Better Cold Equations
Richard Harter
Back in 1997 I started a big thread on "The Cold Equations". In
the end I created a web page with a pseudo-scholarly analysis of
the story, its flaws, and its virtues. The URL is at
http://home.tiac.net/~cri_d/cri/1999/coldeq.html
I really don't want to revisit *that* discussion, thank you.
However one of my correspondents asked an interesting question:
Are there SF stories that have the same theme that don't have the
flaws of TCE?
I concede that the question is vague - what, after all, is the
theme of the story and what counts as a permissable variation?
Suggestions and thoughts are welcome.
William Hyde
I would suggest "Breaking Strain" (1949).
Possibly "Thunder and Roses" counts as a variation on the
theme.
William Hyde
James Nicoll
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
Butch Malahide
I can't say if it's better or worse--too long since I've read them
both--but possibly this one counts as being on the same theme. At
least if the theme is killing a stowaway.
Charles Gray [pseudonym of E. C. Tubb], "Precedent", New Worlds, May,
1952. A rocket ship is taking badly
needed supplies to the struggling colony of Mars. Payload and fuel
have been calculated with ittle margin for error. A teenage stowaway
(who happens to be the Captain's brother-in-law) is discovered and has
to be spaced.
Rich Horton
This, and also a comic book, have been identified as, pardon the pun
on Tubb's title, precedents to Godwin's story.
More recently, James Patrick Kelly has suggested -- and it makes sense
-- that his story "Think Like a Dinosaur" is in part a response to
"The Cold Equations". It is an excellent story (and a Hugo winner),
and it definitely treats a similar theme. (A man must kill a woman
with whom he comes to feel considerable sympathy, for essentially
legal reasons, if not quite "law of the universe" reasons.)
(I myself was also reminded of Algis Budrys's ROGUE MOON by "Think
Like a Dinosaur".)
Robert Rosenberg
Harter" <c...@tiac.net> wrote:
Years ago I saw a story called "The Colder Equations" which was written as a
homage to this story (and there was an editor's note stating this fact)
where the solution was to amputation all four limbs of the stowaway and an
arm and leg of the pilot (leaving him the limbs he needed to fly/land the
ship) to gain enough mass to eject to keep the ship's mass within the needed
limits of the available fuel. I think the ship might have crashed on final
approach but the pilot, stowaway, and medicine survived. The culture had
regeneration technology so the temporary loss of the limbs were not a
problem.
As to the suggestion of tossing out other unneeded stuff (as mentioned in
the referenced article), the problem is that there was probably not enough
of it to equal her mass. There was also a time constraint involved in that,
even if some of the equipment could have been included, there was not enough
time or tools for removing it. If you remember the end of the movie
"Destination Moon" they had the same "Lighten the Ship or Leave a crewman
behind" problem to allow them to take off from the Moon and safely land on
Earth. They removed all the unneeded equipment (including the radio), the
acceleration couches, and the space suits. They had the time and tools
needed to do this in this case so the situations while similar are not the
same.
Ken from Chicago
"Richard Harter" <c...@tiac.net> wrote in message
news:476fe0bd...@news.sbtc.net...
A mcguffin is need to save a ginormous number of people--in a limited time.
The mcguffin is on the way on a vessel that has past the point of no return.
An "innocent" stowaway has been discovered onboard who's continued presence
would absolutely negate delivery of the mcguffin (e.g., not enough fuel, has
diseases fatal to the target population, is taboo to the population, etc.).
There are no "safe harbors" for the stowaway to be dropped off en route.
Anywhere and everywhere would be lethal for the stowaway to be left.
There is at least one emotional, moral sentient onboard who must CHOOSE to
kick off the stowaway--and can not choose self-sacrifice since the
sentient(s) onboard are required to make the delivery.
There are no other mcguffins and / or vessels nearby who could make the
delivery in time to save the population from death.
Those are the basic REQUIRED elements to a "Cold Equation" story, from there
you could have countless permutations. Say, it could a family bonding pic
where an estranged workaholic couple decide to bring their kids along on a
delivery trip and reconnect as a family. And then an asteroid strikes,
dumping a crapload of fuel, forcing the couple to have to choose between
saving a planetary population or their own kids, or the one adult who's a
pilot is needed while the rest of the family is, ahem, dead weight--after
having just reconnecting as a family.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Robert Rosenberg" <hal...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:C395959D.D7B9%hal...@panix.com...
The movie SERENITY had a microversion of that when a fleeing civilian jumped
onto Our Heroes' hoversled to escape the attacking Reavers but his
additional weight was too much for the sled. The 2nd in command questioned
the cap's choice, suggesting he could dump the money they just stole, to
which the cap responded if he did that then the people he contracted with
would come gunning for him and the crew, including her.
-- Ken from Chicago
David Goldfarb
Ken from Chicago <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>A mcguffin is need to save a ginormous number of people--in a limited time.
>
>The mcguffin is on the way on a vessel that has past the point of no return.
>
>An "innocent" stowaway has been discovered onboard who's continued presence
>would absolutely negate delivery of the mcguffin (e.g., not enough fuel, has
>diseases fatal to the target population, is taboo to the population, etc.).
>
>There are no "safe harbors" for the stowaway to be dropped off en route.
>Anywhere and everywhere would be lethal for the stowaway to be left.
>
>There is at least one emotional, moral sentient onboard who must CHOOSE to
>kick off the stowaway--and can not choose self-sacrifice since the
>sentient(s) onboard are required to make the delivery.
>
>There are no other mcguffins and / or vessels nearby who could make the
>delivery in time to save the population from death.
>
>Those are the basic REQUIRED elements to a "Cold Equation" story, from there
>you could have countless permutations.
I think that at least some of those are dispensable. The *theme* of
"The Cold Equations" is that reality trumps the human spirit, that
sometimes a completely repugnant act is absolutely necessary. The
various trappings that Godwin set up were basically a way of making
his dilemma airtight (or at least trying to, as witness all the threads
over the years discussing it), with one alternative clearly the
correct choice.
"The Cold Equations" was also a reaction to the "puzzle stories" that
were prevalent at the time. Most any other story of the day would
set up the dilemma and then at the climax have the pilot come up with
a brilliant way out in a moment of insight. (I've read some of
John Campbell's letters that suggested that Godwin originally intended
exactly that, and it was Campbell who insisted that the girl had
to die.)
So to me a "Cold Equations" story is one that says, "Sometimes the
universe hands you lemons and you just have to suck it up", with
a subtext of "stupid kids die". James Nicoll suggested Jack London's
"To Build a Fire", and I think that one is an excellent choice.
--
David Goldfarb |"It is curious that a dog runs already
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | on the escalator."
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | -- Bella Abzug
David Goldfarb
Robert Rosenberg <hal...@panix.com> wrote:
>Years ago I saw a story called "The Colder Equations" which was written as a
>homage to this story (and there was an editor's note stating this fact)
>arm and leg of the pilot
I think that was "The Cold Solution", not "The Colder Equations".
I'm almost certain it ran in _Analog_, and I think the author
was Don Sakers.
--
David Goldfarb |"For some reason, most of my clearest memories
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu |from my youth are of various traumas."
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | -- James Nicoll
Wayne Throop
: So to me a "Cold Equations" story is one that says, "Sometimes the
: universe hands you lemons and you just have to suck it up", with
: a subtext of "stupid kids die".
"Oh, complain, complain. You know, when life gives you lemons..."
"I complain about the lemons!"
--- Ron Stoppable and Doctor Drakken
I dunno if "stupid" is really the issue, except insofar as you
trivially define as "stupid" "any act that has a high chance of
getting you killed, whether you had reason to think it would
or not". It's more, don't assume a friendly environment,
or, "nature really IS out to bet you", or something along those
lines (though those themselves don't satisfy me...).
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Gene Ward Smith
> : goldf...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU (David Goldfarb)
I would say it's more a matter of stupid people piloting the
spaceships, who can't take responsibility for allowing stowaways and
are such drooling morons they haven't realized that they can jettison
anything of the right mass, it doesn't need to be the cute kid.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:fkt33e$1ltl$1...@agate.berkeley.edu:
> So to me a "Cold Equations" story is one that says, "Sometimes
> the universe hands you lemons and you just have to suck it up",
"When life gives you lemons, make lemonade. However, you'd need sugar
for that, too, so enjoy your lemon juice."
--
Terry Austin
"There's no law west of the internet."
- Nick Stump
Daniel Silevitch
> gold...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU (David Goldfarb) wrote in
> news:fkt33e$1ltl$1...@agate.berkeley.edu:
>
>> So to me a "Cold Equations" story is one that says, "Sometimes
>> the universe hands you lemons and you just have to suck it up",
>
> "When life gives you lemons, make lemonade. However, you'd need sugar
> for that, too, so enjoy your lemon juice."
If you team up with the man who was just taught how to fish, some lemon
juice could be quite useful (or tasty).
-dms
Rich Horton
(David Goldfarb) wrote:
>
>So to me a "Cold Equations" story is one that says, "Sometimes the
>universe hands you lemons and you just have to suck it up", with
>a subtext of "stupid kids die". James Nicoll suggested Jack London's
>"To Build a Fire", and I think that one is an excellent choice.
That is, if the protagonist of "To Build a Fire" wasn't so stupid, he
wouldn't have died. Same can be said of "The Cold Equations", I
suppose.
There can also be stories without that subtext -- i.e. all they say is
"Sometimes even smart people die because the universe is cruel (and
the equations are cold)."
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:slrnfn5k6s....@Bardeen-2.local:
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for the night. Light him *on*
fire, and he'll be warm the rest of his life."
David Goldfarb
Rich Horton <rrho...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 08:24:14 +0000 (UTC), gold...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU
>(David Goldfarb) wrote:
>
>>
>>So to me a "Cold Equations" story is one that says, "Sometimes the
>>universe hands you lemons and you just have to suck it up", with
>>a subtext of "stupid kids die". James Nicoll suggested Jack London's
>>"To Build a Fire", and I think that one is an excellent choice.
>
>That is, if the protagonist of "To Build a Fire" wasn't so stupid, he
>wouldn't have died.
He had one piece of major stupidity, against which he had been
warned (possibly repeatedly warned, I'm not sure off the top
of my head); he had one piece of unavoidable bad luck; he had
one piece of minor and non-obvious stupidity that most anyone
might have been guilty of. The three together killed him.
--
David Goldfarb |"Actually, I just enjoy bursting into flames...
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | You should try it sometime...relieves a lot
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | of stress."
| -- Jen Hill on rec.arts.tv.mst3k
Daniel Silevitch
And then you and the fisherman can grill your nice lemon-flavored fish
over the fire. Win-win. Well, win-win-lose I suppose.
-dms
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
(David Goldfarb) wrote:
>In article <5lk5n3pj2b51iosj6...@4ax.com>,
>Rich Horton <rrho...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 08:24:14 +0000 (UTC), gold...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU
>>(David Goldfarb) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>So to me a "Cold Equations" story is one that says, "Sometimes the
>>>universe hands you lemons and you just have to suck it up", with
>>>a subtext of "stupid kids die". James Nicoll suggested Jack London's
>>>"To Build a Fire", and I think that one is an excellent choice.
>>
>>That is, if the protagonist of "To Build a Fire" wasn't so stupid, he
>>wouldn't have died.
>
>He had one piece of major stupidity, against which he had been
>warned (possibly repeatedly warned, I'm not sure off the top
>of my head); he had one piece of unavoidable bad luck; he had
>one piece of minor and non-obvious stupidity that most anyone
>might have been guilty of. The three together killed him.
It's also easy, in retrospect, to identify choices made in the face of
weather and bad conditions as poorly made. However, when you look at
the planning and behavior of most people, what happens in Real Life is
that someone manages to get away with making the poor choice as long
as the conditions are favorable.
Then the conditions change--and things go to hell, and Death happens.
Really easy to apply these concepts to climbers on Mt. Hood, for
example, like the three guys who died on Hood last December. But--for
every mistake they made, there are other climbers who made the same
mistakes, but pulled it off and got off the mountain alive.
Conditions happen.
jrw
Ken from Chicago
"David Goldfarb" <gold...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote in message
news:fkt33e$1ltl$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
> In article <PbSdnUGh87L0n-za...@comcast.com>,
> Ken from Chicago <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>A mcguffin is need to save a ginormous number of people--in a limited
>>time.
>>
>>The mcguffin is on the way on a vessel that has past the point of no
>>return.
>>
>>An "innocent" stowaway has been discovered onboard who's continued
>>presence
>>would absolutely negate delivery of the mcguffin (e.g., not enough fuel,
>>has
>>diseases fatal to the target population, is taboo to the population,
>>etc.).
>>
>>There are no "safe harbors" for the stowaway to be dropped off en route.
>>Anywhere and everywhere would be lethal for the stowaway to be left.
>>
>>There is at least one emotional, moral sentient onboard who must CHOOSE to
>>kick off the stowaway--and can not choose self-sacrifice since the
>>sentient(s) onboard are required to make the delivery.
>>
>>There are no other mcguffins and / or vessels nearby who could make the
>>delivery in time to save the population from death.
>>
>>Those are the basic REQUIRED elements to a "Cold Equation" story, from
>>there
>>you could have countless permutations.
>
> I think that at least some of those are dispensable. The *theme* of
Which?
> "The Cold Equations" is that reality trumps the human spirit, that
> sometimes a completely repugnant act is absolutely necessary. The
> various trappings that Godwin set up were basically a way of making
> his dilemma airtight (or at least trying to, as witness all the threads
> over the years discussing it), with one alternative clearly the
> correct choice.
Ah, ye olde would you kill Hitler before he rose to power--but an innocent
little baby would be killed in the process?
> "The Cold Equations" was also a reaction to the "puzzle stories" that
> were prevalent at the time. Most any other story of the day would
> set up the dilemma and then at the climax have the pilot come up with
> a brilliant way out in a moment of insight. (I've read some of
> John Campbell's letters that suggested that Godwin originally intended
> exactly that, and it was Campbell who insisted that the girl had
> to die.)
>
> So to me a "Cold Equations" story is one that says, "Sometimes the
> universe hands you lemons and you just have to suck it up", with
> a subtext of "stupid kids die". James Nicoll suggested Jack London's
> "To Build a Fire", and I think that one is an excellent choice.
Stupid is as stupid dies.
> --
> David Goldfarb |"It is curious that a dog runs already
> gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | on the escalator."
> gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | -- Bella Abzug
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message
news:11987...@sheol.org...
The difference between "stupid" and "dumb" is that "stupid" knows better.
-- Ken from Chicago
Terry Austin
How can you call the end of the terrible suffering of being feezing to
death a loss? You're a *harsh* man.
--
Terry Austin
Beware the other head of science. It bites.
Joe Pfeiffer
I don't remember the story as presenting other options for reducing
mass -- my recollection is that the resources that would be consumed
by the stowaway would guarantee the failure of the mission. I'm also
pretty sure (haven't read it in years) that if there was a loophole
it wasn't stupidity on the part of the pilot, it was an oversight on
the part of the author.
Joy Beeson
> what, after all, is the
> theme of the story . . .
Out here on the frontier, we don't have as many luxuries as the folks
back in the core. Sometimes, we don't even have necessities.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
Gene Ward Smith
> Gene Ward Smith <genewardsm...@gmail.com> writes:
> > I would say it's more a matter of stupid people piloting the
> > spaceships, who can't take responsibility for allowing stowaways and
> > are such drooling morons they haven't realized that they can jettison
> > anything of the right mass, it doesn't need to be the cute kid.
>
> I don't remember the story as presenting other options for reducing
> mass -- my recollection is that the resources that would be consumed
> by the stowaway would guarantee the failure of the mission.
Which is why I say the people running the ship are either really,
really, really stupid, or downright evil. The above situation is
impossible unless supplies were deliberately set to be critically low,
so that you were going to be almost dead on arrival. As for extra mass
to jettison, opportunities will abound.
I'm also
> pretty sure (haven't read it in years) that if there was a loophole
> it wasn't stupidity on the part of the pilot, it was an oversight on
> the part of the author.
It was simply the author expressing his "life's a bitch, and then you
die" philosophy in a particularly moronic way.. He does that to some
extent in his other work, but this was egregiously awful.
Joe Pfeiffer
> On Dec 26, 7:13 pm, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeif...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>> Gene Ward Smith <genewardsm...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> > I would say it's more a matter of stupid people piloting the
>> > spaceships, who can't take responsibility for allowing stowaways and
>> > are such drooling morons they haven't realized that they can jettison
>> > anything of the right mass, it doesn't need to be the cute kid.
>>
>> I don't remember the story as presenting other options for reducing
>> mass -- my recollection is that the resources that would be consumed
>> by the stowaway would guarantee the failure of the mission.
>
> Which is why I say the people running the ship are either really,
> really, really stupid, or downright evil. The above situation is
> impossible unless supplies were deliberately set to be critically low,
> so that you were going to be almost dead on arrival. As for extra mass
> to jettison, opportunities will abound.
How much extra fuel was on the Apollo missions? How long could the
crews survive on the oxygen on board in event of trouble? The the
supplies were that tight made perfect sense to me (the ridiculous lack
of security, on the other hand, is another matter).
Gene Ward Smith
> Gene Ward Smith <genewardsm...@gmail.com> writes:
> > Which is why I say the people running the ship are either really,
> > really, really stupid, or downright evil. The above situation is
> > impossible unless supplies were deliberately set to be critically low,
> > so that you were going to be almost dead on arrival. As for extra mass
> > to jettison, opportunities will abound.
>
> How much extra fuel was on the Apollo missions?
Not much, but the point is irrelevant, since there was plenty of mass
which could have been jettisoned other than one of the astronauts.
That's one of the points Godwin, and now you, overlook.
> How long could the
> crews survive on the oxygen on board in event of trouble? The the
> supplies were that tight made perfect sense to me (the ridiculous lack
> of security, on the other hand, is another matter).
Again, you are either failing to grasp what I've said, or are ignoring
it. However tight the O2 was, it wasn't so tight the astronauts were
almost dead on arrival. Some margin of safety in inherent in such
situations, even tightly engineered ones. I note that when an oxygen
tank ruptured during Apollo 13, it wasn't subsequent lack of oxygen
which proved to be the real problem. If Tom Godwin had designed the
mission, no doubt they would all be dead, but in fact supplies were
pretty generous.
