Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!qantel!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!rlgvax!hadron!netexa!elw From: elw@netexa.UUCP (E. L. Wiles) Newsgroups: net.columbia,net.philosophy Subject: Re: Escape tower for shuttle orbiter? Message-ID: <445@netexa.UUCP> Date: Thu, 27-Mar-86 11:41:05 EST Article-I.D.: netexa.445 Posted: Thu Mar 27 11:41:05 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 1-Apr-86 08:01:11 EST References: <9696@ucla-cs.ARPA> <588@qantel.UUCP> <2593@genat.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: NetExpress, Inc., Vienna, VA Lines: 31 Xref: watmath net.columbia:2750 net.philosophy:4814 > In article <12469@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> desj@brahms.UUCP (David desJardins) writes: ... > 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