Escape tower for shuttle orbiter?
wa...@ucla-cs.uucp
at all if the engineers have already thought of everything I say in this
message and dismissed it as infeasible. But, just in case it might be
useful . . . .
How about attaching an "escape tower" to the shuttle orbiter? An escape
tower, as I understand it, is an auxiliary rocket attached to the front
of the orbiter, which would be used in an emergency to allow the orbiter
to get away from a dangerous situation. I believe they have been used
in various American and Soviet "space capsule" missions.
Presumably, an escape tower could allow an abort (currently impossible)
during the SRB burn phase. By supplying a secondary, independent thrust
source, it could also make an abort more likely to be survivable if a
premature ET separation were required after SRB burnout (between about 2
and 9 minutes after liftoff). An escape tower could even allow an abort
during the earliest stages of liftoff, if I understand the principle.
An escape-tower rocket would have to be powerful enough to provide an
acceleration (to the orbiter alone) significantly greater than that pro-
vided by the SME's and SRB's to the entire launch vehicle (including
ET's and SRB's). Less acceleration would not allow the orbiter to
detach from the ET with the SRB's still burning.
The escape-tower rocket would not have to last nearly as long as the
SME's and SRB's, of course -- though in order to allow an abort from the
launch pad, the escape tower would have to last long enough so that the
shuttle could reach an airworthy speed and perform a successful RTLS
abort.
Presumably, the escape tower could use a solid rocket -- since it would
be possible, I assume, to jettison it at any time. The self-destruct
system on the launch vehicle would obviously have to allow destruction
of the ET and/or the SRB's without destroying the escape tower.
There is the issue of how to keep the exhaust from the escape-tower
rocket from damaging the orbiter (or the tower connecting the rocket to
the orbiter). I assume, though, that this problem is already well un-
derstood, from experience with earlier space missions.
The physical connections between the orbiter and the ET would have to be
redesigned so as to allow a quick disconnect upon activation of the
escape tower. There is also the significant question of how to detach
the umbilicals feeding the SME's in such a way that the orbiter could
get away before leaking LH/LOX caused an explosion of its own.
I suppose the nozzle of the escape-tower rocket would have to be gim-
balled (under control of the orbiter's computers).
Obviously, even an escape tower would not help if there were no advance
warning of a disaster. However, it would seem that an accident such as
that which befell Challenger could have been detected in time for an
escape-tower abort, with additional sensors and/or real-time monitoring.
Comments?
--
Rich Wales // UCLA Computer Science Department // +1 213-825-5683
3531 Boelter Hall // Los Angeles, California 90024 // USA
ARPA: wa...@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU -or- wa...@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA
UUCP: ...!(ucbvax,ihnp4)!ucla-cs!wales
D.N. Lynx Crowe@ex2207
Re: The escape tower idea
It wouldn't be necessary to have the entire orbiter be detached from the
ET and SRB's, just the crew compartment. The main problem with this, I
think, would be in making the crew compartment separable from the rest
of the orbiter. A much smaller escape tower motor could then be used.
D.N. Lynx Crowe
"Governments should be considered guilty until proven otherwise."
David desJardins
>
>It wouldn't be necessary to have the entire orbiter be detached from the
>ET and SRB's, just the crew compartment. The main problem with this, I
>think, would be in making the crew compartment separable from the rest
>of the orbiter. A much smaller escape tower motor could then be used.
I hate to sound callous, but I don't see the point of all of this just
to save the crew. If you could save the orbiter, that would be great, but
you are talking about something that has got to cost hundreds of millions
of dollars just to save the crew. Doesn't this seem a trifle excessive?
-- David desJardins
Valerio Franceschin
You don't sound callous, you sound like a neanderthal SAVAGE!
Valerio Franceschin
Bruce Holloway
orbiter is at least slightly maneuverable, whereas the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo
capsules weren't. Assuming that the orbiter could get away from the boosters,
it should be able to use its airfoils to correct its position....
.... now THERE's an idea -- a rocket used specifically to get the orbiter
as far away as possible from the boosters? Something like using the entire
orbiter as an ejection seat? But could it get far enough away in time? Hmmm...
--
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Whatever I write are not the opinions or policies of Digital Research, Inc.,|
|and probably won't be in the foreseeable future. |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Bruce Holloway
....!ucbvax!hplabs!amdahl!drivax!holloway
(I'm not THAT Bruce Holloway, I'm the other one.)
Ronald O. Christian
>That'd have to be one h**l of a rocket to lift the orbiter far. Anyways, the
>orbiter is at least slightly maneuverable, whereas the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo
***
It occurs to me that the orbiter has a really nice rocket already built
in. Only needs a fuel source other than the external tank. Perhaps the
shuttle itself should carry enough fuel for emergency manuvers should it
have to jettison the external tank? Or has this been suggested before?
Since the engines are already firing, this would involve switching the
shuttle fuel source to internal, detach from the tank, then steering
the shuttle away from the SRB/tank (and the SRB's away from the shuttle).
The downside would be that this would decrease the payload capacity of
the shuttle. And I understand the shuttle already carries less payload
to lower orbits than was intended.
Besides, I have a feeling that even this capability would not have helped
the Challenger.
Ron
--
--
Ronald O. Christian (Fujitsu America Inc., San Jose, Calif.)
ihnp4!pesnta!fai!ronc
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility:
"If you are seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it."
KW Heuer
[ David desJardins writes: ]
>> I hate to sound callous, but I don't see the point of all of this just
>> to save the crew. If you could save the orbiter, that would be great, but
>> you are talking about something that has got to cost hundreds of millions
>> of dollars just to save the crew. Doesn't this seem a trifle excessive?
>You don't sound callous, you sound like a neanderthal SAVAGE!
Do you have airbags in your car? If not, would you pay a million dollars
to have them installed? They do save lives.
phoenix
The point is, that orbiters, though expensive are REPLACEABLE: Life, human
or otherwise, is not. If the crew were not important, the orbiter would be
unmanned, would it not? The contribution of the crew is unique, not to be
replaceable by computers or remote control. The orbiter is *not* unique,
only the crew is. The fact that human lives, an irreplaceable resource, are
used at all and thus placed at risk proves the value of their input to the
mission. Should they not, therefore be more important to save than the
orbiter is?
--
The Phoenix
(Neither Bright, Dark, nor Young)
---"A man should live forever...or die trying."
---"There is no substitute for good manners...except fast reflexes."
Wombat
>>>
>>>It wouldn't be necessary to have the entire orbiter be detached from the
>>>ET and SRB's, just the crew compartment. The main problem with this, I
>>>think, would be in making the crew compartment separable from the rest
>>>of the orbiter. A much smaller escape tower motor could then be used.
