13.07.2015 Views

Bruno Latour, Aramis, or the Love of Technology, PDF - Dss-edit.com

Bruno Latour, Aramis, or the Love of Technology, PDF - Dss-edit.com

Bruno Latour, Aramis, or the Love of Technology, PDF - Dss-edit.com

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

feasible but claims <strong>the</strong> operating agency was asking <strong>the</strong> impossible. I'mreally starting to wonder whe<strong>the</strong>r N<strong>or</strong>bert wasn't right. It's not so easyto decide whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>Aramis</strong> is technologically feasible <strong>or</strong> not.[INTERVIEW EXCERPTS]Messrs. Gueguen and Pariat, <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> RAT?, who participated directly in <strong>the</strong>project and in <strong>the</strong> drafting <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> end-<strong>of</strong>-contract contradict<strong>or</strong>y rep<strong>or</strong>t:M. Parlat:"The technicians weren't able to stand up to <strong>the</strong> politicians. The current lineis that 'technologically it's a success'-but that's not <strong>the</strong> way we see it.""So <strong>the</strong> eET wasn't usefulg""Oh yes, <strong>the</strong> CET had to be done, it was indispensable; with studies, onpaper, you never go far enough. You say, 'We'll get <strong>the</strong>re,' you think problemsalways get solved, you think engineers can always muddle through, but with<strong>the</strong> CET we really had our backs to <strong>the</strong> woll.""You know that you're being accused <strong>of</strong> rigidity, <strong>of</strong> being unwilling tosimplify <strong>Aramis</strong>, <strong>of</strong> inSisting on respecting <strong>the</strong> contract too rig<strong>or</strong>ously and <strong>of</strong>having scuttled <strong>the</strong> project f<strong>or</strong> that reasong"M. Gueguen:"But that's not being rigid-we didn't want a mini-VAL! If you give upnonmaterial couplings, it's not <strong>Aramis</strong> any longer. There weren't any develop'ment problems with <strong>the</strong> mini-VAL; it exists. Among ourselves we were calling itan ARAMIS-VS, f<strong>or</strong> 'very simplified!'""Yes, but if it wasn't technologically feasible, <strong>of</strong> course you had to simplify. ""It's m<strong>or</strong>e <strong>com</strong>plicated than that. The people in charge should have said'stop' if it was infeaSible; we knew <strong>the</strong>re were problems, but <strong>the</strong>y shouldn'thave <strong>com</strong>e around telling us it was technologically perfect, when Matra hadn'tperfected it."In Entre les lignes I read something interesting [see <strong>the</strong> second documentin <strong>the</strong> Prologue]: 'It's a technological success, but <strong>the</strong>re's no application f<strong>or</strong> itand it's not our fault. If we kept going we'd be ready.' How do you expect usto believe that?"Obviously, we can be accused <strong>of</strong> not haVing tried to call attention to <strong>the</strong>problem; but we did try, and our concerns weren't taken into account ."You have to understand why <strong>the</strong>y all say, 'It's a technological success,'

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!