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!ucbvax!brahms!desj
From: desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: net.columbia
Subject: Re: What price safety? (was: Escape tower for shuttle orbiter?)
Message-ID: <12388@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Fri, 14-Mar-86 19:37:27 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.12388
Posted: Fri Mar 14 19:37:27 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Mar-86 22:38:34 EST
References: <418@watcgl.UUCP> <627@bentley.UUCP> <2024@peora.UUCP> <635@bentley.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: desj@brahms.UUCP (David desJardins)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 44


>desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins) in <12286@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?

kwh@bentley.UUCP (Karl Heuer) in <627@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.

jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) in <2024@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 <635@bentley.UUCP> kwh@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