Management, mandate, and manned spaceflight

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote in message
...
Charleston wrote:

I qualified my statement. I said it was way up there in the
stratosphere as
a sarcastic reference to the point at which the Columbia crew may well
have
perished. You OTOH, immediately qualified your value system in terms of
money alone. Money is not the only thing of value in life, hence my
reference to the word cavalier.

When you grow up, you will discover that the value of a life is regularly
measured in dollars. This is done routinely in torts, in making
regulations,
and in establishing government policy. This isn't cavalier, it's business
as usual.

When you grow a heart perhaps you will see that there is more to life than
money and lawsuits and...

Look Paul, there is no reason to insult each other and I only responded as I
did above to make a point. There are some intangible things in life that
are bigger than the dollar. My job often involves environmental disease
investigations. In the end a judge often assesses the value of human pain,
suffering, and death. When a two year old child is maimed permanently by an
undercooked hamburger, the value in terms of a normal life are often
difficult to assess. An 81 year old man who has six months to live, but
then dies due to the negligence of others some three months earlier, may be
a lesser loss, but there is still loss. When negligence is involved, judges
often weigh and attach punitive awards to the damaged or their surviving
kin. When human suffering or death is caused by the deliberate acts of
others and sometimes just their plain stupidity, people are often placed in
prison for a life lost through negligence. When the loss of one life alters
the life of others in the form of suffering, what is that indirect cost? I
dare say it often goes unmeasured. All of these items add to the value of a
life. While you can average out the value of a human life, in strictly
financial terms in a court of law, you can't place a tangible price on the
very real damage done to the victims families, and those colleagues who
sometimes unknowingly send others off to death. I hope that makes sense. I
certainly know where you are coming from. I just hope you can see my points
too.

--

Daniel
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 20:28:10 -0700, "Charleston"
wrote:

When you grow a heart perhaps you will see that there is more to life than
money and lawsuits and...

Well I hate to get involved in this, but...

A part of nature is about death and often being eaten by some other
animal, which means that death is inevitable.

So had a billion people died tomorrow, then it is like "whoops", but
as a species we could handle the knock.

Yes death is sad and all that, but after all I am sure that like a
million people die each day for one reason or another.

So it is unfortunate this has happened, but well they knew what they
were getting into when they climbed into it. And I do not see that we
should be more upset for them than with other Astronauts who return
alive, when they are equally brave and well... death is inevitable.

And so it is like **** happens, they rolled snake eyes, but the show
has to go on. Not that we should not feel for their families of
course, when they are the ones here who suffer the most.

One great loss about this is the delay in human spaceflight and the
launch of the next brave people willing to ride on it. As sure enough
had they launched the following mission on schedule, foam and all,
then these people would queue up to ride on it.

The only thing you can do in such cases is to fix the problem so that
no one else has to die the same way. And at the end of the day as this
was a freak accident, then no one is really to blame for it.

Also I was thinking some time ago that if you had to die and wanted
this to be quick and painless, then the Colombia disaster does come
close to ideal, when humans are not well designed for super sonic
flight.

Anyway, one of you is annoyed at the delay in spaceflight, where one
of you is overly concerned with this death. And in the end I can only
feel that you are both wrong, when the only thing that is important
here is to fix this problem and to then blast off.

Cardman.

In article ezmUa.42206$zy.19121@fed1read06,
Charleston charlestonchewschocolatecandycandidly @youarekiddingright.spam wrote:
...While you can average out the value of a human life, in strictly
financial terms in a court of law, you can't place a tangible price on the
very real damage done to the victims families, and those colleagues who
sometimes unknowingly send others off to death...

Unfortunately, in practice it is necessary to place a value on such
things. Moreover, you aren't really refusing to do so -- you clearly *do*
value them to some extent, but not an unlimited extent. So there *is* a
finite value in there somewhere. What you are refusing to do is to assign
a number (even an uncertain and approximate one) to that value... thus
making it impossible to assess that value objectively, to discuss how it
compares to other values, to rationally decide *how much* should be done
to prevent repetitions of such damage.

Such decisions must be made. To refuse to make them rationally guarantees
that they will be made irrationally.
--
MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! |

In article IDqUa.42249$zy.28812@fed1read06,
says...

snip

As an example, automobiles have gone up dramatically in price. A car that
could be paid off in three years now takes five years. The safety
expectations of our society no longer allow for the 35 mph fatal accidents
as a norm. Enginering has advanced as a requirement of our society, ever
increasing that life value discussed on this thread. Without a similar
advance in our manned space program from a flight safety perspective it will
either slow down or end as our society decides it is not worth it. I would
note that is has slowed down alot already.

Interestingly, I heard a good editorial piece this morning on NPR about
America's changing attitudes about death. It was prompted by the
publication of photos of Saddam Hussein's two sons in death, and the
American public's reaction to them.

The point was made that Americans used to look death straight-on. We
kept pictures of our loved ones in death -- pictures taken of them in
their coffins, or even posed in life-like poses. We kept keepsakes of
their hair with these pictures. Before photography, we had paintings and
death masks made of our dearly departed. We used to die at home, and our
loved ones would gather around our dead bodies, saying goodbyes and
achieving a sense of closure.

Now, death is something that we shy away from. We don't look at it
directly. We see death as something that happens in places reserved for
it -- hospitals, battlefields and highways. We find the death of a
single individual, regardless of cause and regardless of the
person's achievements, as a tragedy of proportions never seen before in
the history of man.

We have, as a culture, inflated the importance and desirability of
avoiding death. In some ways, this is unnatural. Our denial of death is
a denial of the cycle of life that has always existed.

People die. They die for good reasons, for noble reasons, and for
stupid and useless reasons. They die while accomplishing great things,
and they die for no purpose whatsoever. The common factor is that they
die. And there's nothing we can do to change that most basic fact of
life.

It's time to admit the possibility that putting such an unnaturally large
emphasis on avoiding all death is hampering us, keeping us from taking
risks that are necessary to accomplish things as a race and a culture.
I'm not saying that the two shuttle accidents which took 14 lives should
be accepted as necessary and inevitable -- I'm just saying that you will
*never* make some inherently risky activities totally safe, and that we
shouldn't let an unnatural focus on death avoidance (i.e., refusing to
fly until there is ZERO chance that anyone will ever get killed again
during spaceflight) get in the way of at least TRYING to continue to fly
in space.

--

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

"Doug..." wrote in message
...

It's time to admit the possibility that putting such an unnaturally large
emphasis on avoiding all death is hampering us, keeping us from taking
risks that are necessary to accomplish things as a race and a culture.
I'm not saying that the two shuttle accidents which took 14 lives should
be accepted as necessary and inevitable -- I'm just saying that you will
*never* make some inherently risky activities totally safe, and that we
shouldn't let an unnatural focus on death avoidance (i.e., refusing to
fly until there is ZERO chance that anyone will ever get killed again
during spaceflight) get in the way of at least TRYING to continue to fly
in space.

Sure, that makes sense, but then you don't put people in a shirt sleeve
environment, put teachers onboard as publicity stunts, etc., for such risks
either. That is folly and invites criticism. You do the best you can
whether its racing cars or X-15s.

I took a class on death and society. I understand your points. We will
continue to stretch our wings to do new things. When NASA sets unrealistic
expectations of its vehicles to sell them to Congress and the public, that
is when the failure becomes less acceptable. Had NASA called the Shuttle
what it is, a grandly underfunded experimental vehicle, it might be a little
different. A lot of our acceptance of death is about expectations. I think
we all agree on that.

--

Daniel
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 01:06:00 -0700, in a place far, far away,
"Charleston" made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

As an example, automobiles have gone up dramatically in price. A car that
could be paid off in three years now takes five years. The safety
expectations of our society no longer allow for the 35 mph fatal accidents
as a norm. Enginering has advanced as a requirement of our society, ever
increasing that life value discussed on this thread. Without a similar
advance in our manned space program from a flight safety perspective it will
either slow down or end as our society decides it is not worth it. I would
note that is has slowed down alot already.

There's no doubt that safety must, and will improve as we develop new
vehicles, but we aren't at a state right now in which it should be the
highest priority, because we simply can't afford it (almost literally,
based on the fact that safety budgets were apparently cut...)