Justin Alexander
> As to the suggestion of tossing out other unneeded stuff (as mentioned in
> the referenced article), the problem is that there was probably not enough
> of it to equal her mass. There was also a time constraint involved in that,
> even if some of the equipment could have been included, there was not enough
> time or tools for removing it. If you remember the end of the movie
> "Destination Moon" they had the same "Lighten the Ship or Leave a crewman
> behind" problem to allow them to take off from the Moon and safely land on
> Earth. They removed all the unneeded equipment (including the radio), the
> acceleration couches, and the space suits. They had the time and tools
> needed to do this in this case so the situations while similar are not the
> same.
There was a made-for-TV movie adaptation of "Cold Equations" that
essentially made this the backbone of the plot: The pilot and the girl
worked diligently through the entire flight to strip enough mass out
of the barebones ship to avoid the inevitable conclusion of the cold
equation...
...the only problem? It took too long. The nature of the orbital
mechanics in question was that, if he jettisoned the girl IMMEDIATELY,
he would be fine. But by the time they finished stripping enough mass
out of the ship, the situation had been changed by the extra weight.
It's been a decade or so since I saw the movie, so I don't remember
exactly what the orbital mechanics in question were. It made sense at
the time. I think it was a fuel consumption thing, but might have been
a slingshot. Or possibly both.
The only seeming contrivance was that, when they realized the problem,
it could be fixed by dumping almost exactly double the original amount
of weight that they had calculated... in other words, she still had to
go out the airlock.
--
Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net
Joseph Nebus
>On Dec 26, 10:48 pm, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeif...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>> Gene Ward Smith <genewardsm...@gmail.com> writes:
>> > Which is why I say the people running the ship are either really,
>> > really, really stupid, or downright evil. The above situation is
>> > impossible unless supplies were deliberately set to be critically low,
>> > so that you were going to be almost dead on arrival. As for extra mass
>> > to jettison, opportunities will abound.
>>
>> How much extra fuel was on the Apollo missions?
>Not much, but the point is irrelevant, since there was plenty of mass
>which could have been jettisoned other than one of the astronauts.
>That's one of the points Godwin, and now you, overlook.
As I recall from sci.space.history in which a question similar
to this was addressed -- some half-remembered movie where a kid sneaks
aboard an Apollo mission -- Henry Spencer's best estimate was that with
a stowaway like that, most likely a lunar-orbiting mission would still
be possible, but landing would likely have to be scrubbed, particularly
if the kid had hoped to ride the lunar module down. (Of course, if the
kid were to ride the lunar module down, she or he would be killed by
the first moonwalk.)
If I'm reading this page of Apollo By The Numbers correctly --
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-23c_Launch_Vehicle_Propellant_Use.htm
after the translunar injection burn the third stage had something like
500 pounds of still-unused fuel, so I suppose that (handwaving) more of
that could be used to more or less make up for the mass of a stowaway
without doing a careful examination because I don't want to fuss with
the rocket equation when it's this late in the year.
Looking at Lunar Module fuel reserves --
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-28a_LM_Descent_Stage_Propellant_Status.htm
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-28b_LM_Ascent_Stage_Propellant_Status.htm
I *think* that if you bled the fuel tanks dry perhaps you just might be
able to make it, and I suppose that if it were a matter of killing the
cute waifish child it would be very hard to make the call to toss the
kid overboard instead of running the tanks so close to empty. But it's
not obvious to me that Apollo had the fuel reserves needed to survive a
stowaway if there were a place for a person to hide through the launch.
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Nicoll
From STAR COPS
"You leave Earth and anything you forget to bring with you will
kill you. Anything you do bring with you which doesn't work properly
will kill you. When in doubt, just assume *everything* will kill you."
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
Konrad Gaertner
> > It's more, don't assume a friendly environment,
> >or, "nature really IS out to bet you", or something along those
> >lines (though those themselves don't satisfy me...).
>
> From STAR COPS
>
> "You leave Earth and anything you forget to bring with you will
> kill you. Anything you do bring with you which doesn't work properly
> will kill you. When in doubt, just assume *everything* will kill you."
From Girl Genius:
"Avoid any floorstone marked in white. It is a trap that will kill
you. Do not stand under any part of the ceiling marked in white. It
is a trap that will kill you. Duck under any opening taller then one
meter. It is a trap that will kill you. Do not touch any metal
surface. It is a trap that will kill you."
"Are you trying to frighten us?"
http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20070725
--
Konrad Gaertner - - - - - - - - - - - - - email: kgae...@tx.rr.com
http://kgbooklog.livejournal.com/
"If I let myself get hung up on only doing things that had any actual
chance of success, I'd never do *anything*!" Elan, Order of the Stick
Joe Pfeiffer
> On Dec 26, 10:48 pm, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeif...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>> Gene Ward Smith <genewardsm...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> > Which is why I say the people running the ship are either really,
>> > really, really stupid, or downright evil. The above situation is
>> > impossible unless supplies were deliberately set to be critically low,
>> > so that you were going to be almost dead on arrival. As for extra mass
>> > to jettison, opportunities will abound.
>>
>> How much extra fuel was on the Apollo missions?
>
> Not much, but the point is irrelevant, since there was plenty of mass
> which could have been jettisoned other than one of the astronauts.
> That's one of the points Godwin, and now you, overlook.
But the issue wasn't jettisoning mass. If it were, you'd be right.
The issue was the resources being consumed by the stowaway.
>> How long could the
>> crews survive on the oxygen on board in event of trouble? The the
>> supplies were that tight made perfect sense to me (the ridiculous lack
>> of security, on the other hand, is another matter).
>
> Again, you are either failing to grasp what I've said, or are ignoring
> it. However tight the O2 was, it wasn't so tight the astronauts were
> almost dead on arrival. Some margin of safety in inherent in such
> situations, even tightly engineered ones. I note that when an oxygen
> tank ruptured during Apollo 13, it wasn't subsequent lack of oxygen
> which proved to be the real problem. If Tom Godwin had designed the
> mission, no doubt they would all be dead, but in fact supplies were
> pretty generous.
Well, the problem was consumables in general. They were able to get
back because it was possible to shorten the mission -- but there was
no guarantee that was going to be possible.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:1b1w98a...@snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net:
Actually, the real problem was power. Oxygen wasn't a problem
because it was used as fuel, as well as for air, so there was
plenty of oxygen when they stopped maneuvering. Food wasn't
affected. Air scrubbers were plentiful enough for a shortened
mission, once they got the square peg to fit in the round hole. It
was running on batteries only once the fuel cells had been shut
down that was the problem. A stowaway might have actually helped in
that they would have generated more body heat.
Gene Ward Smith
> Looking at Lunar Module fuel reserves --
All very interesting, particularly since the Cold Equations ship is
larger than the Lunar Module. The extra human mass would be
proportionally less.
Gene Ward Smith
> But the issue wasn't jettisoning mass. If it were, you'd be right.
> The issue was the resources being consumed by the stowaway.
Which I've addressed in an argument no one has been able to refute.
> Well, the problem was consumables in general. They were able to get
> back because it was possible to shorten the mission -- but there was
> no guarantee that was going to be possible.
No, the problem with Apollo 13 was not "consumables in general" if
that is what you are talking about.
James Nicoll
That doesn't necessarily help, because based on the story we
can be fairly sure that if the powers that be noticed that some technical
development had given their courier ships a larger reserve, their reaction
would be to cut it back to make room for more cargo.
They still wouldn't bother to have the pilot check his ship for
stowaways, even though not checking forces the pilot to choose between
murder or suicide.
Kurt Busiek
> On Dec 27, 9:52 am, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeif...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>
>> But the issue wasn't jettisoning mass. If it were, you'd be right.
>> The issue was the resources being consumed by the stowaway.
>
> Which I've addressed in an argument no one has been able to refute.
You assume that if no one refutes it, they're unable to, rather than
not bothering.
The refutation, which is pretty simple, would lie in the different
principles bearing on a planned mission (in which you can plan to carry
reserves) and an emergency mission (in which you're stuck with the
parameters at hand, whatever they happen to be). But on the one hand,
I think "The Cold Equations" is flawed for other reasons -- a good
idea, a flawed realization of that idea -- so I don't want to step into
the sinkhole of defending it. On another hand, the original post
specifically asked people not to dive back into the same damn argument
about whether the story works or not. And on a borrowed third hand,
it's not all that long since we had an extensive and repetitive
argument about the story -- remember the Holy Sisters of Galactic
Travel, or whatever the hell we called them?
kdb
Gene Ward Smith
> In article <57d48d33-6a0e-4494-bd22-4f2863ead...@x29g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> Gene Ward Smith <genewardsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 27, 6:52 am, nebu...@-rpi-.edu (Joseph Nebus) wrote:
>
> >> Looking at Lunar Module fuel reserves --
>
> >All very interesting, particularly since the Cold Equations ship is
> >larger than the Lunar Module. The extra human mass would be
> >proportionally less.
>
> That doesn't necessarily help, because based on the story we
> can be fairly sure that if the powers that be noticed that some technical
> development had given their courier ships a larger reserve, their reaction
> would be to cut it back to make room for more cargo.
The Powers That Be will insure that the pilots arrive starving,
freezing, dying of thirst, and gasping for breath? Get real.
> They still wouldn't bother to have the pilot check his ship for
> stowaways, even though not checking forces the pilot to choose between
> murder or suicide.
It's more cost-effective to just space them.
Gene Ward Smith
> You assume that if no one refutes it, they're unable to, rather than
> not bothering.
I assume if no one refutes it perhaps they cannot. You certainly
failed.
> The refutation, which is pretty simple, would lie in the different
> principles bearing on a planned mission (in which you can plan to carry
> reserves) and an emergency mission (in which you're stuck with the
> parameters at hand, whatever they happen to be).
Again, you are assuming arriving half-dead is the plan. If so, we
weren't told this. So your "refutation" is bogus.
But on the one hand,
> I think "The Cold Equations" is flawed for other reasons -- a good
> idea, a flawed realization of that idea -- so I don't want to step into
> the sinkhole of defending it.
Indeed, if presented correctly it could have been made to work. But
Godwin assums The Universe is Out to Get You more than it actually is,
and failed to grasp, because of his belief-system, that he'd need to
work hard for it.
Kurt Busiek
> On Dec 27, 11:35 am, Kurt Busiek <k...@busiek.comics> wrote:
>
>> The refutation, which is pretty simple, would lie in the different
>> principles bearing on a planned mission (in which you can plan to carry
>> reserves) and an emergency mission (in which you're stuck with the
>> parameters at hand, whatever they happen to be).
>
> Again, you are assuming arriving half-dead is the plan.
No, I'm not. You're both mistaking the parameters of the mission and
misreading my response.
But as long as you're conceding that nobody refuting you (at least, to
your satisafaction) is only evidence that they haven't refuted you, not
that they can't, I've made the point I actually wanted to make. I
don't mind if we disagree on that aspect of the story, and I don't see
the value in setting off the whole argument over it all over again.
kdb
Howard Brazee
<jus...@thealexandrian.net> wrote:
>There was a made-for-TV movie adaptation of "Cold Equations" that
>essentially made this the backbone of the plot: The pilot and the girl
>worked diligently through the entire flight to strip enough mass out
>of the barebones ship to avoid the inevitable conclusion of the cold
>equation...
>
>...the only problem? It took too long. The nature of the orbital
>mechanics in question was that, if he jettisoned the girl IMMEDIATELY,
>he would be fine. But by the time they finished stripping enough mass
>out of the ship, the situation had been changed by the extra weight.
What were these mechanics? I haven't read it in a while, I sort of
remember them discovering her while in transit - coasting. In that
case, the majority of her cost was already used in moving from Earth
to Space to the current trajectory. The problem would be in
decelerating when they reach their destination.
Alternatively, the ship's accelerating and not can't accelerate as
much before decelerating. In that case, her mass will slow down the
flight - how much?
James Nicoll
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 00:35:32 -0800 (PST), Justin Alexander
><jus...@thealexandrian.net> wrote:
>
>>There was a made-for-TV movie adaptation of "Cold Equations" that
>>essentially made this the backbone of the plot: The pilot and the girl
>>worked diligently through the entire flight to strip enough mass out
>>of the barebones ship to avoid the inevitable conclusion of the cold
>>equation...
>>
>>...the only problem? It took too long. The nature of the orbital
>>mechanics in question was that, if he jettisoned the girl IMMEDIATELY,
>>he would be fine. But by the time they finished stripping enough mass
>>out of the ship, the situation had been changed by the extra weight.
>
>What were these mechanics? I haven't read it in a while, I sort of
>remember them discovering her while in transit - coasting. In that
>case, the majority of her cost was already used in moving from Earth
>to Space to the current trajectory. The problem would be in
>decelerating when they reach their destination.
As I recall it, the courier starts off in space, dropped
off by one of the few large FTL ships (and there was a reason
given as to why the Make Ship Go drive the big ship had couldn't
be used on the courier). The courier's propulsion system can only
just make the landing on the planet and an extra mumbly kg of
payload is enough to doooooom the craft.
Jerry Brown
<kgae...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>James Nicoll wrote:
>>
>> In article <11987...@sheol.org>, Wayne Throop <thr...@sheol.org> wrote:
>
>> > It's more, don't assume a friendly environment,
>> >or, "nature really IS out to bet you", or something along those
>> >lines (though those themselves don't satisfy me...).
>>
>> From STAR COPS
>>
>> "You leave Earth and anything you forget to bring with you will
>> kill you. Anything you do bring with you which doesn't work properly
>> will kill you. When in doubt, just assume *everything* will kill you."
>
>From Girl Genius:
>
>"Avoid any floorstone marked in white. It is a trap that will kill
>you. Do not stand under any part of the ceiling marked in white. It
>is a trap that will kill you. Duck under any opening taller then one
>meter. It is a trap that will kill you. Do not touch any metal
>surface. It is a trap that will kill you."
>
>"Are you trying to frighten us?"
>
>http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20070725
You can die from oxygen shortage, be poisoned by too much oxygen, be
crippled by nitrogen, drown in or be acid-poisoned by carbon dioxide,
or dehydrate and run a killing fever. When I finished reading that
manual I didn't see how anybody could stay alive anywhere, much less
in a space suit.
RAH: Have Space Suit, Will Travel
Jerry Brown
--
A cat may look at a king
(but probably won't bother)
Konrad Gaertner
>
> In article <57d48d33-6a0e-4494...@x29g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> Gene Ward Smith <genewa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 27, 6:52 am, nebu...@-rpi-.edu (Joseph Nebus) wrote:
> >
> >> Looking at Lunar Module fuel reserves --
> >
> >All very interesting, particularly since the Cold Equations ship is
> >larger than the Lunar Module. The extra human mass would be
> >proportionally less.
>
> That doesn't necessarily help, because based on the story we
> can be fairly sure that if the powers that be noticed that some technical
> development had given their courier ships a larger reserve, their reaction
> would be to cut it back to make room for more cargo.
One has to wonder how difficult (ie expensive) it would be to weigh
the ship before launch. And if they're that determined not to move
more mass than they need to, security should be high enough to keep
anyone from adding unpaid cargo.
Howard Brazee
Nicoll) wrote:
> As I recall it, the courier starts off in space, dropped
>off by one of the few large FTL ships (and there was a reason
>given as to why the Make Ship Go drive the big ship had couldn't
>be used on the courier). The courier's propulsion system can only
>just make the landing on the planet and an extra mumbly kg of
>payload is enough to doooooom the craft.
So then the mass only has to be removed just before the landing which
uses that propulsion.
Wayne Throop
: I haven't read it in a while, I sort of
: remember them discovering her while in transit - coasting. In that
: case, the majority of her cost was already used in moving from Earth
: to Space to the current trajectory. The problem would be in
: decelerating when they reach their destination.
AIUI, IIRC, delivery craft gets dropped by a mothership, which proceeds
along a planned route, and after some slight manuvering, the main issue
is deceleration to the target planet. She stayed on the ship until
it was time to start the deceleration burn.
http://home.tiac.net/~cri_d/cri/1999/coldeq.html#synopsis
So the issue is, is it plausible that a single person's mass is
large enough compared to a "small, collapsible minimum-configuration ship"
carrying the "minimum amount of fuel" necessary to decelerate to the target.
( Comparing to a LEM doesn't seem quite reasonable in that regard... )
William December Starr
Rich Horton <rrho...@prodigy.net> said:
> That is, if the protagonist of "To Build a Fire" wasn't so stupid,
> he wouldn't have died.
Couldn't it be argued that his stupidity was at least partly
artificial, though? A state of near-hypothermia has got to do
bad things to your ability to think well.
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
James Gassaway
--
Because of heavy computing requirements we are currently using some of
your unallocated brain capacity for backup processing. Please ignore
any hallucinations, voices, or unusual dreams you may experience.
Please avoid concentration intensive tasks until further notice. Thank
you.
Evelyn C. Leeper
> Robert Rosenberg wrote:
>> As to the suggestion of tossing out other unneeded stuff (as mentioned in
>> the referenced article), the problem is that there was probably not enough
>> of it to equal her mass. There was also a time constraint involved in that,
>> even if some of the equipment could have been included, there was not enough
>> time or tools for removing it. If you remember the end of the movie
>> "Destination Moon" they had the same "Lighten the Ship or Leave a crewman
>> behind" problem to allow them to take off from the Moon and safely land on
>> Earth. They removed all the unneeded equipment (including the radio), the
>> acceleration couches, and the space suits. They had the time and tools
>> needed to do this in this case so the situations while similar are not the
>> same.
>
> There was a made-for-TV movie adaptation of "Cold Equations" that
> essentially made this the backbone of the plot: The pilot and the girl
> worked diligently through the entire flight to strip enough mass out
> of the barebones ship to avoid the inevitable conclusion of the cold
> equation...
>
> ...the only problem? It took too long. The nature of the orbital
> mechanics in question was that, if he jettisoned the girl IMMEDIATELY,
> he would be fine. But by the time they finished stripping enough mass
> out of the ship, the situation had been changed by the extra weight.