Good point. Several of us around here speculated on the problem of
pulling the entire orbiter away from the booster package, and concluded
that there didn't seem to be a reasonable way to do it. A detachable
crew compartment carries its own engineering problems, of course (for
instance, ensuring that it doesn't detach until you want it to) but the
same sort of escape towers used on previous manned missions should be
adequate for the job. One consideration which caused us considerable
speculation was the effect of the "roll" (performed shortly after launch)
on an attempted escape via such a tower. Perhaps someone conversant in
the aerodynamics involved could comment on whether or not this would
be a problem?
Now then; we also have this exchange:
David desJardins:
> I hate to sound callous, but I don't see the point of all of this just
> to save the crew. If you could save the orbiter, that would be great, but
> you are talking about something that has got to cost hundreds of millions
> of dollars just to save the crew. Doesn't this seem a trifle excessive?
>
Valerio Franceschin:
>You don't sound callous, you sound like a neanderthal SAVAGE!
Actually, this kind of cost-vs-human-lives thinking goes on all the
time; it's just that we don't think about it a lot, or we don't easily
admit thinking about it. Failure to put a cap on the funds spent on
astronaut safety, for instance, would result in an astronomical (sorry)
amount of money being spent. It would probably also spell the end of
the space program--since one can never be 100.0% sure that the
astronauts would be safe. [Think about this in terms of bicycle
engineering, for instance, to gain some perspective.] *IF* the people
at NASA do their job, and are competent engineers and physicists, then
the amount of money and effort expended on safety is enough to reach
the point of diminishing returns -- and perhaps cross over it, just a bit.
The question to be answered here (if, say, an escape tower system would
cost $100 million) is: "Is the added margin of safety worth $100
million?". Of course, the people that have to answer this are NASA
officials, scientists, engineers -- and the astronauts. Note that
there is always the possible that the installation of such a system
might actually make the spacecraft *less safe*.
This problem falls in the domain of risk analysis and safety
engineering, not in that of emotional moralizing.
--
Rich Kulawiec pucc-j!rsk or r...@asc.purdue.edu
Michael Wagner
I'm not sure I liked the approach, but a recent issue of FORTUNE
came up with several ways of assessing the value of life.
It was phrased in terms of how much people value their own lives,
i.e. how much people will protect themselvesby using protective or
safety gear.
I think the number they came up with was about one million $ U.S.
per person with a very high variance. Sorry, I don't have the article
here to check.
Michael Wagner (wagner@utcs)
Timothy D Margeson
Hear hear for the airbags. I don't have cause they arn't offered for my car,
so I use what I do have... the belts. Toodles....
--
Tim Margeson (206)253-5240
tektronix!tekigm2!timothym @@ 'Who said that?'
PO Box 3500 d/s C1-465
Vancouver, WA. 98665
J. Eric Roskos
> to have them installed? They do save lives.
I think this analogy is fallacious. It would make more sense to take the
ratio (cost of shuttle safety mechanism) / (cost of shuttle) = r
and then multiply r * (cost of car)... you could then ask if the person is
willing to pay that much. The reason is that a person's individual budget
is much smaller than NASA's, and arguing that a person wouldn't be willing
(or more accurately, able) to pay "millions" for car airbags has little to
do with NASA paying "millions" for additional shuttle safety -- they've
already started doing that anyway, with the redesign of the o-rings.
[Besides which airbags tend to be an emotional issue for some people, and
thus it's not clear whether a person would be willing to pay for something
the person is afraid may frighten the person by going off.]
--
E. Roskos
KW Heuer
> I hate to sound callous, but I don't see the point of all of this just
>to save the crew. If you could save the orbiter, that would be great, but
>you are talking about something that has got to cost hundreds of millions
>of dollars just to save the crew. Doesn't this seem a trifle excessive?
vgfran...@watcgl.UUCP (Valerio Franceschin) in <4...@watcgl.UUCP>:
>You don't sound callous, you sound like a neanderthal SAVAGE!
k...@bentley.UUCP (Karl Heuer) in <6...@bentley.UUCP>:
>Do you have airbags in your car? If not, would you pay a million dollars
>to have them installed? They do save lives.
j...@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) in <20...@peora.UUCP>:
>I think this analogy is fallacious. It would make more sense to take the
>ratio (cost of shuttle safety mechanism) / (cost of shuttle) = r
>and then multiply r * (cost of car)... you could then ask if the person is
>willing to pay that much. The reason is that a person's individual budget
>is much smaller than NASA's ...
Actually, the point I was trying to make is that we must place a finite
value on safety; just because something will save lives does not mean it
should be done. David asked a perfectly valid question, and I thought
Valerio's attack was unjustified. Cost-vs.-Safety decisions have to be
made.
Note that [a] I am not saying it's not worth the price, I'm just defending
the right to question it; [b] It's hard to disagree that it would be kind of
nice to save the orbiter and the crew both; [c] in the Challenger incident,
the crew had no warning, so there would have been no time to use any such
safety feature. (Interesting thought experiment: suppose that before the
51L flight, the safety issue had come up and NASA had "solved" it with some
form of ejection seats. Then Challenger blows up before the crew can escape.
NASA might have had even more of a PR problem!)
Karl W. Z. Heuer (ihnp4!bentley!kwh), The Walking Lint
Nathaniel Polish
fragile cargo is riding on top of several million pounds of thrust that
we are dependant on EVERYTHING working. All the senerios involve everyone
of thousands of components working perfecting with one or two non-critical
systems failing. Virtually nothing will save you from a crit 1 failure
because of the forces involved and the speed. This is why they are crit 1.
Ejection systems are only useful if they can realistically be used and
rehersed with well defined parameters for their use. One of the IEEE
rags mentioned recently that ditching is possable (release of the orbiter
during SRB thrust). Ditching is considered so dangerous that it is not
a practiced abort mode. It is a simple fact that there are a class of failures
from which there is no reasonable escape. An escape rocket might save you
from a few failures but it hardly is obvious which ones.
David desJardins
>de...@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins) in <12...@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>:
> I hate to sound callous, but I don't see the point of all of this just
>to save the crew. If you could save the orbiter, that would be great, but
>you are talking about something that has got to cost hundreds of millions
>of dollars just to save the crew. Doesn't this seem a trifle excessive?
k...@bentley.UUCP (Karl Heuer) in <6...@bentley.UUCP>:
>Do you have airbags in your car? If not, would you pay a million dollars
>to have them installed? They do save lives.
Wonderful analogy. This is exactly my point.
j...@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) in <20...@peora.UUCP>:
>I think this analogy is fallacious. It would make more sense to take the
>ratio (cost of shuttle safety mechanism) / (cost of shuttle) = r
>and then multiply r * (cost of car)... you could then ask if the person is
>willing to pay that much. The reason is that a person's individual budget
>is much smaller than NASA's ...
No! This does *not* make more sense. This is equivalent to the
assumption that the life of an astronaut is worth more than the life of
any other citizen. How can you justify this (except to the extent that
a lot of expensive training has been invested, which is still orders of
magnitude short of what we are talking about)?
