rdd@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) (02/28/90)
In article <8978@ingr.com> burnette@ingr.UUCP (Lesley Burnette) writes: >In article <1990Feb24.214254.9609@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes: >> >>And then they went and killed seven good people and wrecked a >>multi-billion dollar investment because a bunch of administrators and >>engineers managed to delude themselves into believing that their years >>of experience and multiple degrees were sufficient to overcome the >>laws of physics. And nobody went to jail for it. > >[...] So, my livelihood is greatly invested in the >space program and its continuance. > >I hope that all of you, and especially Mr. Starr realize just all that is >involved in the space missions. I am not saying that the shuttle disaster was >not preventable (it was - a Rockwell engineer warned that the extreme cold >would be too dangerous for the SRBs), but the fact that in 25 years only 10 >people have been killed is statistically incredible. Statistics have nothing to do with it. NASA has pushed a myth of a high-level "safety culture" for a number of years. They actively propagated the concept of "routine" space-flights with commercial payloads; such a mentality likely contributed to the Challenger disaster. The Challenger incident showed that *high-level* concerns for safety were rather superfluous, that NASA is, indeed, just another Federal bureaucracy. A number of us found that quite dis- tressing, considering all the pro-NASA propaganda we've been fed the last 30 years. The issue is one of misrepresentation, that NASA is not, in fact, capable of effectively managing the "large amount of effort," you refer to, in a safe and reliable manner. >Why don't people get upset >when 250 people die in a plane crash because of faulty maintenance? Why don't >they call for an end to air travel as they did to space travel? A number of us *do* get rather concerned when airplanes crash. Ever hear of the Meteor? DC-10? A320? Critical reasons to get *more* upset when a space shuttle crashes is that one space shuttle tends to cost the equivalent of 40 Boeing 747's, plus immeasurable national prestige. We cannot afford a hit-and-miss safety culture with that type of investment. If the United States cannot pull off a reusable orbiter program safely (and remember that, by the time Shuttle was actually put into service, numerous components were obsolete), it should revert to expendable boosters (as, indeed, the Air Force is doing). >The benefits >of space exploration far outway the risks which our brave astronauts (including >civilian personell) KNOWINGLY take. The benefits of space exploration do not necessarily require the *prestige* component of placing human beings in space. Unmanned probes can carry out much of the work; robotics can handle the rest. The question to ask is whether the tiny percentage of work that human beings *must* be used for outweighs the expense of putting them in space, and the risks associated with it. >When an accident does >happen, suddenly all these arm chair astronauts are jumping up and down yelling >about things they know NOTHING about or are only hearing about from the VERY >LIBERAL media. That comment makes no sense. What does the political orientation of the media have to do with wholesale incompetance? Yes, it brings a tear to everyone's eye when one considers the tens of thousands of contractors whose lives depend on Federal dollars, but that's hardly an argument in of itself to shield the program from hard examination. Your attitude is *anti-safety*. >Thanks for reading, sorry for rambling on so, but you know how it is when your >whole livelihood is up on the chopping block! Yes, we certainly know how important it is to spread propaganda in order to protect one's "livelihood," all right! Robert Dorsett Internet: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu UUCP: ...cs.utexas.edu!rascal.ics.utexas.edu!rdd
lmann@jjmhome.UUCP (Laurie Mann) (03/01/90)
In article <25235@ut-emx.UUCP>, rdd@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) writes: > Yes, we certainly know how important it is to spread propaganda in order to > protect one's "livelihood," all right! Oh, come on now! All we pro-spacers are merely "spreading propaganda?" The Challenger incident was heartbreaking for me on more levels than I'd care to admit to here. However, if given the chance to ride a space shuttle, even knowing there might be something like a 1 in 25 chance I wouldn't come back, I'd STILL wanna go! Space travel is an adventure. And it shouldn't just be open to the WASP test pilots of the early '60s. It's an adventure that should be open to any of us willing to try. It's relatively safe, though it sure isn't as safe as sitting at home and hacking on the net. I believe it's worth the risk. Where would we be now if Columbus stayed home? Leif Erickson? Rogers & Clark? Should there be no adventures because risk is "unsafe?" *** Laurie Mann ** harvard!m2c!jjmhome!lmann ** lmann%jjmhome@m2c.m2c.org *** *** Work like hell *** Tell everyone everything you know *** *** Close a deal with a handshake *** Have fun *** *** Harold (Doc) Edgerton 1903-1990 ***