[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Engineering Newsletter

> From KellySt@aol.com Fri Jan 12 03:34:37 1996
> Oh, I still say there is no significant difference between a suicide flight,
> and a flight where the crew are abandoned with enough supplies to last them
> their life.  I am frankly shocked that you and Tim could seriously suggest
> such a horrific and ruthless option.  Thats like sending a team to antartica,
> on a one way trip to the pole with no resuply and recovery runs!  "Hey guys,
> go there, explore, radio back what you find, and here's 50 years supplies and
> parts for you to live out you life with."
Horrific and ruthless? 
If you send them for such a trip against their will - 
then you are possibly right.
But if they are willing?
There is a good ol' rule of Roman law: 
"Who is willing, does not suffer"
[sorry if I do not used the correct English version of the text].

Besides, everybody must die some time -
what is that real & shocking difference between dying
in Antarctica and in Sometown, Montana?
With the starflight, another important factor is added:
the return flight is long (of the order of at least 10 years, say),
thus those returning will have only few years to enjoy
their medals on Earth, not to say of the boring years
on the ship with nothing exciting to do (except betting 
if the next ship gear failure will be fatal...)
and rather risky - the probability
of irreparable failure of the ship during the flight
is much larger than the failure of the outpost base.
I, frankly, would prefer to stay at the outpost.
It might significantly increase my life expectance...

-- Zenon