eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) (03/27/86)
>>>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? [interveneing reply deleted] > Yes, making another human being is less expensive than making a new shuttle > 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. > The Phoenix > (Neither Bright, Dark, nor Young) In the first message quoted above, you say that human lives are an irreplaceable resource. You also say in the second quoted message that making a human being is less expensive than making a new shuttle. I agree with you on both points, but not necessarily in the way you might think. The fact that a new Shuttle Orbiter costs about $1.7 billion , given aerospace labor rates, implys 9,300 employee-years of effort. This equates to 234 working lifetimes. This is how many human lives are consumed in the construction of an orbiter. If I were given the awful choice of having to waste the human lives spent building an Orbiter, or waste the lives of the crew, I would have to decide for the Orbiter. Dani Eder/Advanced Space Transportation/Boeing/ssc-vax!eder
joels@tekred.UUCP (Joel Swank) (03/28/86)
> The fact that a new Shuttle Orbiter costs about $1.7 billion , given > aerospace labor rates, implys 9,300 employee-years of effort. This equates to > 234 working lifetimes. This is how many human lives are consumed in the > construction of an orbiter. If I were given the awful choice of having to > waste the human lives spent building an Orbiter, or waste the lives of the > crew, I would have to decide for the Orbiter. > > Dani Eder/Advanced Space Transportation/Boeing/ssc-vax!eder This is an invalid comparison. The 234 lifetimes spent building the Orbiter were not wasted, no matter what happens to the Orbiter. (At least I don't think they were. Ask those involved if they feel their lives were wasted.) Joel Swank Tektronix, Redmond, Oregon