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,net.philosophy Subject: Re: Escape tower for shuttle orbiter? Message-ID: <12469@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Date: Mon, 17-Mar-86 23:22:23 EST Article-I.D.: ucbvax.12469 Posted: Mon Mar 17 23:22:23 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 19-Mar-86 01:01:58 EST References: <9696@ucla-cs.ARPA> <588@qantel.UUCP> <12286@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <418@watcgl.UUCP> <2582@genat.UUCP> Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: desj@brahms.UUCP (David desJardins) Distribution: net Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 96 Xref: watmath net.columbia:2671 net.philosophy:4509 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? vgfranceschi@watcgl.UUCP (Valerio Franceschin) in <418@watcgl.UUCP>: >You don't sound callous, you sound like a neanderthal SAVAGE! Ugh! Ugh! :-) 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. 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. 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! 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 vgfranceschi@watcgl.UUCP (Valerio Franceschin) in <453@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? phoenix@genat.UUCP (phoenix) in <2582@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