In fact there is a good argument that it is worth less, since the
astronaut has made a conscious and voluntary decision to risk his life.
In other words, he is agreeing to take the risk in exchange for the
benefits to himself. Is each person not free to choose the value he
attaches to his own life?
Also note that any intelligent decision on a safety feature must
necessarily take into account the probability of the event it is designed
to prevent, which your proposal does not even do.
In article <6...@bentley.UUCP> k...@bentley.UUCP (KW Heuer) writes:
>Actually, the point I was trying to make is that we must place a finite
>value on safety; just because something will save lives does not mean it
>should be done. David asked a perfectly valid question, and I thought
>Valerio's attack was unjustified. Cost-vs.-Safety decisions have to be
>made.
Yes. Thank you.
-- David desJardins
Valerio Franceschin
> > I hate to sound callous, but I don't see the point of all of this just
> >to save the crew. If you could save the orbiter, that would be great, but
> >you are talking about something that has got to cost hundreds of millions
> >of dollars just to save the crew. Doesn't this seem a trifle excessive?
>
> vgfran...@watcgl.UUCP (Valerio Franceschin) in <4...@watcgl.UUCP>:
> >You don't sound callous, you sound like a neanderthal SAVAGE!
>
> k...@bentley.UUCP (Karl Heuer) in <6...@bentley.UUCP>:
> >Do you have airbags in your car? If not, would you pay a million dollars
> >to have them installed? They do save lives.
>
> j...@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) in <20...@peora.UUCP>:
> >I think this analogy is fallacious. It would make more sense to take the
> >ratio (cost of shuttle safety mechanism) / (cost of shuttle) = r
> >and then multiply r * (cost of car)... you could then ask if the person is
> >willing to pay that much. The reason is that a person's individual budget
> >is much smaller than NASA's ...
>
> Actually, the point I was trying to make is that we must place a finite
> value on safety; just because something will save lives does not mean it
So why didn't you say that instead of providing that blatantly fallacious
analogy? I'm glad it was someone else and not I that pointed it out.
> should be done. David asked a perfectly valid question, and I thought
> Valerio's attack was unjustified. Cost-vs.-Safety decisions have to be
> made.
Of course cost-vs-safety factors have to be considered, NASA has a limited
budget. What ticked me off about David's posting is his suggestion that the
orbiter is more precious than "just the crew." This is the same kind of
criminal mentality employed by nuclear strategists when they talk of 10 million
casualties during a nuclear exchange to be "acceptable." I'm sorry but I
value human life and I find this reasoning to be repulsive. I stand by my
original comment!
> safety feature. (Interesting thought experiment: suppose that before the
> 51L flight, the safety issue had come up and NASA had "solved" it with some
> form of ejection seats. Then Challenger blows up before the crew can escape.
> NASA might have had even more of a PR problem!)
Imagine the PR problem that NASA would have if it was primarily concerned with
it's hardware first and foremost, and then the lives of the crew. "Well, yes,
we could've got them out, but either way, the orbiter would've been lost. So
we figured it wasn't worth it. After all, we can always train more astronauts".
Valerio Franceschin
David desJardins
>to save the crew. If you could save the orbiter, that would be great, but
>you are talking about something that has got to cost hundreds of millions
>of dollars just to save the crew. Doesn't this seem a trifle excessive?
vgfran...@watcgl.UUCP (Valerio Franceschin) in <4...@watcgl.UUCP>:
>You don't sound callous, you sound like a neanderthal SAVAGE!
Ugh! Ugh! :-)
k...@bentley.UUCP (Karl Heuer) in <6...@bentley.UUCP>:
>Do you have airbags in your car? If not, would you pay a million dollars
>to have them installed? They do save lives.
Yes. Exactly right. People are free to choose the value of their own
lives. Of necessity, they assign a finite value to their own lives (other-
wise the risk of crossing the street would be unacceptable!). The astro-
nauts have made the decision that the value of their lives is not too great
to risk on the shuttle.
j...@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) in <20...@peora.UUCP>:
>I think this analogy is fallacious. It would make more sense to take the
>ratio (cost of shuttle safety mechanism) / (cost of shuttle) = r
>and then multiply r * (cost of car)... you could then ask if the person is
>willing to pay that much. The reason is that a person's individual budget
>is much smaller than NASA's ...
NO! One life is one life. Why is an astronaut's life so much more
valuable than the life of any other person?
And, if the shuttle were twice as expensive, how could this possibly
make the astronaut's lives twice as valuable??
desj@brahms (David desJardins):
> Actually, the point I was trying to make is that we must place a finite
> value on safety; just because something will save lives does not mean it
vgfran...@watcgl.UUCP (Valerio Franceschin) in <4...@watcgl.UUCP>:
>So why didn't you say that instead of providing that blatantly fallacious
>analogy? I'm glad it was someone else and not I that pointed it out.
It's not my analogy, but I stand by it 100%. What is the "blatant
fallacy" to which you refer?
>Of course cost-vs-safety factors have to be considered, NASA has a limited
>budget. What ticked me off about David's posting is his suggestion that
>the orbiter is more precious than "just the crew." This is the same kind
>of criminal mentality employed by nuclear strategists when they talk of
>10 million casualties during a nuclear exchange to be "acceptable." I'm
>sorry but I value human life and I find this reasoning to be repulsive.
>I stand by my original comment!
It seems to me that when you admit that cost-vs-safety factors must be
considered, you have admitted the validity of my point of view. You must
fix some value on saving the lives of the crew (how otherwise can you weigh
cost against safety!?). For the sake of discussion I will propose a value
of $10M. But the actual number is not important. What is important is
that it is finite. I happen to believe it should be (substantially) less
than the replacement cost of the orbiter. Maybe you disagree (if you wish,
we can discuss this point once we have resolved the main point). The point
is, that if the orbiter becomes more and more expensive, eventually it
becomes worth more than the lives of the crew. Is this not clear? The
crew is not more valuable just because it is riding in a more expensive
vehicle!
As for your statement about nuclear war: obviously the meaning of the
word "acceptable" depends on the alternatives. I think it is acceptable
if the alternative is destruction of all life on Earth. Truman thought
(and I agree) that dropping nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was
acceptable when the alternative was a full-scale invasion of Japan. Is
it an acceptable alternative to Soviet world domination (not that this
is necessarily the choice)? I think it is, again you may disagree.
If you find rational consideration of the alternatives "repulsive,"
how do you think our country should make strategic decisions?
pho...@genat.UUCP (phoenix) in <25...@genat.UUCP>:
>The point is, that orbiters, though expensive are REPLACEABLE: Life, human
>or otherwise, is not. If the crew were not important, the orbiter would be
>unmanned, would it not? The contribution of the crew is unique, not to be
>replaceable by computers or remote control. The orbiter is *not* unique,
>only the crew is. The fact that human lives, an irreplaceable resource, are
>used at all and thus placed at risk proves the value of their input to the
>mission. Should they not, therefore be more important to save than the
>orbiter is?
