🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan7.025746.2456@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <1993Jan06.165148.9581@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes:
>
>>YOU say there's no need to man-rate. The astronaut community and anyone who
>>goes up on it IS going to disagree with you. 
>
>Well after a successful test flight I would go up on it. I think lots of
>others would as well. Anybody with brains enough to read a test report
>and analyze risk wouldn't have any problem. I think most astronauts would
>be included in this list. The ones who don't want to go can quit.

Sure, but you aren't the funding source. Think about it. Was it you or someone
else who suggested that there's a difference between Astronauts and test
pilots? (The latter usually being "expendable.")

>>I realize you'd like to treat people as another type of expendable, but it just
>>ain't so in the Western World. 
>
>Wake up guy! The value of a human life simply isn't infinite. Look at the
>cost model for any large project. Part of it will include the costs associated
>with the people killed on the project. In fact, I'll bet that at least one
>person was killed building each of the 5 shuttle orbiters. People aren't
>expendable but nither do they have infinite value.

>If what you said where actually true then nobody woluld be flying
>Shuttles anyway. So if you want perfect safety, then stay home and
>leave the next frontier to the rest of us.

There's no such thing as perfect safety, and I can see this is degenerating
into a "I'm man enough to die, you wimp" discussion.

I'm sure more people died across the United States in one day than on
Challenger. However, when a good part of national treasure and pride go up with
the vehicle, there IS a difference. 


                    I have talked to Ehud, and lived.
  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --