wales@ucla-cs.UUCP (03/07/86)
Much of the following may be "brainstorming". I wouldn't be surprised at all if the engineers have already thought of everything I say in this message and dismissed it as infeasible. But, just in case it might be useful . . . . How about attaching an "escape tower" to the shuttle orbiter? An escape tower, as I understand it, is an auxiliary rocket attached to the front of the orbiter, which would be used in an emergency to allow the orbiter to get away from a dangerous situation. I believe they have been used in various American and Soviet "space capsule" missions. Presumably, an escape tower could allow an abort (currently impossible) during the SRB burn phase. By supplying a secondary, independent thrust source, it could also make an abort more likely to be survivable if a premature ET separation were required after SRB burnout (between about 2 and 9 minutes after liftoff). An escape tower could even allow an abort during the earliest stages of liftoff, if I understand the principle. An escape-tower rocket would have to be powerful enough to provide an acceleration (to the orbiter alone) significantly greater than that pro- vided by the SME's and SRB's to the entire launch vehicle (including ET's and SRB's). Less acceleration would not allow the orbiter to detach from the ET with the SRB's still burning. The escape-tower rocket would not have to last nearly as long as the SME's and SRB's, of course -- though in order to allow an abort from the launch pad, the escape tower would have to last long enough so that the shuttle could reach an airworthy speed and perform a successful RTLS abort. Presumably, the escape tower could use a solid rocket -- since it would be possible, I assume, to jettison it at any time. The self-destruct system on the launch vehicle would obviously have to allow destruction of the ET and/or the SRB's without destroying the escape tower. There is the issue of how to keep the exhaust from the escape-tower rocket from damaging the orbiter (or the tower connecting the rocket to the orbiter). I assume, though, that this problem is already well un- derstood, from experience with earlier space missions. The physical connections between the orbiter and the ET would have to be redesigned so as to allow a quick disconnect upon activation of the escape tower. There is also the significant question of how to detach the umbilicals feeding the SME's in such a way that the orbiter could get away before leaking LH/LOX caused an explosion of its own. I suppose the nozzle of the escape-tower rocket would have to be gim- balled (under control of the orbiter's computers). Obviously, even an escape tower would not help if there were no advance warning of a disaster. However, it would seem that an accident such as that which befell Challenger could have been detected in time for an escape-tower abort, with additional sensors and/or real-time monitoring. Comments? -- Rich Wales // UCLA Computer Science Department // +1 213-825-5683 3531 Boelter Hall // Los Angeles, California 90024 // USA ARPA: wales@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU -or- wales@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA UUCP: ...!(ucbvax,ihnp4)!ucla-cs!wales
lynx@qantel.UUCP (D.N. Lynx Crowe@ex2207) (03/08/86)
Re: The escape tower idea It wouldn't be necessary to have the entire orbiter be detached from the ET and SRB's, just the crew compartment. The main problem with this, I think, would be in making the crew compartment separable from the rest of the orbiter. A much smaller escape tower motor could then be used. D.N. Lynx Crowe "Governments should be considered guilty until proven otherwise."
desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins) (03/09/86)
In article <588@qantel.UUCP> lynx@qantel.UUCP (D.N. Lynx Crowe@ex2207) writes: > >It wouldn't be necessary to have the entire orbiter be detached from the >ET and SRB's, just the crew compartment. The main problem with this, I >think, would be in making the crew compartment separable from the rest >of the orbiter. A much smaller escape tower motor could then be used. I hate to sound callous, but I don't see the point of all of this just to save the crew. If you could save the orbiter, that would be great, but you are talking about something that has got to cost hundreds of millions of dollars just to save the crew. Doesn't this seem a trifle excessive? -- David desJardins
vgfranceschi@watcgl.UUCP (Valerio Franceschin) (03/10/86)
> In article <588@qantel.UUCP> lynx@qantel.UUCP (D.N. Lynx Crowe@ex2207) writes: > > > >It wouldn't be necessary to have the entire orbiter be detached from the > >ET and SRB's, just the crew compartment. The main problem with this, I > >think, would be in making the crew compartment separable from the rest > >of the orbiter. A much smaller escape tower motor could then be used. > > I hate to sound callous, but I don't see the point of all of this just > to save the crew. If you could save the orbiter, that would be great, but > you are talking about something that has got to cost hundreds of millions > of dollars just to save the crew. Doesn't this seem a trifle excessive? > > -- David desJardins You don't sound callous, you sound like a neanderthal SAVAGE! Valerio Franceschin
holloway@drivax.UUCP (Bruce Holloway) (03/10/86)
That'd have to be one h**l of a rocket to lift the orbiter far. Anyways, the orbiter is at least slightly maneuverable, whereas the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo capsules weren't. Assuming that the orbiter could get away from the boosters, it should be able to use its airfoils to correct its position.... .... now THERE's an idea -- a rocket used specifically to get the orbiter as far away as possible from the boosters? Something like using the entire orbiter as an ejection seat? But could it get far enough away in time? Hmmm... -- +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Whatever I write are not the opinions or policies of Digital Research, Inc.,| |and probably won't be in the foreseeable future. | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Bruce Holloway ....!ucbvax!hplabs!amdahl!drivax!holloway (I'm not THAT Bruce Holloway, I'm the other one.)