"Life, human or otherwise, is not [replaceable]." I'm not quite sure
how to respond to this statement, because it doesn't make any sense. Of
course human (and other) life is replaceable; people die and are replaced
all of the time.
"The contribution of the crew is unique, not to be replaceable by
computers or remote control." True. Neither can the orbiter be replaced
by extra crew members. What is the point?
Please clarify what you are trying to say so I can respond to it...
-- David desJardins
J. Eric Roskos
weigh the costs of a safety system in proportion of an individual or
agency's ability (or willingness) to pay for it, writes:
> No! This does *not* make more sense. This is equivalent to the
> assumption that the life of an astronaut is worth more than the life of
> any other citizen. How can you justify this (except to the extent that
> a lot of expensive training has been invested, which is still orders of
> magnitude short of what we are talking about)?
No, I disagree with that. It makes the assumption that you can put a dollar
value on a person's life, and further that such a value is defined in
terms of the amount being paid to protect it.
This definition of a "value of life" is one that was proposed earlier, but
it is not one that I accept in making my assertion. I maintain that no
dollar value can be placed on anybody's life; by demonstration I would point
out that murder is a capital offense, not one that a person can pay a fine
as punishment for.
Instead, my argument was based on "willingness to mitigate risks" in a
risky endeavor.
Using the example that you accept as demonstrating your claim, that of
airbags in a car: If I drive my car, I must acknowledge that it is a
dangerous proposition. I deal with this in several ways: I don't drive
as often as I would if it was not dangerous; I drive defensively; and I
use safety features (and choose a car with good safety attributes). All
of these are efforts to reduce the risk in proportion to the alternatives
(e.g., driving a motorcycle, constantly, in a reckless manner). I choose
to do each of these things, eventhough the alternative might be desirable
for various reasons, because I feel that the reduction in the probability
of personal injury offsets the tradeoffs of convenience.
However, I in fact don't have airbags in my car, despite the fact that
I believe in them. The sole reason I don't is that they are so expensive.
Now, I realize that having them would be safer; however, I don't feel that
it would be safer in proportion to the cost. (On the other hand, air
bags that protected one's head from colliding into the left door window
I would consider worth the cost.)
On the other hand, if I were flying in the shuttle, and assuming I had
control over the budget decisions, I would make a linearly proportional
comparison of costs vs. risks. Since the shuttle is by nature a more
expensive vehicle, to get a proportionately greater amount of protection
(proportionate WRT the increase in protection from car airbags) I would
expect to pay a proportionately greater price (proportionate WRT the cost
of the two vehicles). So I might be willing to pay, say, $200,000 for
shuttle airbags whereas I wouldn't be willing to pay more than $1000 for
car airbags; I would expect the airbags in the shuttle to cost more due to
their being bigger, having to meet military specs, etc. (Assuming here
that the shuttle:car cost is 200,000:1000, which I am sure is not correct
in reality). The same reasoning would hold for some other safety feature
of the shuttle that gave an equivalent reduction in risk.
But note that this reasoning has nothing to do with "value of life", on
which I maintain no dollar value can be placed. It has solely to do with
how much I am willing to pay to gain a given reduction in the risk (which
I already know exists) in using the vehicle. If I (somewhat subjectively)
feel that paying $x more is "not worth it" in terms of the extra safety
gained, then I won't do it. However, on a vehicle costing millions of
dollars I would not to expect to get a safety increase equivalent to that
of adding car airbags, and expect to only pay the price of the car
airbags. The shuttle does more, under more difficult circumstances, and I
would expect to have to pay more for systems associated with it.
[Note that implicit in the above is the assumption that the systems
involved actually would cost proportionately more. I think this would be
the case for the system the original question centered on. The issue was
how to protect astronauts from catastrophic failures of the shuttle
vehicle. Clearly a system to do this would be considerably more complex,
thus more costly, than one to protect a driver of an automobile, even if
both used a personnel ejection facility of some sort. E.g., in the case
of a car, you could just eject the person out the top of the vehicle and
have him come down on a parachute. A much more complex system would be
required to pull the shuttle personnel away from the vehicle at a high
altitude and get them to the ground safely.]
--
E. Roskos
phoenix
>> I hate to sound callous, but I don't see the point of all of this just
>>to save the crew. If you could save the orbiter, that would be great, but
>>you are talking about something that has got to cost hundreds of millions
>>of dollars just to save the crew. Doesn't this seem a trifle excessive?
>
>
>>budget. What ticked me off about David's posting is his suggestion that
>>the orbiter is more precious than "just the crew." This is the same kind
>>of criminal mentality employed by nuclear strategists when they talk of
>>10 million casualties during a nuclear exchange to be "acceptable." I'm
>>sorry but I value human life and I find this reasoning to be repulsive.
>>I stand by my original comment!
>
>how do you think our country should make strategic decisions?
>
>pho...@genat.UUCP (phoenix) in <25...@genat.UUCP>:
>>The point is, that orbiters, though expensive are REPLACEABLE: Life, human
>>or otherwise, is not. If the crew were not important, the orbiter would be
>>unmanned, would it not? The contribution of the crew is unique, not to be
>>replaceable by computers or remote control. The orbiter is *not* unique,
>>only the crew is. The fact that human lives, an irreplaceable resource, are
>>used at all and thus placed at risk proves the value of their input to the
>>mission. Should they not, therefore be more important to save than the
>>orbiter is?
>
> "Life, human or otherwise, is not [replaceable]." I'm not quite sure
>how to respond to this statement, because it doesn't make any sense. Of
>course human (and other) life is replaceable; people die and are replaced
>all of the time.
> "The contribution of the crew is unique, not to be replaceable by
>computers or remote control." True. Neither can the orbiter be replaced
>by extra crew members. What is the point?
> Please clarify what you are trying to say so I can respond to it...
>
> -- David desJardins
What I was trying to say (tell-me-twice), is that Life is ideosyncratic;
that is, each living being (human, sentient, or otherwise) is different
from all other living beings: like snowflakes. It is this diversity of
life that cannot be duplicated. Generally speaking, each machine (no matter
how expensive) is, to all intents and purposes, identical to all other
machines of the same type (yes, I know that they can come with different
paint jobs...:-); I'm talking *significant* differences), and at any time
more can be built to exactly the same requirements as earlier one's were.
Yes, making another human being is less expensive than making a new shuttle
BUT that new life cannot be an exact replacement for the life that was taken.
Because each human mind is unique and different from any other such mind.
The primary point I am trying to make is that a life is more important
than a machine is.
For example, John Doe gets into a traffic-accident in his Farrarri. To save
his life, the car must be cut open, aka *destroyed*. Because it is an
expensive car that will be damaged, does this mean we leave John Doe to
die while we save the sportscar?
Hoping I have made my position clear,
Be seeing you,
David desJardins
>No, I disagree with that. It makes the assumption that you can put a dollar
>value on a person's life, and further that such a value is defined in
>terms of the amount being paid to protect it.
