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
caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) (03/29/86)
In article <483@tekred.UUCP> joels@tekred.UUCP (Joel Swank) writes:
The loss of the shuttle represents a 1.7 billion dollar hit on the treasury,
assuming it's worth that much to build a replacement. One could subtract
the value of what we learned directly from the 51-L loss, but I suspect
that's small compared to 1.7 billion.
A more logical issue would be, what other lives might that 1.7 billion have
saved had it not been needed to replace Challenger? I'm sure that one
can think of alternate ways to spend that 1.7 billion that would save not
7, but 70, 700 or more lives, be it AIDS research, aid to the Contras, or
whatever your politics suggest.
Even if the 1.7 billion magically appeared from heaven, the 1 to 2 year
delay in the space program might cost us an incredible number of lives.
One possible (if improbabale) scenario: the shuttle telescope detects a
comet or asteroid on collision course with Earth in time to allow
corrective action, but only if it is launched on the original schedule.
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX ...!tektronix!reed!omen!caf CIS:70715,131
Author of Professional-YAM communications Tools for PCDOS and Unix
Omen Technology Inc 17505-V NW Sauvie Island Road Portland OR 97231
Voice: 503-621-3406 TeleGodzilla: 621-3746 300/1200 L.sys entry for omen:
omen Any ACU 1200 1-503-621-3746 se:--se: link ord: Giznoid in:--in: uucp
omen!/usr/spool/uucppublic/FILES lists all uucp-able files, updated hourly