Re: Whats the cost of a astronauts life?

[Dale]

On 21 Jul 2003 12:24:30 GMT, (Hallerb) wrote:

>Whats the costs of the astronauts lives that died on columbia?
>
>I am looking at the total cost for life insurance, benefits and likely
>councling for the survivors.
>
>Anyone venture a guess?

My guess is that this is one of the strangest posts I've ever read.
I'll further speculate that you will be in my killfile fairly soon, Bob.
It's a shame...

Dale

I'd ask why you want to know this stuff, but I think I can guess
that with confidence.

[Hallerb]

>
>I'd ask why you want to know this stuff, but I think I can guess
>that with confidence.

Yep, as a cost comparison between adding a escape system vs doing what it
appears we are going to. basically nothing on escape.

Now the numbers please...

Lets not forget the human cost. I respect Scott Grissom but do we realize that
years from now we may have more posters like scott, asking what reaklly
happened.

[Dale]

On 21 Jul 2003 12:49:04 GMT, (Hallerb) wrote:

>>
>>I'd ask why you want to know this stuff, but I think I can guess
>>that with confidence.
>
>Yep, as a cost comparison between adding a escape system vs doing what it
>appears we are going to. basically nothing on escape.
>
>Now the numbers please...

I have no numbers, and doubt you could/should get such personal data as their
individual insurance coverage. But even if they each had a $10 million life
insurance policy, I suspect it all adds up to far less than the cost of drastically
altering the remaining orbiters, as any really meaningful "escape system"
would require.

>Lets not forget the human cost.

Lets respect it a little, too. OK?

Dale

[Hallerb]

>
>I have no numbers, and doubt you could/should get such personal data as their
>individual insurance coverage. But even if they each had a $10 million life
>insurance policy, I suspect it all adds up to far less than the cost of
>drastically
>altering the remaining orbiters, as any really meaningful "escape system"
>would require.

Well its a legitimate question. You have to remember escape once designed isnt
a one use system. Sure the hardware will be used up on use, but we can loose
moire than one crew.

>
>>Lets not forget the human cost.
>
>Lets respect it a little, too. OK?
>
>Dale
>

YES LETS RESPECT IT! If everyone survived how newswothy would this have been?

[Nicholas Fitzpatrick]

In article >,
Dale > wrote:
>On 21 Jul 2003 12:24:30 GMT, (Hallerb) wrote:
>
>>I am looking at the total cost for life insurance, benefits and likely
>>councling for the survivors.
>>
>>Anyone venture a guess?
>
>My guess is that this is one of the strangest posts I've ever read.
>I'll further speculate that you will be in my killfile fairly soon, Bob.
>It's a shame...

Given the strange posts here lately, I'd say this is actually reasonably
on-topic. Surely any engineering evaluation of a system will take such
numbers into account. Look at any vehicle. Surely GM must be well
aware of the value of a human life, when they trade off safety devices on
cars versus potential law suites after accidents.

Nick

[Hallerb]

>
>What is the estimated cost of yourself?
>
>Regards,
>Mario
>
>
Irreplaceable!

Now bak to the sad topic PLEASE!

[OM]

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 05:39:26 -0700, Dale > wrote:

>My guess is that this is one of the strangest posts I've ever read.
>I'll further speculate that you will be in my killfile fairly soon, Bob.

....Why wait and prolong your suffering? Just do it now and be done
with him. Bob Haller's gone totally off the deep end, and I fear
there's no turning back for him. Pretty much everyone else here has
written him off as a totally lost cause.


OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[jeff findley]

(Hallerb) writes:
>
> Well its a legitimate question. You have to remember escape once designed isnt
> a one use system. Sure the hardware will be used up on use, but we can loose
> moire than one crew.

It is a one use system, if you assume, as you do, that one more
shuttle loss will kill the program. This means that a crew escape
system on the shuttle could only be used once and only once.

> YES LETS RESPECT IT! If everyone survived how newswothy would this have been?

Shuttles still would have been grounded. Astronauts on ISS would
still make it into the media headlines as "stranded" (even though they
have a Soyuz up there at all times).