Except it wasn't immediately. The girl had time to call her brother,
talk to him, etc. If that time had been spent stripping mass, who knows?
--
Evelyn C. Leeper
I believe I found the missing link between animal
and civilized man. It is us. -Konrad Lorenz
Rich Horton
Starr) wrote:
>In article <5lk5n3pj2b51iosj6...@4ax.com>,
>Rich Horton <rrho...@prodigy.net> said:
>
>> That is, if the protagonist of "To Build a Fire" wasn't so stupid,
>> he wouldn't have died.
>
>Couldn't it be argued that his stupidity was at least partly
>artificial, though? A state of near-hypothermia has got to do
>bad things to your ability to think well.
Sure, that's fair enough.
I do think "To Build a Fire" is fundamentally a pretty good match for
the "Cold Equations" scenario -- it really does present the message
that nature can be nasty, and sometimes there's no margin for error.
Richard Harter
See Appendix II - it is rocket science
http://home.tiac.net/~cri_d/cri/1999/coldeq.html#rocket
The essence of the situation is that the EDS is injected into the
target system with a high relative velocity. It has to
decelerate continuously in its approach to the target planet.
The girl's mass is a continuing penalty factor which is
proportionately larger with time.
Although one can come up with a hypothetical drive for the EDS
the physics is mostly hokum. I don't think that matters. The
story is set in an alternate universe with a different set of
physical laws.
Default User
> Except it wasn't immediately. The girl had time to call her brother,
> talk to him, etc. If that time had been spent stripping mass, who
> knows?
Why do you assume anything signficant could be stripped?
Brian
--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)
Bryan Derksen
> Evelyn C. Leeper wrote:
>> Except it wasn't immediately. The girl had time to call her brother,
>> talk to him, etc. If that time had been spent stripping mass, who
>> knows?
>
> Why do you assume anything signficant could be stripped?
Because this scenario has been picked over on this newsgroup before and
that's one of the conclusions that's usually reached.
IMO the story really wasn't good enough to be worth the amount of effort
people put into analyzing it.
Ken from Chicago
"Rich Horton" <rrho...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:ot29n3tlkgq35cdsf...@4ax.com...
I never understood why folks continued to use matches when lighters were
more effective. Even without butane, the spark along could start a fire
given enough kindling.
-- Ken from Chicago
David Goldfarb
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <5lk5n3pj2b51iosj6...@4ax.com>,
>Rich Horton <rrho...@prodigy.net> said:
>
>> That is, if the protagonist of "To Build a Fire" wasn't so stupid,
>> he wouldn't have died.
>
>Couldn't it be argued that his stupidity was at least partly
>artificial, though? A state of near-hypothermia has got to do
>bad things to your ability to think well.
His most fundamental error was traveling on his own, with no
companion. And he'd been warned against it, while he was warm.
--
David Goldfarb |"The number of times I have been declared
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu |dead is statistically insignificant,
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu |although admittedly non-zero." -- James Nicoll
Evelyn C. Leeper
The recent film INTO THE WILD makes the same point.
Joe Pfeiffer
How reliable were lighters when that story was written?
As an aside, the first time I read that one, the magazine had "oopsed"
and broken the story right after the snow falls, but hadn't actually
continued it on a later page. So it was several years before I found
out there was supposed to be any more story than that. I've always
thought the abrupt ending I thought it had was actually more effective
than the real ending.
Richard Harter
<ele...@optonline.net> wrote:
>Rich Horton wrote:
>> On 27 Dec 2007 20:53:51 -0500, wds...@panix.com (William December
>> Starr) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <5lk5n3pj2b51iosj6...@4ax.com>,
>>> Rich Horton <rrho...@prodigy.net> said:
>>>
>>>> That is, if the protagonist of "To Build a Fire" wasn't so stupid,
>>>> he wouldn't have died.
>>> Couldn't it be argued that his stupidity was at least partly
>>> artificial, though? A state of near-hypothermia has got to do
>>> bad things to your ability to think well.
>>
>> Sure, that's fair enough.
>>
>> I do think "To Build a Fire" is fundamentally a pretty good match for
>> the "Cold Equations" scenario -- it really does present the message
>> that nature can be nasty, and sometimes there's no margin for error.
>
>The recent film INTO THE WILD makes the same point.
"To Build a Fire" matches the "the universe can be nasty and
ignorance can be fatal" part of TCE well enough, but TCE has the
second feature that someone must take a repugnant action and that
someone innocent must suffer for it.
There are such situations in the real world, e.g., people must go
hungry in order that there be seed corn, but they usually have
fuzzy edges. Then there are questions such as, how much do you
protect people against their own ignorance and folly. Again the
edges are fuzzy.
Jasper Janssen
wrote:
>Default User wrote:
>> Evelyn C. Leeper wrote:
>>> Except it wasn't immediately. The girl had time to call her brother,
>>> talk to him, etc. If that time had been spent stripping mass, who
>>> knows?
>>
>> Why do you assume anything signficant could be stripped?
>
>Because this scenario has been picked over on this newsgroup before and
>that's one of the conclusions that's usually reached.
Rather strangely. The colonists needed their medicine, and I would expect
them to have *already* stripped out any possible leftovers in order to fit
in more of the medicine. I thought the story said that, too, but I could
well be mistaken in that.
Jasper
John Schilling
wrote:
>Default User wrote:
>> Evelyn C. Leeper wrote:
>>> Except it wasn't immediately. The girl had time to call her brother,
>>> talk to him, etc. If that time had been spent stripping mass, who
>>> knows?
>> Why do you assume anything signficant could be stripped?
>Because this scenario has been picked over on this newsgroup before and
>that's one of the conclusions that's usually reached.
That conclusion has *never* been reached. Rather, that assertion has been
made, entirely without supporting evidence and in direct contradiction to
explicit statements from the text, and repeated often enough and angrily
enough that anyone who disagrees eventually finds something better to do
with their time.
>IMO the story really wasn't good enough to be worth the amount of effort
>people put into analyzing it.
IMO, the story was very good. It cannot be improved upon, because the
only significant fault is its inability to persuade people with a
fanatical belief that the universe can't work that way unless Evil
People make it so, and no story could accomplish that.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*John.Sc...@alumni.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
John Schilling
wrote:
>Gene Ward Smith <genewa...@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Dec 26, 10:48 pm, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeif...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>>> Gene Ward Smith <genewardsm...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> > Which is why I say the people running the ship are either really,
>>> > really, really stupid, or downright evil. The above situation is
>>> > impossible unless supplies were deliberately set to be critically low,
>>> > so that you were going to be almost dead on arrival. As for extra mass
>>> > to jettison, opportunities will abound.
>>> How much extra fuel was on the Apollo missions?
>> Not much, but the point is irrelevant, since there was plenty of mass
>> which could have been jettisoned other than one of the astronauts.
>> That's one of the points Godwin, and now you, overlook.
>But the issue wasn't jettisoning mass. If it were, you'd be right.
>The issue was the resources being consumed by the stowaway.
No; in the original "Cold Equations", the issue was specifically the
excess mass of the stowaway, and the effect of same on fuel consumption.
If the ship attempted to decelerate and land while carrying the extra
mass of the stowaway, it would run out of fuel mumblety-thousand feet
in the air and crash.
And Godwin didn't overlook it, he specifically addressed it by saying
that the whole "jettison excesss mass" thing had been done when the
emergency shuttle was designed and built in the first place, that
the designers hadn't included anything that A: was of significant
mass and B: wasn't actually essential to an emergency dispatch mission.
Lots of people suggest "improving" TCE by focusing on the consumables
issue and saying there wasn't enough oxygen. Possibly you're remembering
one of those hypothetical improved versions. But the story Godwin wrote,
hinged on mass and fuel consumption.
And rightly so, because the Tsilkovsky Rocket Equation is as cold and as
hard as it gets; we can and do calculate rocket fuel consumption to within
one percent and we can and do launch rockets with less than one percent
more fuel than they'd need to complete their mission. Without being
stupid or evil. Oxygen consumption, in addition to being tiny compared
to fuel consumption, can't be reliably predicted to within a factor of
two. So even evil people would have to be really stupid to launch a
mission without enough spare air to possibly accomodate a stowaway.
Kurt Busiek
> IMO, the story was very good. It cannot be improved upon, because the
> only significant fault is its inability to persuade people with a
> fanatical belief that the universe can't work that way unless Evil
> People make it so, and no story could accomplish that.
As with Gene's assertion earlier, I'll note that I disagree. There are
indeed people who think the story has non-fatal flaws but lack the
fanatical belief you impute to them. They think the universe can
indeed (and does) work that way, but that Godwin mis-rigged the story.
Your description of their position depends on them believing that the
story can't be rigged correctly, rather than merely that it wasn't. As
someone in the "wasn't" camp, I post to say "Yop!"
Anyone interested in rehashing that discussion, though, can simply
search for the previous iteration of it, and save us all a mort of
typing.
A Google Groups search on "Holy Spacing Sisters" will turn it up.
kdb
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:ag0cn3lbg4244jq00...@4ax.com:
> And rightly so, because the Tsilkovsky Rocket Equation is as
> cold and as hard as it gets; we can and do calculate rocket fuel
> consumption to within one percent and we can and do launch
> rockets with less than one percent more fuel than they'd need to
> complete their mission. Without being stupid or evil.
