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

Re: Engineering Newsletter

> From KellySt@aol.com Fri Jan 19 05:51:43 1996
> [...]
> You seem to be arguing my point.  You are proposing to be the mission
> control/cameraman eager to send crews out to die on the frountier for fame
> and fortune.

> > [Zenon:]
> > Political organizations (and opinions) are not laws of nature,
> > but emanations of people's opinions and attitudes.
> > If they (the people) have such attitudes as you seem to propagate
> > in our discussion, that it's not surprising that they possibly
> > will not "support or allow" ANY flight (that's risky, you know -
> > untested technology, not complying to these mountains of government 
> > rules and regulations of safety, no guarantee of safe return, 
> > high probability of accidental loss of life, 
> > probably far larger than in Kuwait...).
> > So, if we want to go to the stars at all, 
> > we must fight off such attitudes.
> > Not to say of other resons to do so.
> Why fight off such an attitude?  Your proposing throwing away a crew like
> they were expendable parts.  All for the convenence of a flashy, but non
> crytical, program.

> Linbergh had a comercial ship customized for his purposes and had every
> intention of geting there alive.  He got sponcership because everyone was
> fairly sure he wasn't a suicvidal ameture who would take stupid unnessisary
> risks.
Anyway, do I propose "taking stupid unnecessary risks"
when I say that I would rather stay back at the base
than risk the return flight to Earth?

> Comes the time we blithly throw away a few hundred people to save ourselves a
> little time and trouble, for a cause of no urgent critical importance,
> humankind doesn't deserve.
> As you may remember I was working in NASA shuttle flight planing when the
> Chalenger (almost exactly ten years ago) ripped itself apart in mid air.
> Largely because some political types desided not making waves and bad PR was
> more important than a few astronauts lives.  After that a lot of political
> types got fired and a lot of astronauts quit.  NASA had violated a cardinal
> rule of test pilots.  They'ld risk their lives if it was important enough,
> but the people on the ground had to keep them informed and do everything
> possible to keep them alive.  
Do I propose NOT TO INFORM the crew that they are going to stay there
at the outpost for all their lives?
Do I propose NOT TO DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE to keep them alive
there till the (natural) end of their lives?

> Doing a cost benifit analysis and deciding
> their lives arn't cost effective, doesn't cut it.
> I don't know what kamakazis you could get for such a flight, but they'ld be
> the dregs of this race, and I'ld be assamed for them to be my representatives
> to the stars.
Kamikazis??? Dregs??? Come on, Kelly, don't try to offend me!
It will fail: I am an 'ceptionally calm & stubborn kind of guy... ;-))

Anyway, my keyboard becomes jammed and fingers aching 
with this discussion - seemingly I am somehow basically unable
to understand your position, and you are not willing to understand mine, 
so let us drop it for now.

However, I insist that the two discussed types of mission ARE an option,
however improbable from your standpoint, as there are many others
willing to go on such a mission and ready to fight their way to it
with all these "guardian angels" [that's you, Kelly  :-)) ]
thinking they know better what is good to others...

So be it,

-- Zenon

P.S. Anyway, the "Design Space" listing I propose for our
     status report can, and should, contain also (some) options
     considered by (most of) us as improbabale or impossible,
     just to delineate BOUNDARIES of the design space...
     [except possibly such totally silly ideas like
      driving the ship with steam engine].  -- Zenon