Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!ucbvax!space
From: Gloger.es@XEROX.COM
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: "Long Term Implications of Challenger Accident"
Message-ID: <860210-065500-1155@Xerox>
Date: Mon, 10-Feb-86 02:30:00 EST
Article-I.D.: Xerox.860210-065500-1155
Posted: Mon Feb 10 02:30:00 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 12-Feb-86 06:45:51 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 21

Ed Turner made the coment that, "Much greater risks and losses [than
Challenger's] have been accepted for the initial exploration of all
historic frontiers ...."  "Piermarini" observed "... but do we stop the
manufacture of automobiles when there's an accident?"  I sympathize
entirely with the sentiments in these and many similar comments made in
this forum.

However, there seems here to be a staggering lack of recognition of the
terrible consequences of the fact that this particular "exploration of
frontiers" is being done by the government, that if the manufacture of
automobiles was done by the government then you could be sure that it
would be stopped whenever there's an accident.  You might say that then
there would be almost no automobiles, and you would be all too painfully
correct, as witness those parts of the world where automobiles are made
only by the government.

Does anybody remember the last time in history when a government
operation successfully "explored a historic frontier?"  Yeah, me
neither.

Paul Gloger