Providing trivial security to prevent stowaways, however, is another
matter.
--
Terry Austin
"There's no law west of the internet."
- Nick Stump
Bryan Derksen
> "To Build a Fire" matches the "the universe can be nasty and
> ignorance can be fatal" part of TCE well enough, but TCE has the
> second feature that someone must take a repugnant action and that
> someone innocent must suffer for it.
>
> There are such situations in the real world, e.g., people must go
> hungry in order that there be seed corn, but they usually have
> fuzzy edges. Then there are questions such as, how much do you
> protect people against their own ignorance and folly. Again the
> edges are fuzzy.
To get back on the topic of finding a "better" Cold Equations, I recall
reading a short story once upon a time in which a passenger spaceship is
on a routine trip back to Earth when something goes wrong that disables
the engines. The story had a whole lot of interpersonal character
development among the passengers, with conflicts developing between them
and so forth and communication with ground control, the details of which
all escape my mind. It had the feel of a "whodunnit". At the end of the
story, though, the authorities on Earth are forced to destroy the
passenger liner; it was on a trajectory that would have hit a city and
they simply hadn't been able to get the engines back online. All of the
effort and character development was rendered moot. I recall ground
control lamenting the fact that they were still hours away from impact,
but that they'd passed the point where there was simply no physical
possibility of them surviving no matter what they did with the engines.
Don't recall the title, anyone know it?
Also, there was an episode of the TV series "Star Cops" wherein a ship
bound for Mars from Earth has its engines sabotaged, so that there's no
way for the ship to reach its destination or return to Earth - they're
utterly doomed, no hope of rescue. But the crew still have many months
of life support left. They spend the episode in communication with the
main characters via radio to help solve their own murder.
Ken from Chicago
"Evelyn C. Leeper" <ele...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:d27dj.1$bs...@newsfe12.lga...
Wasn't there a movie last year about a guy out in the wilds living among
bears--with a similar ending?
-- Ken from Chicago
William December Starr
Joe Pfeiffer <pfei...@cs.nmsu.edu> said:
[ re Jack London's "To Build a Fire" ]
> As an aside, the first time I read that one, the magazine had
> "oopsed" and broken the story right after the snow falls, but
> hadn't actually continued it on a later page. So it was several
> years before I found out there was supposed to be any more story
> than that. I've always thought the abrupt ending I thought it had
> was actually more effective than the real ending.
I had an analogous experience -- the story did continue, but I
_thought_ it ended with a line that happened to be at the bottom of
a right-hand page -- with Niven's "Inconstant Moon": the page ended
_precisely_ where the narrator realized that the overly-bright
night-time Moon wasn't a lunar phenomenon at all but rather meant
that there was something wrong with the Sun.
William December Starr
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> said:
> "Evelyn C. Leeper" <ele...@optonline.net> wrote
>> Rich Horton wrote:
>>
>>> I do think "To Build a Fire" is fundamentally a pretty good
>>> match for the "Cold Equations" scenario -- it really does
>>> present the message that nature can be nasty, and sometimes
>>> there's no margin for error.
>>
>> The recent film INTO THE WILD makes the same point.
>
> Wasn't there a movie last year about a guy out in the wilds living
> among bears--with a similar ending?
I think that one[*1] was more about there being little margin for
being so fucking insane that you think that wild bears are cuddly
and safe if you're just careful enough.
*1: Grizzly Man (2005), <http://imdb.com/title/tt0427312>.
Default User
> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 09:53:30 GMT, Bryan Derksen
> <bryan....@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> > Default User wrote:
> >> Evelyn C. Leeper wrote:
> >>> Except it wasn't immediately. The girl had time to call her
> brother, >>> talk to him, etc. If that time had been spent stripping
> mass, who >>> knows?
> >>
> >> Why do you assume anything signficant could be stripped?
> >
> > Because this scenario has been picked over on this newsgroup before
> > and that's one of the conclusions that's usually reached.
>
> Rather strangely. The colonists needed their medicine, and I would
> expect them to have already stripped out any possible leftovers in
> order to fit in more of the medicine. I thought the story said that,
> too, but I could well be mistaken in that.
I'd have to reread as well. Merely because people on usenet, even this
fine newsgroup noted for its highly accurate information, have
contended something doesn't mean that it's so.
Robert A. Woodward
Bryan Derksen <bryan....@shaw.ca> wrote:
It's a collaboration between Robert Silverberg and Randall Garrett
... checking the ISFDB ... "Sound Decision", Astounding SF, Oct
1956 issue (also published in _Prologue to Analog_,and several
other anthologies)
--
Robert Woodward <robe...@drizzle.com>
<http://www.drizzle.com/~robertaw>
Mark Leeper
wrote:
> "Evelyn C. Leeper" <elee...@optonline.net> wrote in messagenews:d27dj.1$bs...@newsfe12.lga...
> >> it really does present the message
> >> that nature can be nasty, and sometimes there's no margin for error.
>
> > The recent film INTO THE WILD makes the same point.
>
> bears--with a similar ending?
>
> -- Ken from Chicago
That was somewhat different. Christopher McCandless in INTO THE WILD
was actually very saavy and understood nature. He survived very well
until he made one mistake and it snowballed. Timothy Treadwell in
GRIZZLY MAN made up his own rules about nature and was pretty much a
fool. He did many stupid things and eventually one proved fatal. One
film says that nature can be nasty to the smartest people; the other
said that stupidity can be fatal. GRIZZLY MAN is really more like an
extended story from the Darwin Awards.
--Mark
Howard Brazee
<schi...@spock.usc.edu> wrote:
>>IMO the story really wasn't good enough to be worth the amount of effort
>>people put into analyzing it.
>
>IMO, the story was very good. It cannot be improved upon, because the
>only significant fault is its inability to persuade people with a
>fanatical belief that the universe can't work that way unless Evil
>People make it so, and no story could accomplish that.
I couldn't disagree more. It was an excellent idea with flawed
execution.
Jasper Janssen
<terry.nota...@gmail.com> wrote:
>John Schilling <schi...@spock.usc.edu> wrote in
>news:ag0cn3lbg4244jq00...@4ax.com:
>
>> And rightly so, because the Tsilkovsky Rocket Equation is as
>> cold and as hard as it gets; we can and do calculate rocket fuel
>> consumption to within one percent and we can and do launch
>> rockets with less than one percent more fuel than they'd need to
>> complete their mission. Without being stupid or evil.
>
>Providing trivial security to prevent stowaways, however, is another
>matter.
Why have security when you can space the stowaway as punishment for less
money?
Jasper
Ken from Chicago
"James Nicoll" <jdni...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:fl0ums$4ik$1...@reader2.panix.com...
> In article
> <57d48d33-6a0e-4494...@x29g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> Gene Ward Smith <genewa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Dec 27, 6:52 am, nebu...@-rpi-.edu (Joseph Nebus) wrote:
>>
>>> Looking at Lunar Module fuel reserves --
>>
>>All very interesting, particularly since the Cold Equations ship is
>>larger than the Lunar Module. The extra human mass would be
>>proportionally less.
>
> That doesn't necessarily help, because based on the story we
> can be fairly sure that if the powers that be noticed that some technical
> development had given their courier ships a larger reserve, their reaction
> would be to cut it back to make room for more cargo.
>
> They still wouldn't bother to have the pilot check his ship for
> stowaways, even though not checking forces the pilot to choose between
> murder or suicide.
> --
> http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
> http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
> defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
My understanding of TCE story is that suicide of the pilot was NOT an option
since the pilot was needed to ... pilot ... the ship--thus my inclusion of
that point upthread.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Kurt Busiek" <ku...@busiek.comics> wrote in message
news:200712271208438930-kurt@busiekcomics...
> On 2007-12-27 11:47:09 -0800, Gene Ward Smith <genewa...@gmail.com>
> said:
>
>> On Dec 27, 11:35 am, Kurt Busiek <k...@busiek.comics> wrote:
>>
>>> The refutation, which is pretty simple, would lie in the different
>>> principles bearing on a planned mission (in which you can plan to carry
>>> reserves) and an emergency mission (in which you're stuck with the
>>> parameters at hand, whatever they happen to be).
>>
>> Again, you are assuming arriving half-dead is the plan.
>
> No, I'm not. You're both mistaking the parameters of the mission and
> misreading my response.
>
> But as long as you're conceding that nobody refuting you (at least, to
> your satisafaction) is only evidence that they haven't refuted you, not
> that they can't, I've made the point I actually wanted to make. I don't
> mind if we disagree on that aspect of the story, and I don't see the value
> in setting off the whole argument over it all over again.
>
> kdb
>
That's why I reduced TCE to its basic "required" elements so as to not
rehash the original story:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2007 7:15 AM
Subject: Re: Better Cold Equations
<snip>
> A mcguffin is need to save a ginormous number of people--in a limited
> time.
>
> The mcguffin is on the way on a vessel that has past the point of no
> return.