ronc@fai.UUCP (Ronald O. Christian) (03/10/86)
In article <322@drivax.UUCP> holloway@drivax.UUCP (Bruce Holloway) writes: >That'd have to be one h**l of a rocket to lift the orbiter far. Anyways, the >orbiter is at least slightly maneuverable, whereas the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo >capsules weren't... *** It occurs to me that the orbiter has a really nice rocket already built in. Only needs a fuel source other than the external tank. Perhaps the shuttle itself should carry enough fuel for emergency manuvers should it have to jettison the external tank? Or has this been suggested before? Since the engines are already firing, this would involve switching the shuttle fuel source to internal, detach from the tank, then steering the shuttle away from the SRB/tank (and the SRB's away from the shuttle). The downside would be that this would decrease the payload capacity of the shuttle. And I understand the shuttle already carries less payload to lower orbits than was intended. Besides, I have a feeling that even this capability would not have helped the Challenger. Ron -- -- Ronald O. Christian (Fujitsu America Inc., San Jose, Calif.) ihnp4!pesnta!fai!ronc Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: "If you are seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it."
kwh@bentley.UUCP (KW Heuer) (03/11/86)
In article <418@watcgl.UUCP> wwatcgl!vgfranceschi (Valerio Franceschin) writes: [ David desJardins writes: ] >> I hate to sound callous, but I don't see the point of all of this just >> to save the crew. If you could save the orbiter, that would be great, but >> you are talking about something that has got to cost hundreds of millions >> of dollars just to save the crew. Doesn't this seem a trifle excessive? >You don't sound callous, you sound like a neanderthal SAVAGE! Do you have airbags in your car? If not, would you pay a million dollars to have them installed? They do save lives.
phoenix@genat.UUCP (phoenix) (03/12/86)
In article <418@watcgl.UUCP> vgfranceschi@watcgl.UUCP (Valerio Franceschin) writes: >> In article <588@qantel.UUCP> lynx@qantel.UUCP (D.N. Lynx Crowe@ex2207) writes: >> > >> >It wouldn't be necessary to have the entire orbiter be detached from the >> >ET and SRB's, just the crew compartment. The main problem with this, I >> >think, would be in making the crew compartment separable from the rest >> >of the orbiter. A much smaller escape tower motor could then be used. >> >> I hate to sound callous, but I don't see the point of all of this just >> to save the crew. If you could save the orbiter, that would be great, but >> you are talking about something that has got to cost hundreds of millions >> of dollars just to save the crew. Doesn't this seem a trifle excessive? >> >> -- David desJardins > >You don't sound callous, you sound like a neanderthal SAVAGE! > >Valerio Franceschin 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? -- The Phoenix (Neither Bright, Dark, nor Young) ---"A man should live forever...or die trying." ---"There is no substitute for good manners...except fast reflexes."