>This definition of a "value of life" is one that was proposed earlier, but
>it is not one that I accept in making my assertion. I maintain that no
>dollar value can be placed on anybody's life; by demonstration I would point
>out that murder is a capital offense, not one that a person can pay a fine
>as punishment for.
>Instead, my argument was based on "willingness to mitigate risks" in a
>risky endeavor.
Let me clarify my point by making the following *definition*: "value
of life" ::= "amount to be paid to protect said life." This is what I
mean when I use these words; if you object we can use "mortality cost"
or some other euphonism instead. Certainly I do not mean that lives can
be bought and sold!
>Using the example that you accept as demonstrating your claim, that of
>airbags in a car: If I drive my car, I must acknowledge that it is a
>dangerous proposition. I deal with this in several ways: I don't drive
>as often as I would if it was not dangerous; I drive defensively; and I
>use safety features (and choose a car with good safety attributes). All
>of these are efforts to reduce the risk in proportion to the alternatives
>(e.g., driving a motorcycle, constantly, in a reckless manner). I choose
>to do each of these things, even though the alternative might be desirable
>for various reasons, because I feel that the reduction in the probability
>of personal injury offsets the tradeoffs of convenience.
>[and now the point!]
>However, I in fact don't have airbags in my car, despite the fact that
>I believe in them. The sole reason I don't is that they are so expensive.
>Now, I realize that having them would be safer; however, I don't feel that
>it would be safer in proportion to the cost. (On the other hand, air
>bags that protected one's head from colliding into the left door window
>I would consider worth the cost.)
Exactly!! Let us estimate that airbags for your car would cost $1000
and would have a 1/1000 chance of saving your life. Clearly the ratio is
the relevant quantity; if it cost $2000 and had a 1/500 chance of saving
your life the decision would be essentially the same.
You have made the decision that this is not worth the cost. Let us
further suppose that each astronaut has made the same decision (this seems
likely, right?).
>On the other hand, if I were flying in the shuttle, and assuming I had
>control over the budget decisions, I would make a linearly proportional
>comparison of costs vs. risks. Since the shuttle is by nature a more
>expensive vehicle, to get a proportionately greater amount of protection
>(proportionate WRT the increase in protection from car airbags) I would
>expect to pay a proportionately greater price (proportionate WRT the cost
>of the two vehicles). So I might be willing to pay, say, $200,000 for
>shuttle airbags whereas I wouldn't be willing to pay more than $1000 for
>car airbags; I would expect the airbags in the shuttle to cost more due to
>their being bigger, having to meet military specs, etc. (Assuming here
>that the shuttle:car cost is 200,000:1000, which I am sure is not correct
>in reality). The same reasoning would hold for some other safety feature
>of the shuttle that gave an equivalent reduction in risk.
But now the point becomes clear. Suppose you are an astronaut. Would
it make sense for the government to spend $200,000 to save your life 1/1000
of the time (by putting airbags in the shuttle) when they could spend $1000
to achieve the same effect (by putting airbags in your car!)? After all,
your life is your life! Why should the government waste $199,000 saving
your life in a very inefficient way (actually $199,999,000 using the true
figures!!!)?
-- David desJardins
David desJardins
>For example, John Doe gets into a traffic-accident in his Farrarri. To save
>his life, the car must be cut open, aka *destroyed*. Because it is an
>expensive car that will be damaged, does this mean we leave John Doe to
>die while we save the sportscar?
I have not touched on this kind of a trade-off, because I don't see any
real situation where we would have to make a choice between saving the
shuttle orbiter *or* the crew. But, *if* this choice were necessary, it
seems clear to save the orbiter.
-- David desJardins
Dick Karpinski
>
>This definition of a "value of life" is one that was proposed earlier, but
>it is not one that I accept in making my assertion. I maintain that no
>dollar value can be placed on anybody's life; by demonstration I would point
>out that murder is a capital offense, not one that a person can pay a fine
>as punishment for.
>However, I in fact don't have airbags in my car, despite the fact that
>I believe in them. The sole reason I don't is that they are so expensive.
such. There is no need to make murder an infraction punishable by
fine, just because there is a value for human life. We need to have
and use such a financial value in order to compare apples and apples.
The true beauty of the invention of money is in making such comparison
easy. Karl Marx showed some of the remaining problems, but we need
not avoid the useful aspects of the abbreviation. Just convert it all
to generic "value units" if dollar values on human life give you creeps.
>Now, I realize that having them would be safer; however, I don't feel that
>it would be safer in proportion to the cost.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Exactly; if you use dollars, it works out cleanly.
>But note that this reasoning has nothing to do with "value of life", on
>which I maintain no dollar value can be placed.
Huh?
>If I (somewhat subjectively)
>feel that paying $x more is "not worth it" in terms of the extra safety
>gained, then I won't do it.
Why not use dollars? If you like, I can help you make your "feelings"
consistent with each other. The literature on decision analysis makes
many references to such devices to help folks who otherwise have no
rational way to compare their alternatives.
Dick
--
Dick Karpinski Manager of Unix Services, UCSF Computer Center
UUCP: ...!ucbvax!ucsfcgl!cca.ucsf!dick (415) 476-4529 (12-7)
BITNET: dick@ucsfcca Compuserve: 70215,1277 Telemail: RKarpinski
USPS: U-76 UCSF, San Francisco, CA 94143
John Hogg
life, given appropriate data to work from. Challenger was MUCH more
valuable than her crew. And any major additional escape mechanism is
unlikely to be worth the weight, cost, and time.
Why? Because a shuttle costs ~$1,500,000,000US. That is money collected
from Americans that could have been used for something else. I happen to
believe that no better cause could be found for these funds, but other
options (ignoring simply not collecting them) do exist.
How many lives would be saved by another BILLION dollars spent on cancer
research? How about reduction of air pollution? Or, to be distressingly
plebian, what would a billion dollars of highway improvements do to the
death tolls on American roads? I have no supporting data, but an
expenditure of this size would probably save orders of magnitudes more
lives in the long run. American roads are poor!
Life is dangerous. Space travel seems to be somewhat more dangerous than
remaining on the ground. But, like computer security, at some point the
risks must be traded off against the costs. An escape capsule or tower
would reduce payload, delay resumption of flights by a substantial amount,
add numerous potential failure points - and save fewer lives than mundane
highway guardrails. If you truly believe that life is precious, approach
the saving of it with rationality.
--
John Hogg
Computer Systems Research Institute, UofT
...utzoo!utcsri!hogg
Standard disclaimer: the above may or may not contain sarcasm, satire,
irony or facetiousness. It does not contain smiley-faces.
Mike Parker
>real situation where we would have to make a choice between saving the
>shuttle orbiter *or* the crew. But, *if* this choice were necessary, it
>seems clear to save the orbiter.
