, 2014 @01:18PM (#8695376)

How do you reckon? iirc, close to half a million people worked on Apollo; that's much bigger than Google. I don't think there are any private sector organizations significantly bigger than that figure?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:NASA: We're sending humans to Mars by maaku on Wednesday December 03, 2014 @06:14PM (#8696972)

"half a million people worked at Apollo" -- that number included contractors as well, a word which has slightly different meaning within government. It'd be as if we included key divisions of Intel and Cisco inside of Google's numbers.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:NASA: We're sending humans to Mars by TrevorJ on Wednesday December 03, 2014 @04:29PM (#8696430)

I would argue that Google does a lot of things poorly, which turn out to not be a big deal in the sector they are in but would certainly be a problem in aerospace. This isn't a knock on Google, the requirements are just different.

[ Parent | on HN ]