rsk@pucc-j (Wombat) (03/13/86)
>> In article <588@qantel.UUCP> lynx@qantel.UUCP (D.N. Lynx Crowe@ex2207) writes: >>> >>>It wouldn't be necessary to have the entire orbiter be detached from the >>>ET and SRB's, just the crew compartment. The main problem with this, I >>>think, would be in making the crew compartment separable from the rest >>>of the orbiter. A much smaller escape tower motor could then be used. Good point. Several of us around here speculated on the problem of pulling the entire orbiter away from the booster package, and concluded that there didn't seem to be a reasonable way to do it. A detachable crew compartment carries its own engineering problems, of course (for instance, ensuring that it doesn't detach until you want it to) but the same sort of escape towers used on previous manned missions should be adequate for the job. One consideration which caused us considerable speculation was the effect of the "roll" (performed shortly after launch) on an attempted escape via such a tower. Perhaps someone conversant in the aerodynamics involved could comment on whether or not this would be a problem? Now then; we also have this exchange: David desJardins: > I hate to sound callous, but I don't see the point of all of this just > to save the crew. If you could save the orbiter, that would be great, but > you are talking about something that has got to cost hundreds of millions > of dollars just to save the crew. Doesn't this seem a trifle excessive? > Valerio Franceschin: >You don't sound callous, you sound like a neanderthal SAVAGE! Actually, this kind of cost-vs-human-lives thinking goes on all the time; it's just that we don't think about it a lot, or we don't easily admit thinking about it. Failure to put a cap on the funds spent on astronaut safety, for instance, would result in an astronomical (sorry) amount of money being spent. It would probably also spell the end of the space program--since one can never be 100.0% sure that the astronauts would be safe. [Think about this in terms of bicycle engineering, for instance, to gain some perspective.] *IF* the people at NASA do their job, and are competent engineers and physicists, then the amount of money and effort expended on safety is enough to reach the point of diminishing returns -- and perhaps cross over it, just a bit. The question to be answered here (if, say, an escape tower system would cost $100 million) is: "Is the added margin of safety worth $100 million?". Of course, the people that have to answer this are NASA officials, scientists, engineers -- and the astronauts. Note that there is always the possible that the installation of such a system might actually make the spacecraft *less safe*. This problem falls in the domain of risk analysis and safety engineering, not in that of emotional moralizing. -- Rich Kulawiec pucc-j!rsk or rsk@asc.purdue.edu
wagner@utcs.uucp (Michael Wagner) (03/13/86)
I'm not sure I liked the approach, but a recent issue of FORTUNE came up with several ways of assessing the value of life. It was phrased in terms of how much people value their own lives, i.e. how much people will protect themselvesby using protective or safety gear. I think the number they came up with was about one million $ U.S. per person with a very high variance. Sorry, I don't have the article here to check. Michael Wagner (wagner@utcs)
timothym@tekigm2.UUCP (Timothy D Margeson) (03/13/86)
In article <627@bentley.UUCP> kwh@bentley.UUCP (KW Heuer) writes: >In article <418@watcgl.UUCP> wwatcgl!vgfranceschi (Valerio Franceschin) writes: >[ David desJardins writes: ] >>> I hate to sound callous, but I don't see the point of all of this just >>> to save the crew. If you could save the orbiter, that would be great, but >>> you are talking about something that has got to cost hundreds of millions >>> of dollars just to save the crew. Doesn't this seem a trifle excessive? > >>You don't sound callous, you sound like a neanderthal SAVAGE! > >Do you have airbags in your car? If not, would you pay a million dollars >to have them installed? They do save lives. Hear hear for the airbags. I don't have cause they arn't offered for my car, so I use what I do have... the belts. Toodles.... -- Tim Margeson (206)253-5240 tektronix!tekigm2!timothym @@ 'Who said that?' PO Box 3500 d/s C1-465 Vancouver, WA. 98665
jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (03/13/86)
> Do you have airbags in your car? If not, would you pay a million dollars > to have them installed? They do save lives. I think this analogy is fallacious. It would make more sense to take the ratio (cost of shuttle safety mechanism) / (cost of shuttle) = r and then multiply r * (cost of car)... you could then ask if the person is willing to pay that much. The reason is that a person's individual budget is much smaller than NASA's, and arguing that a person wouldn't be willing (or more accurately, able) to pay "millions" for car airbags has little to do with NASA paying "millions" for additional shuttle safety -- they've already started doing that anyway, with the redesign of the o-rings. [Besides which airbags tend to be an emotional issue for some people, and thus it's not clear whether a person would be willing to pay for something the person is afraid may frighten the person by going off.] -- E. Roskos
desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins) (03/18/86)
desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins) in <12286@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>: > I hate to sound callous, but I don't see the point of all of this just >to save the crew. If you could save the orbiter, that would be great, but >you are talking about something that has got to cost hundreds of millions >of dollars just to save the crew. Doesn't this seem a trifle excessive? vgfranceschi@watcgl.UUCP (Valerio Franceschin) in <418@watcgl.UUCP>: >You don't sound callous, you sound like a neanderthal SAVAGE! Ugh! Ugh! :-) kwh@bentley.UUCP (Karl Heuer) in <627@bentley.UUCP>: >Do you have airbags in your car? If not, would you pay a million dollars >to have them installed? They do save lives. Yes. Exactly right. People are free to choose the value of their own lives. Of necessity, they assign a finite value to their own lives (other- wise the risk of crossing the street would be unacceptable!). The astro- nauts have made the decision that the value of their lives is not too great to risk on the shuttle. jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) in <2024@peora.UUCP>: >I think this analogy is fallacious. It would make more sense to take the >ratio (cost of shuttle safety mechanism) / (cost of shuttle) = r >and then multiply r * (cost of car)... you could then ask if the person is >willing to pay that much. The reason is that a person's individual budget >is much smaller than NASA's ... NO! One life is one life. Why is an astronaut's life so much more valuable than the life of any other person? And, if the shuttle were twice as expensive, how could this possibly make the astronaut's lives twice as valuable?? desj@brahms (David desJardins): > Actually, the point I was trying to make is that we must place a finite > value on safety; just because something will save lives does not mean it vgfranceschi@watcgl.UUCP (Valerio Franceschin) in <453@watcgl.UUCP>: >So why didn't you say that instead of providing that blatantly fallacious >analogy? I'm glad it was someone else and not I that pointed it out. It's not my analogy, but I stand by it 100%. What is the "blatant fallacy" to which you refer? >Of course cost-vs-safety factors have to be considered, NASA has a limited >budget. What ticked me off about David's posting is his suggestion that >the orbiter is more precious than "just the crew." This is the same kind >of criminal mentality employed by nuclear strategists when they talk of >10 million casualties during a nuclear exchange to be "acceptable." I'm >sorry but I value human life and I find this reasoning to be repulsive. >I stand by my original comment! It seems to me that when you admit that cost-vs-safety factors must be considered, you have admitted the validity of my point of view. You must fix some value on saving the lives of the crew (how otherwise can you weigh cost against safety!?). For the sake of discussion I will propose a value of $10M. But the actual number is not important. What is important is that it is finite. I happen to believe it should be (substantially) less than the replacement cost of the orbiter. Maybe you disagree (if you wish, we can discuss this point once we have resolved the main point). The point is, that if the orbiter becomes more and more expensive, eventually it becomes worth more than the lives of the crew. Is this not clear? The crew is not more valuable just because it is riding in a more expensive vehicle! As for your statement about nuclear war: obviously the meaning of the word "acceptable" depends on the alternatives. I think it is acceptable if the alternative is destruction of all life on Earth. Truman thought (and I agree) that dropping nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was acceptable when the alternative was a full-scale invasion of Japan. Is it an acceptable alternative to Soviet world domination (not that this is necessarily the choice)? I think it is, again you may disagree. If you find rational consideration of the alternatives "repulsive," how do you think our country should make strategic decisions? phoenix@genat.UUCP (phoenix) in <2582@genat.UUCP>: >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? "Life, human or otherwise, is not [replaceable]." I'm not quite sure how to respond to this statement, because it doesn't make any sense. Of course human (and other) life is replaceable; people die and are replaced all of the time. "The contribution of the crew is unique, not to be replaceable by computers or remote control." True. Neither can the orbiter be replaced by extra crew members. What is the point? Please clarify what you are trying to say so I can respond to it... -- David desJardins
phoenix@genat.UUCP (phoenix) (03/19/86)
In article <12469@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> desj@brahms.UUCP (David desJardins) writes: >> I hate to sound callous, but I don't see the point of all of this just >>to save the crew. If you could save the orbiter, that would be great, but >>you are talking about something that has got to cost hundreds of millions >>of dollars just to save the crew. Doesn't this seem a trifle excessive? > > >>Of course cost-vs-safety factors have to be considered, NASA has a limited >>budget. What ticked me off about David's posting is his suggestion that >>the orbiter is more precious than "just the crew." This is the same kind >>of criminal mentality employed by nuclear strategists when they talk of >>10 million casualties during a nuclear exchange to be "acceptable." I'm >>sorry but I value human life and I find this reasoning to be repulsive. >>I stand by my original comment! > > If you find rational consideration of the alternatives "repulsive," >how do you think our country should make strategic decisions? > >phoenix@genat.UUCP (phoenix) in <2582@genat.UUCP>: >>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? > > "Life, human or otherwise, is not [replaceable]." I'm not quite sure >how to respond to this statement, because it doesn't make any sense. Of >course human (and other) life is replaceable; people die and are replaced >all of the time. > "The contribution of the crew is unique, not to be replaceable by >computers or remote control." True. Neither can the orbiter be replaced >by extra crew members. What is the point? > Please clarify what you are trying to say so I can respond to it... > > -- David desJardins What I was trying to say (tell-me-twice), is that Life is ideosyncratic; that is, each living being (human, sentient, or otherwise) is different from all other living beings: like snowflakes. It is this diversity of life that cannot be duplicated. Generally speaking, each machine (no matter how expensive) is, to all intents and purposes, identical to all other machines of the same type (yes, I know that they can come with different paint jobs...:-); I'm talking *significant* differences), and at any time more can be built to exactly the same requirements as earlier one's were. 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. 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, Be seeing you, -- The Phoenix (Neither Bright, Dark, nor Young) ---"A man should live forever...or die trying." ---"There is no substitute for good manners...except fast reflexes."
desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins) (03/24/86)
In article <2593@genat.UUCP> phoenix@genat.UUCP () writes: >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? 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
mike@amdcad.UUCP (Mike Parker) (03/25/86)
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 I had sworn off posting the the net, but this just *has* to be responded to. Did you intend to put a smiley after this comment, please tell me you did. Money is trash ( ask Reagan, or just look at his deficit spending ) we just print it, if a shuttle is so valuable, we print x billion dollars and make one. Memories and human relationships are not replaceable, the price of 100 shuttles will never make what happened right with the children of those astronauts. Can you imagine telling their husbands and wives that you really wanted to save them, but it would have destroyed your expensive toy? Please tell me you didn't mean it. Mike -- UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!mike ARPA: amdcad!mike@decwrl.dec.com
phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (03/25/86)
In article <11035@amdcad.UUCP> mike@amdcad.UUCP (Mike Parker) writes: >Money is trash ( ask Reagan, or just look at his deficit spending ) we just >print it, if a shuttle is so valuable, we print x billion dollars and make >one. Memories and human relationships are not replaceable, the price of I don't believe you can print money at will indefinitely. I also don't believe money is trash. Among other things, money is a measure of the amount of time human beings have to spend to build something. Why is it better for 10,000 Rockwell workers to spend their lives constructing an Orbiter to be thrown away to save seven lives? This reminds me of the argument against 55 MPH's supposed safety advantage. Although your expected lifetime may be increased because your chances of dying in an auto accident may be reduced, the number of useful hours in your expected lifetime may be reduced if you have to spend many more hours behind the wheel of your car. It could be the same with the Space Shuttle. If we sacrifice an Orbiter to save the astronauts, society gains 7 * 50 man years at a cost of (random numbers here) 10,000 * 5 man years. Is 350 > 50,000? Perhaps. The astronauts were among the best our society has. But don't assume that human lives are not invested in each Orbiter we build or that money is trash. -- "Welcome to the Hotel California... You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave." Phil Ngai +1 408 749 5720 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.com
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (03/25/86)
> > 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 > > Money is trash ( ask Reagan, or just look at his deficit spending ) we just > print it, if a shuttle is so valuable, we print x billion dollars and make > one. Memories and human relationships are not replaceable, the price of > 100 shuttles will never make what happened right with the children of those > astronauts. Can you imagine telling their husbands and wives that you really > wanted to save them, but it would have destroyed your expensive toy? I really don't know how much a shuttle costs offhand. But I know it costs more than just running some large printing presses for a few weeks, as you imply. It takes an investment of human time to create a shuttle. Assuming that a shuttle costs 1 billion dollars, and that it was assembled by professionals making an average of $30/hr. The shuttle then costs 370 human-lifetimes of work. Suppose terrorists kidnapped the astronauts and demanded 370 professional- human-lifetimes of work. Even if they wanted it in 16,000 easy 1-professional- human-year of work installments, would you volunteer to be one of those 16,000 people? Would your answer be any different when some other terrorists kidnapped 5 people you'd never heard of and made the same demands? Would your answer be any different if you found out that only 369 other professionals would volunteer and that you'd all have to invest your entire lifetimes in order to ransom the kidnappees? Somehow, trading 370 lives for 5 doesn't make too much sense to me. > > Please tell me you didn't mean it. > > Mike > > -- > UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!mike > ARPA: amdcad!mike@decwrl.dec.com *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j
john@frog.UUCP (John Woods, Software) (03/25/86)
> >> >... A much smaller escape tower motor could then be used. > >> I hate to sound callous, but ... Doesn't this seem a trifle excessive? > >You don't sound callous, you sound like a neanderthal SAVAGE! > The point is, that orbiters, though expensive are REPLACEABLE: Life, human > or otherwise, is not... > -- > The Phoenix > ---"A man should live forever...or die trying." Speaking as a Neanderthal SAVAGE here, the humans, though unique, are replacable as astronauts. To assign them an infinite value not only scraps the Shuttle, it scraps every conceivable activity, for no conceivable activity can have its risk reduced to zero. In the case of the Shuttle, you have astronauts willing to "die trying...to live forever" (to twist your .signature) because the Shuttle is a tool for learning things about a goal they strongly believe in. This is not to say that safety measures (yea, verily, even escape towers) are out of place -- if the Shuttle hardly worked at all, and killed 8 crews in 10, there would be scarcely anything that the Shuttle could teach which would be worth the loss. However, a safety measure which costs a great deal and offers only a tiny extra margin of safety (which an escape tower on the Shuttle appears to me to be, though I am quite willing to listen to engineering testimony to the contrary) just isn't worth the cost. -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA This space dedicated to Challenger and her crew, Francis R. Scobee, Michael J. Smith, Ellison S. Onizuka, Judith Resnik, Ronald E. McNair, Gregory B. Jarvis, and Christa McAuliffe. "...and slipped the surly bonds of Earth to touch the face of God."