>
> -- David desJardins
I had sworn off posting the the net, but this just *has* to be responded
to. Did you intend to put a smiley after this comment, please tell me
you did.
Money is trash ( ask Reagan, or just look at his deficit spending ) we just
print it, if a shuttle is so valuable, we print x billion dollars and make
one. Memories and human relationships are not replaceable, the price of
100 shuttles will never make what happened right with the children of those
astronauts. Can you imagine telling their husbands and wives that you really
wanted to save them, but it would have destroyed your expensive toy?
Please tell me you didn't mean it.
Mike
--
UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!mike
ARPA: amdcad!mi...@decwrl.dec.com
Phil Ngai
>Money is trash ( ask Reagan, or just look at his deficit spending ) we just
>print it, if a shuttle is so valuable, we print x billion dollars and make
>one. Memories and human relationships are not replaceable, the price of
I don't believe you can print money at will indefinitely. I also don't
believe money is trash. Among other things, money is a measure of the
amount of time human beings have to spend to build something. Why is
it better for 10,000 Rockwell workers to spend their lives
constructing an Orbiter to be thrown away to save seven lives?
This reminds me of the argument against 55 MPH's supposed safety
advantage. Although your expected lifetime may be increased because
your chances of dying in an auto accident may be reduced, the number
of useful hours in your expected lifetime may be reduced if you have
to spend many more hours behind the wheel of your car.
It could be the same with the Space Shuttle. If we sacrifice an
Orbiter to save the astronauts, society gains 7 * 50 man years at a
cost of (random numbers here) 10,000 * 5 man years. Is 350 > 50,000?
Perhaps. The astronauts were among the best our society has. But
don't assume that human lives are not invested in each Orbiter we
build or that money is trash.
--
"Welcome to the Hotel California...
You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave."
Phil Ngai +1 408 749 5720
UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil
ARPA: amdcad!ph...@decwrl.dec.com
sonntag
> >real situation where we would have to make a choice between saving the
> >shuttle orbiter *or* the crew. But, *if* this choice were necessary, it
> >seems clear to save the orbiter.
> > -- David desJardins
>
> print it, if a shuttle is so valuable, we print x billion dollars and make
> one. Memories and human relationships are not replaceable, the price of
> 100 shuttles will never make what happened right with the children of those
> astronauts. Can you imagine telling their husbands and wives that you really
> wanted to save them, but it would have destroyed your expensive toy?
I really don't know how much a shuttle costs offhand. But I know it
costs more than just running some large printing presses for a few weeks,
as you imply. It takes an investment of human time to create a shuttle.
Assuming that a shuttle costs 1 billion dollars, and that it was assembled
by professionals making an average of $30/hr. The shuttle then costs 370
human-lifetimes of work.
Suppose terrorists kidnapped the astronauts and demanded 370 professional-
human-lifetimes of work. Even if they wanted it in 16,000 easy 1-professional-
human-year of work installments, would you volunteer to be one of those 16,000
people? Would your answer be any different when some other
terrorists kidnapped 5 people you'd never heard of and made the same demands?
Would your answer be any different if you found out that only 369 other
professionals would volunteer and that you'd all have to invest your entire
lifetimes in order to ransom the kidnappees? Somehow, trading 370 lives for
5 doesn't make too much sense to me.
>
> Please tell me you didn't mean it.
>
> Mike
>
> --
> UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!mike
> ARPA: amdcad!mi...@decwrl.dec.com
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
--
Jeff Sonntag
ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j
John Woods, Software
> >> I hate to sound callous, but ... Doesn't this seem a trifle excessive?
> >You don't sound callous, you sound like a neanderthal SAVAGE!
> --
> The Phoenix
> ---"A man should live forever...or die trying."
Speaking as a Neanderthal SAVAGE here, the humans, though unique, are
replacable as astronauts. To assign them an infinite value not only
scraps the Shuttle, it scraps every conceivable activity, for no conceivable
activity can have its risk reduced to zero. In the case of the Shuttle,
you have astronauts willing to "die trying...to live forever" (to twist your
.signature) because the Shuttle is a tool for learning things about a goal
they strongly believe in.
This is not to say that safety measures (yea, verily, even escape towers)
are out of place -- if the Shuttle hardly worked at all, and killed 8 crews
in 10, there would be scarcely anything that the Shuttle could teach which
would be worth the loss. However, a safety measure which costs a great deal
and offers only a tiny extra margin of safety (which an escape tower on the
Shuttle appears to me to be, though I am quite willing to listen to
engineering testimony to the contrary) just isn't worth the cost.
--
John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101
...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit...@MIT-XX.ARPA
This space dedicated to Challenger and her crew,
Francis R. Scobee, Michael J. Smith, Ellison S. Onizuka, Judith Resnik,
Ronald E. McNair, Gregory B. Jarvis, and Christa McAuliffe.
"...and slipped the surly bonds of Earth to touch the face of God."
Will Martin
>that is, each living being (human, sentient, or otherwise) is different
>from all other living beings: like snowflakes. It is this diversity of
>life that cannot be duplicated.
Of course this is true -- each individual is unique -- but it has no
bearing on the question at hand, which is the relative values *to the
space program* [that is, in that limited context] of the equipment and
the personnel.
To their spouses or families, each astronaut is unique and irreplaceable;
their loss is a tragedy which cannot be overcome. To the space program,
it becomes a matter of many factors, usually including such things as
the size of the available manpower pool, the length of time training
requires, the cost and difficulty of such training, etc.
Thee is no question that losing people is a terrible blow in many
aspects, having much wider effects than just the loss of the investment
in their time and training, so we take more precautions and expend more
efforts to preserve life than we would if the decision was purely and
simply an economic one. However, in the long run, you have to operate on
the expectation that people will become no longer available, due to
various factors (getting sick, dying in accidents [even auto accidents &
etc. unrelated to their jobs], changing their minds and quitting,
whatever). So you have a larger pool of people than you have an
immediate requirement for, and try to have enough of them functionally
interchangeable so that you can pick out replacements when you need to.
In this light, the astronauts are no different than you and I -- the
organizations and projects of which we are a part will likely go on
despite something happening to us. If I get flattened by a truck outside
the office building tonight, there will be some period of a degree of
chaos as a result, until a new person takes over my job and things
settle back, but the organization will persist. Because my replacement
is not identical to me, there will be some degree of difference in minor
details, but it really will not matter. In my relationship to the
organization, those qualities that make me unique normally do not make
much difference. I can be replaced, as far as the organization is
concerned. (Now, if this was not a government agency, but was a sole-
proprietorship small business, I probably *would* be irreplaceable.
But that is a different situation.)
Will
Bruce T. Lowerre
Let's assume that there were an escape mechanism for the shuttle crew, would
the Challenger crew be alive today? The explosion was unexpected, the
failure undetected, and the SNAFU still unexplained. What sensors could
possibly give sufficient warning?