>
> An "innocent" stowaway has been discovered onboard who's continued
> presence would absolutely negate delivery of the mcguffin (e.g., not
> enough fuel, has diseases fatal to the target population, is taboo to the
> population, etc.).
>
> There are no "safe harbors" for the stowaway to be dropped off en route.
> Anywhere and everywhere would be lethal for the stowaway to be left.
>
> There is at least one emotional, moral sentient onboard who must CHOOSE to
> kick off the stowaway--and can not choose self-sacrifice since the
> sentient(s) onboard are required to make the delivery.
>
> There are no other mcguffins and / or vessels nearby who could make the
> delivery in time to save the population from death.
The "not enough fuel" subelement (subordinate to the stowaway's presence
would negate the journey since there is not a not enough fuel to get to the
destination with the stowaway onboard) tends to be a common element.:
The reason the stowaway's presence doesn't immediately negate the trip
(i.e., the stowaway has ALREADY caused the ship to burn more fuel than
normal) is typically explained that ship had extra fuel for emergency, extra
maneuvering en route or at the destination, etc., but now that extra reserve
is gone and the vessel has to travel in a straight line (or strict curve)
with no margin of error--after the stowaway is ejected.
The reason getting rid of extra mass equivalent to the stowaway's mass is
rejected is typically explained by the ship already being stripped down to
make the journey with the amount of fuel it could carry.
The reason the mcguffin being delivered (e.g., medicine, food, water,
oxygen, etc.) can't be ejected (or portion thereof) because there's "just
enough" for the population or that to do so would doom countless numbers of
people to death to save one person--and is tantamount to it's only
microversion of TCE itself.
Natch, in the course of the story, such options would be proffered,
considered, analyzed and rejected, forming the meat of the drama.
--Natch said story would be a tragic drama to follow the traditional route
of NOT having a "solution" to the dilemma (e.g., cutting off limbs of the
pilot and stowaway) or a character study, ala I AM LEGEND.
--The story could be about the character spending time alone on the ship
(e.g., the mass of a long-range communicator being too much so the pilot is
out of contact shortly after launch until shortly before arrival).
--The pilot misstating events (e.g., at a ceremonial tribute to the stowaway
who heroically went out of the airlock to save a planet full of total
strangers while flashbacks reveal the pilot chasing down the stowaway and
force said stowaway kicking and screaming out the front door).
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy" <terry.nota...@gmail.com> wrote in
message news:Xns9A149546944...@216.168.3.64...
Define "trivial security".
-- Ken from Chicago
Bryan Derksen
> "Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy" <terry.nota...@gmail.com> wrote in
> message news:Xns9A149546944...@216.168.3.64...
>> matter.
>
A motion or IR detector would probably have sufficed.
Or just a pre-launch checklist that included opening the supply cupboard
to confirm its contents. You'd probably want to do that even without the
possibility of stowaways, just in case the previous pilot left his
zero-G workout barbells or commemorative miniature anvil collection in
there by mistake.
Ken from Chicago
"Bryan Derksen" <bryan....@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:JABdj.42814$vd4.2660@pd7urf1no...
During an emergency you don't have time for last-minute rechecking, or
fixing of onboard alarms. Time is of the essence to get the mcguffin to the
target population.
-- Ken from Chicago
Wayne Throop
: During an emergency you don't have time for last-minute rechecking, or
: target population.
Oh yes, a five second delay would be horribly crucial. Suuuure it would.
Yet another case where it's more important that the ship should blow
up sooner rather than arrive later. I mean, if there's no pre-flight
checklist at all, did anybody check that the correct amount of fuel was
loaded? Etc etc.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Bryan Derksen
> : "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net>
> : During an emergency you don't have time for last-minute rechecking, or
> : fixing of onboard alarms. Time is of the essence to get the mcguffin to the
> : target population.
>
> Oh yes, a five second delay would be horribly crucial. Suuuure it would.
Not to mention that it's already a given that there was at least enough
of a time delay between deciding that a courier ship would need to be
launched and actually launching it for a stowaway to sneak on board.
There's nothing wrong with the general concept of an "unwinnable
situation", such things do happen. But IMO it's not a good idea to
discuss it using Cold Equations as an example, it's so full of holes
that one has to twist into these amazing contortions just to maintain
the premise and all the time and effort goes into that instead.
Terry Austin
news:dqucn3hm1ec44ih43...@4ax.com:
Because in civlized societies, there are non-financial consequences.
I was just reading, the other day, that the inability of experience empathy
is being recognized as a form of mental illnesss, akin to sociopathy.
--
Terry Austin
Beware the other head of science. It bites.
Terry Austin
Or the teamsters left *out* what is *supposed* to be there when they loaded
the ship.
Ken from Chicago
"Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message
news:11989...@sheol.org...
How many preflight checklists on an airplane include check mass of plane? Do
you do a predrive checklist when you have pick up your kids?
Part of the problem is that we're thinking of space travel as a rare event
instead of routine like car, bus, truck, train travel. Do freight train
engineers check for mass of train? So when an emergency delivery of food,
water, medicine, donor organ, etc. is required, checking for stowaways is
not top priority--when time is crucial. A basic check of the train (and its
fuel car) might be done but easily avoided.
Besides who's gonna stowaway on freight vessel to go TO an emergency site?
Maybe you do the thorough check on the trip AWAY from the emergency but to?
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Terry Austin" <terry.nota...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A15DAF2C29...@216.168.3.64...
Isn't a lack of empathy the definition of sociopathy? or is that
psychopathy?
-- Ken from Chicago
Bryan Derksen
> How many preflight checklists on an airplane include check mass of plane? Do
> you do a predrive checklist when you have pick up your kids?
How often in either of these scenarios would having a few extra
kilograms on board doom the vehicle and all aboard her?
> Part of the problem is that we're thinking of space travel as a rare event
> instead of routine like car, bus, truck, train travel.
The trip depicted in Cold Equations was hardly a routine one.
> Do freight train
> engineers check for mass of train? So when an emergency delivery of food,
> water, medicine, donor organ, etc. is required, checking for stowaways is
> not top priority--when time is crucial. A basic check of the train (and its
> fuel car) might be done but easily avoided.
Again, would the extra mass of a stowaway (or an equivalent mass of any
other left-behind gear) doom the train to a fiery crash at the end of
its trip? No. Apples and oranges.
Nate Edel
> "Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote:
> > Oh yes, a five second delay would be horribly crucial. Suuuure it would.
> > Yet another case where it's more important that the ship should blow
> > up sooner rather than arrive later. I mean, if there's no pre-flight
> > checklist at all, did anybody check that the correct amount of fuel was
> > loaded? Etc etc.
>
Directly? I don't know if they have scales for that, but if they do, I
wouldn't be surprised.
Indirectly, Surprisingly many, especially on small planes. I've had flight
attendants on turboprops moving passengers around to get the balance right.
And present day airliner security includes checking most places an
unaccounted-for passenger could hide prior to boarding, and keeping track of
anyone coming on/off during boarding.
> Do you do a predrive checklist when you have pick up your kids?
I don't have kids, but in general, I don't check much on the car before
driving it. The consequences of a breakdown are much less. If I'm going to
take a road trip that's going to be away from home, I check a few things; if
I'm going to be driving in the mountains in winter, or going someplace AAA
isn't easily reached, I check more.
> Part of the problem is that we're thinking of space travel as a rare event
> instead of routine like car, bus, truck, train travel.
Part of the reason those CAN be routine is that they by their nature have
sufficient safety margins.
Of course, sometimes people screw up. Take a look at the family who got
lost in the Pacific Northwest last winter and the dad froze to death trying
to reach help. Shit happens, even WITH vastly bigger safety margins built
in.
> Do freight train engineers check for mass of train? So when an emergency
> delivery of food, water, medicine, donor organ, etc. is required, checking
> for stowaways is not top priority--when time is crucial. A basic check of
> the train (and its fuel car) might be done but easily avoided.
I suspect that life-flight aircraft are heavily checked in active
maintenance so that they can be ready to go with minimal preflight checking.
--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/
preferred email |
is "nate" at the | "This is not a funny signature... or is it?"
posting domain |
Nate Edel
> > to confirm its contents. You'd probably want to do that even without the
> > possibility of stowaways, just in case the previous pilot left his
> > zero-G workout barbells or commemorative miniature anvil collection in
> > there by mistake.
>
> During an emergency you don't have time for last-minute rechecking, or
> fixing of onboard alarms. Time is of the essence to get the mcguffin to the
> target population.
False economy, that; there are enough other things that can screw up if
tolerances are that tight that you'd have to check anyway, or odds are your
mission goes down the crapper from some other one of them.
Howard Brazee
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>How many preflight checklists on an airplane include check mass of plane? Do
>you do a predrive checklist when you have pick up your kids?
>
>Part of the problem is that we're thinking of space travel as a rare event
>instead of routine like car, bus, truck, train travel. Do freight train
>engineers check for mass of train? So when an emergency delivery of food,
>water, medicine, donor organ, etc. is required, checking for stowaways is
>not top priority--when time is crucial. A basic check of the train (and its
>fuel car) might be done but easily avoided.
Why should they? The only stowaways they care about are those with
bombs. Or do you think a train will fail to arrive if it has to
carry a stowaway?
philos...@yahoo.com
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message
>news:11989...@sheol.org...
