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 noscvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!noscvax!rupp
From: rupp@noscvax.UUCP (William L. Rupp)
Newsgroups: net.columbia,net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Escape tower for shuttle orbiter?
Message-ID: <281@noscvax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 26-Mar-86 13:13:09 EST
Article-I.D.: noscvax.281
Posted: Wed Mar 26 13:13:09 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 28-Mar-86 08:18:34 EST
References: <9696@ucla-cs.ARPA> <588@qantel.UUCP> <2593@genat.UUCP> <11035@amdcad.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Lines: 52
Keywords: life vs. megabucks
Xref: watmath net.columbia:2719 net.philosophy:4727
Summary: The Cold Equations

In article <11035@amdcad.UUCP>, mike@amdcad.UUCP (Mike Parker) writes:
> In article <12610@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> desj@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
> 
> 
> to. Did you intend to put a smiley after this comment, please tell me
> you did.
> 
> Please tell me you didn't mean it.
> 
> 

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.)