David desJardins
>
>> I have not touched on this kind of a trade-off, because I don't see any
>>real situation where we would have to make a choice between saving the
>>shuttle orbiter *or* the crew. But, *if* this choice were necessary, it
>>seems clear to save the orbiter.
>> -- David desJardins
>
>I had sworn off posting the the net, but this just *has* to be responded
>to. Did you intend to put a smiley after this comment, please tell me
>you did.
>wanted to save them, but it would have destroyed your expensive toy?
Yes, I mean it. I have no reservations at all. If it was my finger
on the button I would push it with no hesitation.
And yes, I would tell them that the orbiter was more important than
the astronaut's lives. I think most of them would agree. Maybe that is
too optimistic of me, but certainly I think the astronauts themselves
would agree.
-- David desJardins
David Canzi
In article <11...@amdcad.UUCP> mi...@amdcad.UUCP (Mike Parker) writes:
>In article <12...@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> de...@brahms.UUCP (David desJardins) writes:
>> I have not touched on this kind of a trade-off, because I don't see any
>>real situation where we would have to make a choice between saving the
>>shuttle orbiter *or* the crew. But, *if* this choice were necessary, it
>>seems clear to save the orbiter.
>
>I had sworn off posting the the net, but this just *has* to be responded
>to. Did you intend to put a smiley after this comment, please tell me
>you did.
He may not be joking... I came to conclusions similar to his, starting
with the premise that money is not a good standard for measuring value
(because of inflation, among other things). People often work at
dangerous jobs for money... for that matter, if you cross the street on
your way to work you're risking your life for money. This can only
make sense if you believe that the money is worth the risk to your
life, ie. that the money is worth more to you than the safety of
staying on your side of the street.
The only way you can compare the value of two things as dissimilar as
money and risk of life is to somehow convert them to a common unit of
measurement. The only common unit I could think of was the hour. When
you work, you sacrifice the hours you spend working in return for
money. Your hope is that the money will enable you, by buying food
etc., to extend your lifespan by more than the amount of time you've
spent working. (This is what I mean by saying "money is time", up
there in the summary line.)
It might be reasonable to risk your life for money if the probability of
dying immediately multiplied by your remaining life expectancy is less
than the increase in lifespan you can expect if you survive your gamble.
Now, about the shuttle... somebody posted an estimate of its value at
4,000,000,000 dollars. Suppose that the people who worked to produce
the shuttle (and all its components) were paid an average of 100
dollars/hour for the amount of their lives they've sacrificed -- an
unrealistically high estimate, I think. This means that the shuttle
cost 40,000,000 hours of human life. Seven astronauts, assuming they
each have 100 years of life left -- this is generous -- have a total of
only 6,100,000 hours.
So losing a shuttle is actually a greater loss of human life than
losing the astronauts on board.
--
David Canzi "Offending with substance since 1985"
Mike Huybensz
> 100 shuttles will never make what happened right with the children of those
> astronauts. Can you imagine telling their husbands and wives that you really
> wanted to save them, but it would have destroyed your expensive toy?
For the cost of potentially saving a few lives on the shuttle, it would be
simple to save THOUSANDS of equally irreplacable lives. Perhaps even here
in the US, if you are chauvanistic about it. Lives of people who are dying
slowly and agonizingly, rather than in a brief flash.
Lives can be assigned values actuarily. If I am given a choice of where to
spend money to save lives, I'm damn well not going to fling it at the first
person to come weepy-eyed to me about "irreplacable lives".
--
Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
William L. Rupp
> In article <12...@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> de...@brahms.UUCP (David desJardins) writes:
> > I have not touched on this kind of a trade-off, because I don't see any
> >real situation where we would have to make a choice between saving the
> >shuttle orbiter *or* the crew. But, *if* this choice were necessary, it
> >seems clear to save the orbiter.
> >
> > -- David desJardins
>
>
> you did.
>
>
>
Mr. Parker says that a shuttle-or-crew situation is very unlikely, and I
agree. In fact agonizing over such a hypothetical event is probably counter-
productive.
However...
We should not be fooled into thinking that there will never be a day when
a terrible choice has to be made in so dangerous a venture as space
exploration. Or, more likely, a terrible situation will arise which we
will be powerless to remedy. I am reminded of that mediocre movie "Marooned".
In that one, three U.S. astronauts are stuck in oribt because of some
malfunction or other. Two are eventually save because we send up a
second space craft, and the Russians divert one of there own to help
out.
That story is half sense and half nonsense. The sense part is that such
a misshap may one day occur. The nonsense part is that we will be able
to immediately send up a rescue ship. We would probably have to stand
by as the crew slowly suffocated. If you think watching the Challenger go
down in one quick ball of fire was bad, how about having to stand by for
maybe several days until that last radio message died out!
It may be unrealistic to imagine a case where sacrificing the crew could
save the shuttle, but that doesn't mean that nasty choices would not
have to be made in an emergency. If you were the range safety officer, and
you were told that the launch had gone badly, and that the shuttle was
probably headed for Miami, what would you do? Remember, THE CREW DIES
EITHER WAY. The Universe will exact its tribute according to the Cold
Equations. We have really been lucky so far, even with the loss of
Challenger. We cannot expect to go forward without future losses. That
must not keep us from going forward, however.
(I speak only for myself, and perhaps for Tom Godwin, whose story "The
Cold Equations", which appeared in ASTOUNDING SCIENCE FICTION magazine in
1954, is strangely relevant to this discussion.)
Dick Karpinski
>> I have not touched on this kind of a trade-off, because I don't see any
>>real situation where we would have to make a choice between saving the
>>shuttle orbiter *or* the crew. But, *if* this choice were necessary, it
>>seems clear to save the orbiter.
>
>print it, if a shuttle is so valuable, we print x billion dollars and make
>one. Memories and human relationships are not replaceable, the price of
>100 shuttles will never make what happened right with the children of those
Come on, sir! Money is lives. One megabuck is roughly one career.
And all big projects have deaths associated with them. Feel free to
establish your own country/religion/philosophy which takes as an
article of faith that human life is worth infinite dollars, but I
shall choose to live elsewhere. Every time I make a decision to risk
crossing the street, I am balancing the savings (in dollars if you
like) against the risk of MY life. To value life beyond megabucks is
to live in a bomb shelter with guard dogs etc. That is: silly.
Still, I would be uncomfortable about pulling that switch. It takes
time and effort to make rational choices. Neither is required to
make sloppy or sentimental ones.
G...@psuvma.bitnet
the crew would be saved along with it? Why would any trade-off exist?
Sunil Gupta
GOT@PSUVMA
S2G@PSUECL
E. L. Wiles
> BUT that new life cannot be an exact replacement for the life that was taken.
> Because each human mind is unique and different from any other such mind.
> The primary point I am trying to make is that a life is more important
> than a machine is.
Agreed...