>>: "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net>
>> : During an emergency you don't have time for last-minute rechecking, or
>> : fixing of onboard alarms. Time is of the essence to get the mcguffin to
>> the
>> : target population.
>>
>> Oh yes, a five second delay would be horribly crucial. Suuuure it would.
>> Yet another case where it's more important that the ship should blow
>> up sooner rather than arrive later. I mean, if there's no pre-flight
>> checklist at all, did anybody check that the correct amount of fuel was
>> loaded? Etc etc.
>>
>> Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
>
>How many preflight checklists on an airplane include check mass of plane?
>
Given the fact that the last flight I was on involved having 6
suitcases off-loaded because of weight issues, I have to say "at least
one."
>Part of the problem is that we're thinking of space travel as a rare event
>instead of routine like car, bus, truck, train travel. Do freight train
>engineers check for mass of train? So when an emergency delivery of food,
>water, medicine, donor organ, etc. is required, checking for stowaways is
>not top priority--when time is crucial. A basic check of the train (and its
>fuel car) might be done but easily avoided.
>
Cold reality: It is going to take time to get to the planet. During
that time people are going to die. It makes perfectly good sense to
take the time to ensure that supplies that you are sending are going
to actually get there, rather than rush to get the shipment out in the
shortest time and have the ship never reach the target.
One thing that I have wondered about is how they get pilots for these
ships. The situation as described has regular transit between certain
planets, with other planets having much less frequent stops, hence
needing the emergency ships in the first place. But who is going to
volunteer to go take medical supplies to a planet if it means that you
are stranded there for the next X years with no contacts, money,
family, etc.?
Rebecca
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>Directly? I don't know if they have scales for that, but if they do, I
>wouldn't be surprised.
>
>Indirectly, Surprisingly many, especially on small planes. I've had flight
>attendants on turboprops moving passengers around to get the balance right.
>
>And present day airliner security includes checking most places an
>unaccounted-for passenger could hide prior to boarding, and keeping track of
>anyone coming on/off during boarding.
Orson Scott Card has a novel where Baba Yaga is on a modern Jet using
magic to not be seen. The flight doesn't start until she realized
that she needed to get out of a seat that a passenger was trying to
find.
Space travel was in existence long enough to develop procedures to
make it work correctly. Mass is so critical in this story that
procedures wouldn't be skipped. (I never skipped procedures as a
pilot).
Konrad Gaertner
>
> How many preflight checklists on an airplane include check mass of plane?
If mass was that critical to the operation of a plane, I bet they would
measure it before takeoff (probably through sensors in the landing
gear).
And correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the last time someone
successfully stowed away on an airplane, his mass *was* carefully
measured and taken into consideration.
--
Konrad Gaertner - - - - - - - - - - - - - email: kgae...@tx.rr.com
http://kgbooklog.livejournal.com/
"If I let myself get hung up on only doing things that had any actual
chance of success, I'd never do *anything*!" Elan, Order of the Stick
Ken from Chicago
Wait, the OP said he didn't want to debate the SPECIFIC story "The Cold
Equations" but a TCE-style event. That's why I reduced TCE to it's "basic"
elements. That said, the presence of the stowaway doesn't cause the ship to
explode but prevents delivery of the mcguffin.
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. Btw, extra mass on a plane killed R&B singer Aaliyah.
D.F. Manno
philos...@yahoo.com wrote:
> One thing that I have wondered about is how they get pilots for these
> ships. The situation as described has regular transit between certain
> planets, with other planets having much less frequent stops, hence
> needing the emergency ships in the first place. But who is going to
> volunteer to go take medical supplies to a planet if it means that you
> are stranded there for the next X years with no contacts, money,
> family, etc.?
The pilots could belong to a military or quasi-military service.
--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is
the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. (William Pitt the
Younger, 1783)
John Schilling
>Ken from Chicago <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> "Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote:
>> > Oh yes, a five second delay would be horribly crucial. Suuuure it would.
>> > Yet another case where it's more important that the ship should blow
>> > up sooner rather than arrive later. I mean, if there's no pre-flight
>> > checklist at all, did anybody check that the correct amount of fuel was
>> > loaded? Etc etc.
>>
>> How many preflight checklists on an airplane include check mass of plane?
>
>Directly? I don't know if they have scales for that, but if they do, I
>wouldn't be surprised.
>
>Indirectly, Surprisingly many, especially on small planes. I've had flight
>attendants on turboprops moving passengers around to get the balance right.
That's calculating and rearranging the mass, not checking it. Airplanes
are not in fact weighed or otherwise *checked* for misplaced weight before
flight, even in cases where getting the weight wrong by one stowaway's
worth might cause a crash.
Which does happen from time to time, but rarely enough that it's not worth
the very substantial cost of absolutely preventing it.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*John.S...@alumni.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
Terry Austin
news:0sbk45x...@mail.sfchat.org:
> Ken from Chicago <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> "Bryan Derksen" <bryan....@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>> > Or just a pre-launch checklist that included opening the supply
>> > cupboard to confirm its contents. You'd probably want to do that
>> > even without the possibility of stowaways, just in case the
>> > previous pilot left his zero-G workout barbells or commemorative
>> > miniature anvil collection in there by mistake.
>>
>> During an emergency you don't have time for last-minute rechecking,
>> or fixing of onboard alarms. Time is of the essence to get the
>> mcguffin to the target population.
>
> False economy, that; there are enough other things that can screw up
> if tolerances are that tight that you'd have to check anyway, or odds
> are your mission goes down the crapper from some other one of them.
>
That's the most retarded think said in this thread so far.
Peter Bruells
Some use the term interchangebly. But I think the defining part is
that sociopaths *act* amoral. People who lack empathy still may
function normally, because even though they don't emphazise, they have
a working intellectual framework which allows them to follow rules,
morals, etc. They just don't see the big fuss.
Peter Bruells
When a stowaway can get onboard, so can a raving lunatic or a
terrorist. If it's of such an importance that such a vessel can take
off any time, you better make sure it's fueled, charged and sealed off.
Jasper Janssen
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>"Terry Austin" <terry.nota...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns9A15DAF2C29...@216.168.3.64...
>> Jasper Janssen <jas...@jjanssen.org> wrote in
>> news:dqucn3hm1ec44ih43...@4ax.com:
>>
>>>>matter.
>>>
>>> Why have security when you can space the stowaway as punishment for less
>>> money?
>>>
>> Because in civlized societies, there are non-financial consequences.
>>
>> I was just reading, the other day, that the inability of experience
>> empathy
>> is being recognized as a form of mental illnesss, akin to sociopathy.
>Isn't a lack of empathy the definition of sociopathy? or is that
>psychopathy?
I'd say psycho.
Jasper
Jasper Janssen
wrote:
>Ken from Chicago wrote:
>> "Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy" <terry.nota...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> message news:Xns9A149546944...@216.168.3.64...
>>> Providing trivial security to prevent stowaways, however, is another
>>> matter.
>>
>> Define "trivial security".
>
>A motion or IR detector would probably have sufficed.
If it was there, it would've been ripped out as unessential and thus
inimical to the mission.
>Or just a pre-launch checklist that included opening the supply cupboard
>to confirm its contents. You'd probably want to do that even without the
>possibility of stowaways, just in case the previous pilot left his
>zero-G workout barbells or commemorative miniature anvil collection in
>there by mistake.
The question is, where do you put it in the checklist? If it's checked
early on..
Jasper
Jasper Janssen
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>"Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message
>news:11989...@sheol.org...
>>: "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net>
>> : During an emergency you don't have time for last-minute rechecking, or
>> : fixing of onboard alarms. Time is of the essence to get the mcguffin to
>> the
>> : target population.
>>
>> Oh yes, a five second delay would be horribly crucial. Suuuure it would.
>> Yet another case where it's more important that the ship should blow
>> up sooner rather than arrive later. I mean, if there's no pre-flight
>> checklist at all, did anybody check that the correct amount of fuel was
>> loaded? Etc etc.
>>
>> Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
>
>How many preflight checklists on an airplane include check mass of plane? Do
All of them. At least on passenger planes. Mass of plane, and in
particular distribution of mass, varies significantly with the amount and
distribution of passengers and luggage and how fat they are. Fuel is
shuttled between tanks to maintain balance, and the amount of fuel loaded
will be exactly as much as neededf for the flight plan, to be expected
delays, plus the internationally mandated safety limit, and not a gallon
more.
>Part of the problem is that we're thinking of space travel as a rare event
>instead of routine like car, bus, truck, train travel. Do freight train
>engineers check for mass of train?
I suspect they do. You pretty much need to, to confirm that your brakes
and propulsion are in spec for the train weight.
>So when an emergency delivery of food,
>water, medicine, donor organ, etc. is required, checking for stowaways is
>not top priority--when time is crucial. A basic check of the train (and its
>fuel car) might be done but easily avoided.
A helicopter flight carrying an organ from a donor to a recipient probably
does do a full pre-flight check, actually.
Jasper
Terry Austin
Current research is really more in the lines of recognizing it as a form
of neuresis. Also, one can distinguish between lack of empathy and lack
of ability to tell right from wrong. Might be a matter of distinguishing
between cause and effect.