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

Re: New lit loadings

At 9:09 PM 7/23/96, Zenon Kulpa wrote:
>> From kgstar@most.fw.hac.com Tue Jul 23 20:40:29 1996
>> At 7:56 PM 7/23/96, Zenon Kulpa wrote:
>> >> From kgstar@most.fw.hac.com Tue Jul 23 17:30:00 1996
>> >4. Congratulations! - you must have worked reeeelly hard:
>> >   the number of spelling errors is an order of magnitude less
>> >   that your usual share... ;-)
>> ???  I though I forgot to even spell check it?
>Really??? Miracles happen...  ;-)

Another victory of dumb luck, over skill and dilligence.


>> >And be prepared for another round of Kelly-bashing
>> >concerning the one-way missions... ;-))
>> :)  Oooo.  Freash meat.
>> I could never figure out where you were coming from on the pro kamakazi
>> flights.  Over here were hard pressed to get permision to deliberatly risk
>> solder lives in combat.  Expending them for anything short of saving a U.S.
>> city is unthinkable.
>> In my cynical periods, I figured you'ld been under the Soviet thumb for too
>> long.
>There may be something in it -
>we here must still have some fighting trim left
>(you coke-drinking, couch-potato-lying decadents... ;-))
>Seriously, though, my problem with this discussion was
>that you seemingly were not able to, or do not want to,
>understandand the GREAT difference between one-way missions
>and suicide missions. Only the latter are "kamikaze";
>the former are simply cosmic-distance relocations -
>I do not see any suicidal elements in them.
>So bundling both types of missions under "one-way" heading
>and then discussing them together as if both were same-type
>suicidal missions (as you do in your Progress Report)
>really infuriates me, as simply unfair arguing practice...
>-- Zenon

Sorry it it seemed that way.  I was not trying to unfairly slight one of
the options.  But excluding colony missions (where one assumes people wish
to [and can] live there and intend to build homes and cities and such), I
really don't see any significant difference.

You're sending people to go there, do a few years of work, and then be
abandoned to sit in the ship until systems failures or lack of medical
kills them.  They obviously can't live out their full life expectancy (even
assuming the ship lasts that long), and their quality of life (traped in a
deteriorating derilict ship) is worse than what we'ld assign hardened
criminals to.  So I would expect a large fraction of any crew stuck there
to suicide after the mission ends anyway.  There only hope would be rescue
by a follow up flight (with a much better ship).

Politically and practically, your throwing people away for your mission
convenence.  Which would [not unreasonably] play in the press as murder.  I
sincerly don't see such a mission could be proposed or executed (no pun
intended) in the industrial world.



Kelly Starks                       Internet: kgstar@most.fw.hac.com
Sr. Systems Engineer
Magnavox Electronic Systems Company
(Magnavox URL: http://www.fw.hac.com/external.html)