> For example, John Doe gets into a traffic-accident in his Farrarri. To save
> his life, the car must be cut open, aka *destroyed*. Because it is an
> expensive car that will be damaged, does this mean we leave John Doe to
> die while we save the sportscar?
> Hoping I have made my position clear,
>
Perhapse your position has been made clearer, but your analogy
is very poor. If the 'Fararri' has been in an accident serious
enough to require that 'John Doe' be cut out of it, then the
car is already seriously damaged. Cutting John out would only
add slightly to the problem.
In the event of a shuttle problem sufficient to warrant the use
of an escape system, the shuttle is already, by the fact that
the problem is that serious, a peice of flying debris that must
be gotten away from as soon as possible. Please understand,
it is my fondest hope and my highest plan to one day live and
work in space. In my personal estimation, the Shuttle program
is my only hope. I WANT IT TO WORK!
E. L. Wiles @ NetExpress Comm. Inc., Virginia
John R. Bane
>[with respect to choosing between the orbiter and the astronauts lives]
> on the button I would push it with no hesitation.
> And yes, I would tell them that the orbiter was more important than
> the astronaut's lives. I think most of them would agree. Maybe that is
> too optimistic of me, but certainly I think the astronauts themselves
> would agree.
> -- David desJardins
... and what if it was YOUR life and someone else's finger? or maybe
your wife's life? or your children's?
And if you don't care, or consider it worth it, then you have no idea
of the life-long agony that would torture the person who DID "push the
button." I don't think I could bring myself to deliberately kill
innocent people (their only crime is to be stuck in malfunctioning
equipment), no matter how expensive that equipment is. Perhaps what
the world needs is not more love but more empathy!
- rene
William L. Rupp
human life and the product of human effort has appeared in this group.
Unfortunately, some of the rhetoric has verged close to invective and
repetition. Can't we all agree on the following and move on?
1. The loss of Challenger AND crew was a tragedy of major proportions.
2. While monetary considerations are important when discussing groups,
it is senseless to talk of placing a monetary value on any single
human life.
3. With limited resources, choices must be made with respect to
how many of those resources will be spent on a given project
to decrease the probability of accidents.
4. Those choices will not always, in hindsight, turn out to have been
wise.
5. The space program should be forward, perhaps with some new decision-
makers at the helm.
6. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Daniel T Senie
That's just it. They removed all the sensors from the SRBs to reduce weight.
Great move, huh...
--
Daniel T. Senie TEL.: (617) 329-7700 x3168
Cullinet Software, Inc. UUCP: seismo!{ll-xn,harvard}!rclex!cullvax!dts
400 Blue Hill Drive ARPA: rclex!cullvax!d...@ll-xn.ARPA
Westwood, MA 02090-2198
Joel Swank
> aerospace labor rates, implys 9,300 employee-years of effort. This equates to
> 234 working lifetimes. This is how many human lives are consumed in the
> construction of an orbiter. If I were given the awful choice of having to
> waste the human lives spent building an Orbiter, or waste the lives of the
> crew, I would have to decide for the Orbiter.
>
> Dani Eder/Advanced Space Transportation/Boeing/ssc-vax!eder
This is an invalid comparison. The 234 lifetimes spent building the
Orbiter were not wasted, no matter what happens to the Orbiter. (At least
I don't think they were. Ask those involved if they feel their lives were
wasted.)
Joel Swank
Tektronix, Redmond, Oregon
David desJardins
writes:
>[with respect to choosing between the orbiter and the astronauts lives]
>
>your wife's life? or your children's?
I don't have a wife or children. And, of course, it would be insane
to put a person in that position into this situation. But, if I had to,
I would. And if it were *my* life I would feel the same way (as I noted,
I expect most of the astronauts would agree with me).
>And if you don't care, or consider it worth it, then you have no idea
>of the life-long agony that would torture the person who DID "push the
>button."
Certainly I care. That is not the point. Obviously the sort of
person who would be plagued with "life-long agony" would not be the
one put into this situation.
>I don't think I could bring myself to deliberately kill
>innocent people (their only crime is to be stuck in malfunctioning
>equipment), no matter how expensive that equipment is.
Maybe this is why you aren't a Range Safety Officer.
>Perhaps what the world needs is not more love but more empathy!
Or perhaps more intelligence and rationality (perish the thought!).
-- David desJardins
P.S. My faith in the intelligence of net news readers has been greatly
renewed by the many articles supporting my position, and offering many
intelligent justifications for this necessary attitude. Thank you all.
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX
The loss of the shuttle represents a 1.7 billion dollar hit on the treasury,
assuming it's worth that much to build a replacement. One could subtract
the value of what we learned directly from the 51-L loss, but I suspect
that's small compared to 1.7 billion.
A more logical issue would be, what other lives might that 1.7 billion have
saved had it not been needed to replace Challenger? I'm sure that one
can think of alternate ways to spend that 1.7 billion that would save not
7, but 70, 700 or more lives, be it AIDS research, aid to the Contras, or
whatever your politics suggest.
Even if the 1.7 billion magically appeared from heaven, the 1 to 2 year
delay in the space program might cost us an incredible number of lives.
One possible (if improbabale) scenario: the shuttle telescope detects a
comet or asteroid on collision course with Earth in time to allow
corrective action, but only if it is launched on the original schedule.
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX ...!tektronix!reed!omen!caf CIS:70715,131
Author of Professional-YAM communications Tools for PCDOS and Unix
Omen Technology Inc 17505-V NW Sauvie Island Road Portland OR 97231
Voice: 503-621-3406 TeleGodzilla: 621-3746 300/1200 L.sys entry for omen:
omen Any ACU 1200 1-503-621-3746 se:--se: link ord: Giznoid in:--in: uucp
omen!/usr/spool/uucppublic/FILES lists all uucp-able files, updated hourly
Paul V. Torek
>For the cost of potentially saving a few lives on the shuttle, it would be
>simple to save THOUSANDS of equally irreplacable lives. Perhaps even here
>in the US, if you are chauvanistic about it. Lives of people who are dying
>slowly and agonizingly, rather than in a brief flash.
Indeed, people who want human life to be treated as worth infinitely more
than any money have no case, precisely for this reason. Namely, money can
always be translated into human lives saved, and it never takes an infinite
amount of money to save one more life.
However, that said, I'm not sure that as a President faced with a choice
between saving the shuttle vs. saving the astronauts, I'd save the shuttle.
The people would feel an emotional commitment to save the astronauts, and
I think it would be an inherently good thing to express that commitment in
action. In other words, I am suggesting that it is worth a whole lot to
strengthen or at least not weaken that emotion. Of course, it would be even
better if that emotion were directed toward saving even more lives, but the
facts are otherwise.
Note that the above paragraph only applies to situations of choice between
relatively certain outcomes, not to risk evaluation. As a President or a
NASA director, I would treat the astronauts' lives as more valuable in an
actual crisis than I would in my design of safety systems. I do not think
this is at all irrational.
--Paul Torek torek@umich