You'd end up paying for counseling for the astronauts for "losing"
such a valuable asset. They might end up being treated like Gus
Grissom for bailing out of a "perfectly good" orbiter since NASA
wouldn't have had the data recorders in hand for months.

It would be a demoralizing, gut wrenching experience for the
astronauts and the rest of NASA. The only thing missing would have
been the funerals, the life insurance pay-offs, and the counseling.
Everything else would have been essentially unchanged.

You continue to ignore the fact that NASA has too many astronauts (I
think a recent media report said about half of NASA's "astronauts"
have not even been into space). It looks like they're still going
forward with the selection of yet another astronaut class, so in a few
years, there will be even more astronauts at NASA's disposal.

NASA has astronauts coming out of its ears, yet only has three
remaining orbiters.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

[jeff findley]

(Hallerb) writes:
> >
> >What is the estimated cost of yourself?
> Irreplaceable!
>
> Now bak to the sad topic PLEASE!

Aftur all, he spels so gud. An eggcellent speler is irreplaceable in
this day and age.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

[Louis Scheffer]

(Hallerb) writes:

>Whats the costs of the astronauts lives that died on columbia?

The cost of lives lost (versus how much should be spent to prevent such
accidents) is not a very precise endeavor.

Roughly speaking, it's about 1-10 million per life. This is determined
several ways.

First, how much is awarded when a person is killed by accident? In the USA
this is often determined by jury, and varies widely, depending on how mad the
jury is at the killer. In Germany it's much more systematic - they keep
track of all similar cases and then base new results on this historical
experience, but I don't know their numbers.

Second, you can see how much people are willing to pay for safety improvements.
This varies widely between fields, for no good technical reason. Instead it
depends on perceived (not actual) risk, news-worthiness of accidents, whether
the risk is visible or invisible, whether the risk is voluntary, whether
the person at risk do anything about it, and so on.
It ranges from about (if I recall correctly) about $100,000 per
life saved by mundane things like better highway safety (guardrails, better
lighting, etc.) and about $100,000,000 per life saved in the airplane industry.
The highest numbers, again if I recall correctly, are from long nuclear waste
disposal. Even the most pessimistic estimates kill few people, and they
are spending billions of dollars.

Overall, it is often some small multiple of the remaining lifetime earnings,
or perhaps 1-10 million dollars per life.

Lou Scheffer

[Hallerb]

>
>you forgot training costs.

So I did. Wonder what that number really is. Any childern get social security
benefits till age 18 or 21 if they are full time students too.

[Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)]

"Hallerb" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >What is the estimated cost of yourself?
> >
> >Regards,
> >Mario
> >
> >
> Irreplaceable!
>
> Now bak to the sad topic PLEASE!

Never have you described one of your posts so well.

[Charleston]

"jeff findley" > wrote in message
...
> (Hallerb) writes:
> >
> > Well its a legitimate question. You have to remember escape once
designed isnt
> > a one use system. Sure the hardware will be used up on use, but we can
loose
> > moire than one crew.
>
> It is a one use system, if you assume, as you do, that one more
> shuttle loss will kill the program. This means that a crew escape
> system on the shuttle could only be used once and only once.

I don't think it would be a waste of money to have another "successful
failure" that could only work once (I can almost hear Tom Hanks now). When
was the last time you saw an escape system work twice? Ah, but what NASA
managers, would give to have the Columbia crew back--for a second chance at
redemption. If the shuttle crews we have lost to date, survived due to an
adequate escape system, I'd bet the public would let the fleet fly til there
was only one orbiter left. Successful failures can teach us that
spaceflight is risky, without losing a crew. Ironically they remind us of
our foresight in having a system that saves the day from being a "bad day".

> > YES LETS RESPECT IT! If everyone survived how newswothy would this have
been?
>
> Shuttles still would have been grounded.

True.

> Astronauts on ISS would
> still make it into the media headlines as "stranded" (even though they
> have a Soyuz up there at all times).

I really doubt that story would fly. More than likely it would last one
news cycle and then be grounded.

> You'd end up paying for counseling for the astronauts for "losing"
> such a valuable asset.

Bring on the counselors for the heroic astronauts, better that than for the
families of the fallen heroic astronauts. Heroes can survive too. They
don't all have to have memorials you know.

They might end up being treated like Gus
> Grissom for bailing out of a "perfectly good" orbiter since NASA
> wouldn't have had the data recorders in hand for months.

Not NASA, not Congress, not anyone would ever blame the surviving heroes!
No way. No one is that stupid politically.

> It would be a demoralizing, gut wrenching experience for the
> astronauts and the rest of NASA. The only thing missing would have
> been the funerals, the life insurance pay-offs, and the counseling.

"The only thing missing..."

Here you go Mr. Speegle.

"Cavalier
1.. Showing arrogant or offhand disregard; dismissive: a cavalier attitude
toward the suffering of others."
My selection--excerpt--from Dictionary.com. The main point being that
perhaps unwittingly, the argument made against Bob Haller is this:

"Better off dead."

> Everything else would have been essentially unchanged.

Everything? Surely you jest.

> You continue to ignore the fact that NASA has too many astronauts (I
> think a recent media report said about half of NASA's "astronauts"
> have not even been into space). It looks like they're still going
> forward with the selection of yet another astronaut class, so in a few
> years, there will be even more astronauts at NASA's disposal.

I brough this up recently and damn if NASA did not confirm my conclusion. I
have made the argument for smaller crews so that crew escape systems can be
limited to the flight deck. BTW, with a crew limit of five, and a regular
ESA type spacelab, or an ISS mission, the entire crew could survive with a
system NASA has already examined.

In March 2003.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?G5BE32855

On June 10, 2003.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?K1DE13855

The irony of June 11, 2003.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z3FE51855

> NASA has astronauts coming out of its ears, yet only has three
> remaining orbiters.

Now that sounds kind of funny.

Daniel
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC

[Charleston]

"Louis Scheffer" > wrote in message
...
> (Hallerb) writes:
>
> >Whats the costs of the astronauts lives that died on columbia?
>
> The cost of lives lost (versus how much should be spent to prevent such
> accidents) is not a very precise endeavor.

Agreed.

> Roughly speaking, it's about 1-10 million per life. This is determined
> several ways.
>
> First, how much is awarded when a person is killed by accident? In the
USA
> this is often determined by jury, and varies widely, depending on how mad
the
> jury is at the killer. In Germany it's much more systematic - they keep
> track of all similar cases and then base new results on this historical
> experience, but I don't know their numbers.

> Second, you can see how much people are willing to pay for safety
improvements.
> This varies widely between fields, for no good technical reason. Instead
it
> depends on perceived (not actual) risk, news-worthiness of accidents,
whether
> the risk is visible or invisible, whether the risk is voluntary, whether
> the person at risk do anything about it, and so on.
> It ranges from about (if I recall correctly) about $100,000 per
> life saved by mundane things like better highway safety (guardrails,
better
> lighting, etc.) and about $100,000,000 per life saved in the airplane
industry.
> The highest numbers, again if I recall correctly, are from long nuclear
waste
> disposal. Even the most pessimistic estimates kill few people, and they
> are spending billions of dollars.

There are the political implications too. It is hard to place a price on
the prestige NASA has lost for itself, let alone the pride and prestige of
the U.S. It ****ed me off that certain people in foreign countries
celebrated our loss. Oh how that makes me sick.

> Overall, it is often some small multiple of the remaining lifetime
earnings,
> or perhaps 1-10 million dollars per life.


--

Daniel
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC

[Stephen Stocker]

In article >, jeff findley wrote:
> (Hallerb) writes:
>> >
>> >What is the estimated cost of yourself?
>> Irreplaceable!
>>
>> Now bak to the sad topic PLEASE!
>
> Aftur all, he spels so gud. An eggcellent speler is irreplaceable in
> this day and age.
>
> Jeff

I'd like to think that, even in the US, a human being's worth is
judged on more important qualities than spelling ability. *sigh*

Steve

[Jorge R. Frank]

Stephen Stocker > wrote in
:

> In article >, jeff findley
> wrote:
>> (Hallerb) writes:
>>> >
>>> >What is the estimated cost of yourself?
>>> Irreplaceable!
>>>
>>> Now bak to the sad topic PLEASE!
>>
>> Aftur all, he spels so gud. An eggcellent speler is irreplaceable in
>> this day and age.
>>
>> Jeff
>
> I'd like to think that, even in the US, a human being's worth is
> judged on more important qualities than spelling ability. *sigh*