wmartin@brl-smoke.ARPA (Will Martin ) (03/25/86)
In article <2593@genat.UUCP> phoenix@genat.UUCP () writes: >What I was trying to say (tell-me-twice), is that Life is ideosyncratic; >that is, each living being (human, sentient, or otherwise) is different >from all other living beings: like snowflakes. It is this diversity of >life that cannot be duplicated. Of course this is true -- each individual is unique -- but it has no bearing on the question at hand, which is the relative values *to the space program* [that is, in that limited context] of the equipment and the personnel. To their spouses or families, each astronaut is unique and irreplaceable; their loss is a tragedy which cannot be overcome. To the space program, it becomes a matter of many factors, usually including such things as the size of the available manpower pool, the length of time training requires, the cost and difficulty of such training, etc. Thee is no question that losing people is a terrible blow in many aspects, having much wider effects than just the loss of the investment in their time and training, so we take more precautions and expend more efforts to preserve life than we would if the decision was purely and simply an economic one. However, in the long run, you have to operate on the expectation that people will become no longer available, due to various factors (getting sick, dying in accidents [even auto accidents & etc. unrelated to their jobs], changing their minds and quitting, whatever). So you have a larger pool of people than you have an immediate requirement for, and try to have enough of them functionally interchangeable so that you can pick out replacements when you need to. In this light, the astronauts are no different than you and I -- the organizations and projects of which we are a part will likely go on despite something happening to us. If I get flattened by a truck outside the office building tonight, there will be some period of a degree of chaos as a result, until a new person takes over my job and things settle back, but the organization will persist. Because my replacement is not identical to me, there will be some degree of difference in minor details, but it really will not matter. In my relationship to the organization, those qualities that make me unique normally do not make much difference. I can be replaced, as far as the organization is concerned. (Now, if this was not a government agency, but was a sole- proprietorship small business, I probably *would* be irreplaceable. But that is a different situation.) Will
bl@hplabsb.UUCP (Bruce T. Lowerre) (03/26/86)
Let's assume that there were an escape mechanism for the shuttle crew, would the Challenger crew be alive today? The explosion was unexpected, the failure undetected, and the SNAFU still unexplained. What sensors could possibly give sufficient warning?
desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins) (03/26/86)
In article <11035@amdcad.UUCP> mike@amdcad.UUCP (Mike Parker) 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 > >I had sworn off posting the the net, but this just *has* to be responded >to. Did you intend to put a smiley after this comment, please tell me >you did. >... Can you imagine telling their husbands and wives that you really >wanted to save them, but it would have destroyed your expensive toy? >... Please tell me you didn't mean it. Yes, I mean it. I have no reservations at all. If it was my finger on the button I would push it with no hesitation. And yes, I would tell them that the orbiter was more important than the astronaut's lives. I think most of them would agree. Maybe that is too optimistic of me, but certainly I think the astronauts themselves would agree. -- David desJardins
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (03/26/86)
Keywords: 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. > >I had sworn off posting the the net, but this just *has* to be responded >to. Did you intend to put a smiley after this comment, please tell me >you did. He may not be joking... I came to conclusions similar to his, starting with the premise that money is not a good standard for measuring value (because of inflation, among other things). People often work at dangerous jobs for money... for that matter, if you cross the street on your way to work you're risking your life for money. This can only make sense if you believe that the money is worth the risk to your life, ie. that the money is worth more to you than the safety of staying on your side of the street. The only way you can compare the value of two things as dissimilar as money and risk of life is to somehow convert them to a common unit of measurement. The only common unit I could think of was the hour. When you work, you sacrifice the hours you spend working in return for money. Your hope is that the money will enable you, by buying food etc., to extend your lifespan by more than the amount of time you've spent working. (This is what I mean by saying "money is time", up there in the summary line.) It might be reasonable to risk your life for money if the probability of dying immediately multiplied by your remaining life expectancy is less than the increase in lifespan you can expect if you survive your gamble. Now, about the shuttle... somebody posted an estimate of its value at 4,000,000,000 dollars. Suppose that the people who worked to produce the shuttle (and all its components) were paid an average of 100 dollars/hour for the amount of their lives they've sacrificed -- an unrealistically high estimate, I think. This means that the shuttle cost 40,000,000 hours of human life. Seven astronauts, assuming they each have 100 years of life left -- this is generous -- have a total of only 6,100,000 hours. So losing a shuttle is actually a greater loss of human life than losing the astronauts on board. -- David Canzi "Offending with substance since 1985"
