You wouldn't describe mankind's ability to extract oil from 5,000 feet under water technological progress? You might as well say that the Space Shuttle wasn't technological progress because of the Challenger disaster.
The space shuttle was under enough control to prevent a catastrophe around the crash site.
In contrast, what we see with BP is a failed experiment that is out of control for months. It is not a demonstration of technological progressiveness. The experiment was falsely labeled as "technology" in order to receive more public trust when it was started.
This is a marketing trick we know from software companies as well. (Fortunately, many companies are honest in that regard.)
However, maybe it is just a question of wording, i.e. whether big, risky experiments count or don't count as technology. My personal understanding of technology implies some minimum degree on maturity. In particular, anticipatory acting should be at least possible.
There are over 4000 oil platforms in the gulf of Mexico alone. According to wikipedia, we've had 4 spills in the gulf, two of which are major (Deepwater Horizon and Ixtoc).
In contrast, we've had 132 space shuttle launches, 2 of which killed everyone on board.
> we've had 4 spills in the gulf, two of which are major
And yet "we" are completely unprepared for oil spills, needing months to recover from worst-case scenarios (and decades if not centuries to recover from the long-term damage). That isn't "progressive".
> we've had 132 space shuttle launches, 2 of which killed everyone on board
It is hard for me to see in how far these incidents are comparable.
The damage of space shuttle launches was local to the "experimental room" and was under control in the sense that "just" the shuttles were destroyed and nothing else. The crews were informed about the risk of that experiment and accepted to take the risk.