Even in the US, the common courtesy of hitting a single button (or pulling
a single menu item) for "spell check" is expected. Lacking same, the common
courtesy of manually proofreading one's own posts (or asking a competent
person to do the same, if one is incompetent) is expected. The lack of such
is taken as a sign of disrespect. Such disrespect is often returned,
sometimes harshly. Those who disagree are cordially referred to alt.*,
where such conduct is tolerated, if not expected.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

[jeff findley]

Stephen Stocker > writes:
>
> I'd like to think that, even in the US, a human being's worth is
> judged on more important qualities than spelling ability. *sigh*

I'm a horrible speller (engineer/computer programmer, so what do you
expect). I do, however, know where the spell check button is on my
newsreader and attempt to push it before I push the send button. I
may not get the spelling and grammar perfect, but I try my best to
look like I can carry on an intelligent conversation.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

[Jan C. Vorbrüggen]

> I agree - I don't use spell checkers either. I do my proofreading by hand,

Is there any other way?!

Jan

[Dave Ludlow]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:51:27 +0200, Jan C. Vorbrüggen
> wrote:

>> I agree - I don't use spell checkers either. I do my proofreading by hand,
>
>Is there any other way?!
>
By eye? :)

--
Dave

[Jorge R. Frank]

Jan C. Vorbrüggen > wrote in
:

>> I agree - I don't use spell checkers either. I do my proofreading by
>> hand,
>
> Is there any other way?!

Relying on a machine to do it for you. Or not doing it at all, as appears
to be the case for hallerb.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

[Jan C. Vorbrüggen]

> >> I agree - I don't use spell checkers either. I do my proofreading by
> >> hand,
> > Is there any other way?!
> Relying on a machine to do it for you.

Spell and especially grammar checkers are notoriously unreliable for German.
They're a help, but won't substitute for proof reading.

Jan

[Jorge R. Frank]

Jan C. Vorbrüggen > wrote in
:

>> >> I agree - I don't use spell checkers either. I do my proofreading
>> >> by hand,
>> > Is there any other way?!
>> Relying on a machine to do it for you.
>
> Spell and especially grammar checkers are notoriously unreliable for
> German. They're a help, but won't substitute for proof reading.

That's good, in a way. It prevents people from using them as crutches.
English spelling/grammar checkers are just reliable enough to fool some
people into thinking they can get away without manual proof reading.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

[Doug...]

In article >,
om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org says...
> On 29 Jul 2003 23:01:31 GMT, "Jorge R. Frank" >
> wrote:
>
> >That's good, in a way. It prevents people from using them as crutches.
> >English spelling/grammar checkers are just reliable enough to fool some
> >people into thinking they can get away without manual proof reading.
>
> ...Its one of the reasons I still feel that any computer support
> position should require proof of comprehension as to what a batch file
> is, and how to write one from scratch.

I was a real whiz in DOS batch files. I had batch files to execute all
sorts of things, including reconfiguring my system for different
applications that required different internal settings. The original
Wing Commander, for example, required you to disable various things to
allow the game to find enough memory that it could actually use extended
memory. I wrote batch files to configure the system for playing WC, and
for Word Perfect, and for running as a dumb terminal.

Of course, such skills are as useful these days as tits on a bull...

--

It's not the pace of life I mind; | Doug Van Dorn
it's the sudden stop at the end... |

[OM]

On 29 Jul 2003 23:01:31 GMT, "Jorge R. Frank" >
wrote:

>That's good, in a way. It prevents people from using them as crutches.
>English spelling/grammar checkers are just reliable enough to fool some
>people into thinking they can get away without manual proof reading.

....Its one of the reasons I still feel that any computer support
position should require proof of comprehension as to what a batch file
is, and how to write one from scratch.

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[Allen Thomson]

"Jorge R. Frank" > wrote


> English spelling/grammar checkers are just reliable enough to fool some
> people into thinking they can get away without manual proof reading.

Their your write. Its hoard two ketch seiche wolf spalling progroms.