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (03/26/86)
In article <11035@amdcad.UUCP> mike@amdcad.UUCP (Mike Parker) writes: > ... Memories and human relationships are not replaceable, the price of > 100 shuttles will never make what happened right with the children of those > astronauts. Can you imagine telling their husbands and wives that you really > wanted to save them, but it would have destroyed your expensive toy? For the cost of potentially saving a few lives on the shuttle, it would be simple to save THOUSANDS of equally irreplacable lives. Perhaps even here in the US, if you are chauvanistic about it. Lives of people who are dying slowly and agonizingly, rather than in a brief flash. Lives can be assigned values actuarily. If I am given a choice of where to spend money to save lives, I'm damn well not going to fling it at the first person to come weepy-eyed to me about "irreplacable lives". -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
rupp@noscvax.UUCP (William L. Rupp) (03/26/86)
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.)
rupp@noscvax.UUCP (William L. Rupp) (03/26/86)
In my response to Parker, I wrongly attributed desJardin's viewpoint to him. Sorry about that... I stand by my posting in all other respects.
dick@ucsfcca.UUCP (Dick Karpinski) (03/26/86)
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. > >Money is trash ( ask Reagan, or just look at his deficit spending ) we just >print it, if a shuttle is so valuable, we print x billion dollars and make >one. Memories and human relationships are not replaceable, the price of >100 shuttles will never make what happened right with the children of those Come on, sir! Money is lives. One megabuck is roughly one career. And all big projects have deaths associated with them. Feel free to establish your own country/religion/philosophy which takes as an article of faith that human life is worth infinite dollars, but I shall choose to live elsewhere. Every time I make a decision to risk crossing the street, I am balancing the savings (in dollars if you like) against the risk of MY life. To value life beyond megabucks is to live in a bomb shelter with guard dogs etc. That is: silly. Still, I would be uncomfortable about pulling that switch. It takes time and effort to make rational choices. Neither is required to make sloppy or sentimental ones. Dick -- Dick Karpinski Manager of Unix Services, UCSF Computer Center UUCP: ...!ucbvax!ucsfcgl!cca.ucsf!dick (415) 476-4529 (12-7) BITNET: dick@ucsfcca Compuserve: 70215,1277 Telemail: RKarpinski USPS: U-76 UCSF, San Francisco, CA 94143
vgfranceschi@watcgl.UUCP (Valerio Franceschin) (03/27/86)
> In article <11035@amdcad.UUCP> mike@amdcad.UUCP (Mike Parker) 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 > > > Yes, I mean it. I have no reservations at all. If it was my finger > on the button I would push it with no hesitation. > And yes, I would tell them that the orbiter was more important than > the astronaut's lives. I think most of them would agree. Maybe that is > too optimistic of me, but certainly I think the astronauts themselves > would agree. > > -- David desJardins I read the original posting several days ago and at the time I decided to restrain myself and not reply to it. My feeling is that it would be futile to try to reason with such a mentality. I accept the fact that there are many people out there who have absolutely no sense of decency, that's why our world is in such a mess. I've now decided that I can't just let this go by. I want to say to you, Mr. desJardins, and the (hopefully few) others like you, that I hope you are never in a position to make such life and death decisions. If you are, I hope the family and friends of the people you let die "with no hesitation" come ringing at your door. Then you can try to justify your murderous act to them. You can also try to explain it to me and to the rest of the country. I think you know what my response would be. And despite your "optimism", I think most people would agree with such a response. For those of you who are all ready to ramble on about cost-vs-safety, this has got nothing to do with what I'm talking about here. Spend a couple of moments and try to see that. Valerio Franceschin
GOT@PSUVMA.BITNET (03/27/86)
If saving the orbiter is of prime concern, then wouldn't it make sense that
the crew would be saved along with it? Why would any trade-off exist?
Sunil Gupta
GOT@PSUVMA
S2G@PSUECL
elw@netexa.UUCP (E. L. Wiles) (03/27/86)
> 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
bane@parcvax.Xerox.COM (John R. Bane) (03/27/86)
In article <12665@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins) writes: >[with respect to choosing between the orbiter and the astronauts lives] > Yes, I mean it. I have no reservations at all. If it was my finger > on the button I would push it with no hesitation. > And yes, I would tell them that the orbiter was more important than > the astronaut's lives. I think most of them would agree. Maybe that is > too optimistic of me, but certainly I think the astronauts themselves > would agree. > -- David desJardins ... and what if it was YOUR life and someone else's finger? or maybe your wife's life? or your children's? And if you don't care, or consider it worth it, then you have no idea of the life-long agony that would torture the person who DID "push the button." I don't think I could bring myself to deliberately kill innocent people (their only crime is to be stuck in malfunctioning equipment), no matter how expensive that equipment is. Perhaps what the world needs is not more love but more empathy! - rene
rupp@noscvax.UUCP (William L. Rupp) (03/27/86)
I believe some interesting and useful discussion of the relative value of human life and the product of human effort has appeared in this group. Unfortunately, some of the rhetoric has verged close to invective and repetition. Can't we all agree on the following and move on? 1. The loss of Challenger AND crew was a tragedy of major proportions. 2. While monetary considerations are important when discussing groups, it is senseless to talk of placing a monetary value on any single human life. 3. With limited resources, choices must be made with respect to how many of those resources will be spent on a given project to decrease the probability of accidents. 4. Those choices will not always, in hindsight, turn out to have been wise. 5. The space program should be forward, perhaps with some new decision- makers at the helm. 6. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
dts@cullvax.UUCP (Daniel T Senie) (03/28/86)
> > Let's assume that there were an escape mechanism for the shuttle crew, would > the Challenger crew be alive today? The explosion was unexpected, the > failure undetected, and the SNAFU still unexplained. What sensors could > possibly give sufficient warning? That's just it. They removed all the sensors from the SRBs to reduce weight. Great move, huh... -- Daniel T. Senie TEL.: (617) 329-7700 x3168 Cullinet Software, Inc. UUCP: seismo!{ll-xn,harvard}!rclex!cullvax!dts 400 Blue Hill Drive ARPA: rclex!cullvax!dts@ll-xn.ARPA Westwood, MA 02090-2198
desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins) (03/29/86)
In article <269@parcvax.Xerox.COM> bane@parcvax.Xerox.COM (John R. Bane) writes: >[with respect to choosing between the orbiter and the astronauts lives] > > ... and what if it was YOUR life and someone else's finger? or maybe >your wife's life? or your children's? I don't have a wife or children. And, of course, it would be insane to put a person in that position into this situation. But, if I had to, I would. And if it were *my* life I would feel the same way (as I noted, I expect most of the astronauts would agree with me). >And if you don't care, or consider it worth it, then you have no idea >of the life-long agony that would torture the person who DID "push the >button." Certainly I care. That is not the point. Obviously the sort of person who would be plagued with "life-long agony" would not be the one put into this situation. >I don't think I could bring myself to deliberately kill >innocent people (their only crime is to be stuck in malfunctioning >equipment), no matter how expensive that equipment is. Maybe this is why you aren't a Range Safety Officer. >Perhaps what the world needs is not more love but more empathy! Or perhaps more intelligence and rationality (perish the thought!). -- David desJardins P.S. My faith in the intelligence of net news readers has been greatly renewed by the many articles supporting my position, and offering many intelligent justifications for this necessary attitude. Thank you all.
torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek ) (03/31/86)
In article <998@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >For the cost of potentially saving a few lives on the shuttle, it would be >simple to save THOUSANDS of equally irreplacable lives. Perhaps even here >in the US, if you are chauvanistic about it. Lives of people who are dying >slowly and agonizingly, rather than in a brief flash. Indeed, people who want human life to be treated as worth infinitely more than any money have no case, precisely for this reason. Namely, money can always be translated into human lives saved, and it never takes an infinite amount of money to save one more life. However, that said, I'm not sure that as a President faced with a choice between saving the shuttle vs. saving the astronauts, I'd save the shuttle. The people would feel an emotional commitment to save the astronauts, and I think it would be an inherently good thing to express that commitment in action. In other words, I am suggesting that it is worth a whole lot to strengthen or at least not weaken that emotion. Of course, it would be even better if that emotion were directed toward saving even more lives, but the facts are otherwise. Note that the above paragraph only applies to situations of choice between relatively certain outcomes, not to risk evaluation. As a President or a NASA director, I would treat the astronauts' lives as more valuable in an actual crisis than I would in my design of safety systems. I do not think this is at all irrational. --Paul Torek torek@umich