@akareilly Isn't this like the public sector grants system, where it's vastly easier to get "project funding" than "core funding"?
It's not so much that funders want something shiny and new, it's more that they want to fund something with a definite timescale, ie end date, rather than something that goes on forever.
@TimWardCam @akareilly oh they definitely want shiny, new, and "transformative"... but also proven and safe. With a track record and proof of institutional support.
@wronglang @TimWardCam@c.im @akareilly I will, as the situation warrants, point people who think like this to Richard Feynman's appendix to the Rogers Commission report into the first space shuttle disaster. This specifically falls under how the shuttle's design process used a lot of new, untested, complicated technology. In addition to this the management had an entirely incorrect understanding of redundancy and safety controls.
It was also unusually cold and the launch should not have gone ahead.
An old tree in our yard died during the freeze. I can’t emphasize enough how damned cold it was that week compared to previous launch day conditions.
Bureaucrats who didn’t understand the technology made decisions they were not qualified to make. Sound familiar?