Safety is a primary consideration in automobiles, because compared to
a human life, an automobile is cheap (though even there we do a
cost/benefit analysis, in order to keep them affordable).

But when a launch system costs billions to build, and we only have a
few, and people are lined up to be astronauts (or at least they were,
until they come to realize what a slim chance they have of actually
flying), the calculus has to be different. One *cannot afford to lose
vehicles* regardless of whether they have people aboard or not.

The blow to the program was from the loss of Challenger and Columbia,
and the long down time that those losses entailed, not the loss of
their crews. The latter is a blow only to their friends and families
(though it's certainly one harder to bear, for them). And given the
nature of things, if more had been done to prevent the loss of those
vehicles, loss of the crew would have been prevented as well.

That's what I mean by it being a secondary consideration, and why the
notion of "man rating" a reusable vehicle is (or at least should be)
nonsensical.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

Consider the Roman way and be burned like rubbish as per Cleopatra starring
Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton. BTW Richard was not put on a funeral
pyre. But art does not follow real life.


"Doug..." wrote in message
...
In article IDqUa.42249$zy.28812@fed1read06,
says...

snip

As an example, automobiles have gone up dramatically in price. A car
that
could be paid off in three years now takes five years. The safety
expectations of our society no longer allow for the 35 mph fatal
accidents
as a norm. Enginering has advanced as a requirement of our society,
ever
increasing that life value discussed on this thread. Without a similar
advance in our manned space program from a flight safety perspective it
will
either slow down or end as our society decides it is not worth it. I
would
note that is has slowed down alot already.

Interestingly, I heard a good editorial piece this morning on NPR about
America's changing attitudes about death. It was prompted by the
publication of photos of Saddam Hussein's two sons in death, and the
American public's reaction to them.

The point was made that Americans used to look death straight-on. We
kept pictures of our loved ones in death -- pictures taken of them in
their coffins, or even posed in life-like poses. We kept keepsakes of
their hair with these pictures. Before photography, we had paintings and
death masks made of our dearly departed. We used to die at home, and our
loved ones would gather around our dead bodies, saying goodbyes and
achieving a sense of closure.

Now, death is something that we shy away from. We don't look at it
directly. We see death as something that happens in places reserved for
it -- hospitals, battlefields and highways. We find the death of a
single individual, regardless of cause and regardless of the
person's achievements, as a tragedy of proportions never seen before in
the history of man.

We have, as a culture, inflated the importance and desirability of
avoiding death. In some ways, this is unnatural. Our denial of death is
a denial of the cycle of life that has always existed.

People die. They die for good reasons, for noble reasons, and for
stupid and useless reasons. They die while accomplishing great things,
and they die for no purpose whatsoever. The common factor is that they
die. And there's nothing we can do to change that most basic fact of
life.

It's time to admit the possibility that putting such an unnaturally large
emphasis on avoiding all death is hampering us, keeping us from taking
risks that are necessary to accomplish things as a race and a culture.
I'm not saying that the two shuttle accidents which took 14 lives should
be accepted as necessary and inevitable -- I'm just saying that you will
*never* make some inherently risky activities totally safe, and that we
shouldn't let an unnatural focus on death avoidance (i.e., refusing to
fly until there is ZERO chance that anyone will ever get killed again
during spaceflight) get in the way of at least TRYING to continue to fly
in space.

--

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




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:59:23 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Greg Kuperberg) made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:
The blow to the program was from the loss of Challenger and Columbia,
and the long down time that those losses entailed, not the loss of
their crews. The latter is a blow only to their friends and families
(though it's certainly one harder to bear, for them).

I half agree with this. The loss of the two shuttles is ultimately
the greater concern. However, the celebrity status of the astronauts
largely drives NASA manned spaceflight.

One of the many ill effects of a NASA manned spaceflight program.

For that matter, violent death tends to scare away space tourists as well.

Not at this stage. Not enough to matter.

In fact, while I'm not glad it happened, I do think that the Columbia
loss was a blessing in disguise for the nascent industry. People are
finally realizing that NASA has feet of clay, and no longer inclined
to take their opinion as seriously any more. I don't know whether it
would have happened anyway, but the investment climate for such
ventures has seen a dramatic improvement in the past few months.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers: