Re: Worth The Mission?

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 14:35:33 GMT, in a place far, far away,
seewebsite@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (John Savard) made the phosphor
on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 08:11:21 -0600, Joe Strout <joe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote,
in part:

perhaps you
only mean to characterize the thinking of the American Christian
majority, and don't actually believe all this nonsense yourself.

Most of the "nonsense" I was presenting was simply fairly basic
Christian ethics, shared by people who are not Fundamentalists.

It isn't wrong to take risks, but it's wrong to inflict unreasonable
risks on others for no good reason. So the problem is a _moral_ one;
risks aren't weighed simply on a scale that says a human life is worth
$2 million tops; it depends on who profits from the risk.

If, today, we're taking unreasonable precautions to protect the
astronauts' lives, it's because, with the Challenger disaster, NASA
forfeited the trust of the American people. If they can regain it, then,
if an accident happens that's clearly due to the *inherent* risks of
space exploration, and not due to negligence or cutting corners
(although the negligence of an individual at a low level is an inherent
risk, negligence *at high levels* is not) then such accidents won't
threaten the future of space exploration.

"Negligence" and "cutting corners" are always in the mind of the
beholder (and tort lawyer). Some will argue that it's "negligence"
and "cutting corners" to not put an escape pod in the Shuttle, though
this would have wiped out the payload capability. We have wasted many
billions of dollars attempting to make an "unsafe" vehicle "safe"
(quotes, because, as I said in my NRO piece, "safe" is a relative
term, despite the mythologies of safety engineers).

Everyone knows, as well as possible, the risks of flying tomorrow,
including the astronauts. It's their choice.
.