Re: Engineering Newsletter

[KellySt@aol.com]

> 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: ---

So, If you find someone willing to blow their brains out on camera, if the
footage will be shone on the evening news.  You don't think the news
photagapher who says "sure, go for it" has any moral responsibility?

> 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...

You have a choice of 10 years in the ship betting on its systems not failing
on its return flight.  Vs the rest of your life in that same ship parked in
the system, or a base built out of the ships parts, still better the systems
don't fail.  Unless your assuming you'll die in less than 10 years of natural
causes.  I can't see how you could take the return flight as safer.

In any event its accademic.  No political organization would be allowed to
support or allow such a flight.  Since such a flight can't be done without
them in the next 50 years.  The option, ruthless as it is, is closed.

Kelly