Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!rutgers!clyde!cuae2!ihnp4!uniq!rjnoe From: rjnoe@uniq.UUCP (Roger J. Noe) Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle Subject: Re: Launching shuttles soon Message-ID: <137@uniq.UUCP> Date: Mon, 10-Nov-86 11:24:40 EST Article-I.D.: uniq.137 Posted: Mon Nov 10 11:24:40 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 11-Nov-86 02:14:14 EST References: <7254@utzoo.UUCP> <346@xios.UUCP> <7275@utzoo.UUCP> <1010@husc2.UUCP> <207@cartan.Berkeley.EDU> Sender: news@uniq.UUCP Organization: Uniq Digital Technologies, Batavia, IL Lines: 57 Summary: There's such a thing as an unnecessary risk. In article <207@cartan.Berkeley.EDU>, desj@brahms (David desJardins) writes: > In article <1132@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> jon@cit-vax.UUCP (Jon Leech) writes: > > The only qualified people (the current members of the Astronaut Corps) > >say they will be happy to fly it - as soon as the SRBs are understood, > >fixed, and tested (at least, this is what Sally Ride said in a talk she > >gave at Caltech last night). > > I find this very hard to believe. Certainly there was no problem with > finding people to fly on the first shuttle flight, with a *much* greater > risk than the 26th -- why would they suddenly not want to fly? Because there is a *known* problem which poses a serious hazard to flying the shuttle. A problem of this magnitude cannot go ignored, certainly not by those who have the privilege and responsibility of risking their lives as crew members. The most rational philosophy is to seek out and identify all the problems and potential problems we can find. Once those problems are known, solutions can be devised for them, within the limits of prac- ticality (time, money, available technology, so forth). Once this is done what remains are problems for which perfect solutions have not been found and unknown problems. We cannot do anything about unknown problems except to make a cautious effort to make them known problems. Again, we're faced with an issue of practicality; there's always going to be some risk but at some point we have to decide if we're going to assume that risk. Only one who is foolhardy would choose to ignore a known problem such as with the SRBs right now and say, "Sounds like an acceptable risk to me." Young and Crippen (and all the other astronauts who could have been chosen as the first two shuttle crew) believed they understood what could go wrong and what could be done about such problems. Certainly they knew that some problems were unsolvable and would result in loss of orbiter and crew. Those problems were undoubtedly given most careful consideration and the conclusion was such problems were unlikely in the extreme. The risk was deemed to be acceptable. Had they known about this SRB misfeature I would hope that they would have said the risk is unacceptable; let's do something about this problem first, then we'll fly. And that's what the astronauts seem to be saying now. > Finally, if the astronauts we have aren't willing to fly, then we > should be training some who are (whether or not shuttle flights are to > be resumed). > -- David desJardins Why don't we just get suicidal maniacs instead of astronauts? :-) Seriously, there is a big difference between bravery and stupidity. I think the astronauts who say they want to continue flying after the SRBs are fixed display a great deal of courage. I wouldn't want to fly with anyone so reckless as to propose resuming launch of shuttles without attempting to understand and fix the SRB problem. It's not that I don't think the goal is worth risking lives. Quite the contrary, I do think the risk is worthwhile and I'm willing to take that risk personally. But flying the shuttle now, without fixing the SRBs (at least!) first, is unconscionable. Should the tragedy repeat itself, the result would be a waste of human life. I cannot condone such a waste, whether the life at stake is mine or not. I hope there are not too many people who disagree. Roger Noe ihnp4!uniq!rjnoe -- "While chaotic and inane ramblings abound, [USENET] is quite popular." Communications of the ACM, vol. 29, no. 10 (Oct. 1986), p. 958.