That’s nitpicking. Of course the story is contrived. If you can think of a more plausible premise that would have had the same visceral punch and been easy enough to understand, speak now.
The point of the story is that sometimes there’s just no good way out of a situation, and the thing to do is face up to this and deal with reality on its own terms. Safety labels and supply closets are only incidental to this message. It could just as well apply to ugly tribal wars, or to medical triage, or to the fact that few things worth doing are perfectly safe.
I’ve seen an analysis of “The Cold Equations” which claimed there was no way to set up the plot so that you have to space someone because of simple physics—it would always be organizational failure.
It would be a rather different story if the theme was that organizations sometimes fail to set things up sensibly, and this leads to deaths.
And a quite interesting one if it were a matter of the odds rather than certainty—the stowaway costs enough fuel that there’s 10% chance that the rocket won’t deliver the medicine. Now what?
Dickson’s “Lost Dorsai” is close to that theme—mercenaries are trapped in a bad contract, and there just isn’t enough time to find the flaw which would lead to a good outcome.
I probably read the same comment on the story. There is also a film version done for the twilight zone of the 80s.
Why do engineers use safety margins? Because the unexpected happens. There might be some need no maneuver around something or to compensate for unforeseen movements of the target.
If you really want to go cheap then do away with the human pilot and the need for life support by just strapping the cargo on a simple autopiloted rocket.
A similar problem was discussed on a Star Trek TOS episode, where one leader decided to kill half his population to have the reserves to feed the rest. I do not think that was necessary either.
That’s nitpicking. Of course the story is contrived. If you can think of a more plausible premise that would have had the same visceral punch and been easy enough to understand, speak now.
The point of the story is that sometimes there’s just no good way out of a situation, and the thing to do is face up to this and deal with reality on its own terms. Safety labels and supply closets are only incidental to this message. It could just as well apply to ugly tribal wars, or to medical triage, or to the fact that few things worth doing are perfectly safe.
I’ve seen an analysis of “The Cold Equations” which claimed there was no way to set up the plot so that you have to space someone because of simple physics—it would always be organizational failure.
It would be a rather different story if the theme was that organizations sometimes fail to set things up sensibly, and this leads to deaths.
And a quite interesting one if it were a matter of the odds rather than certainty—the stowaway costs enough fuel that there’s 10% chance that the rocket won’t deliver the medicine. Now what?
Dickson’s “Lost Dorsai” is close to that theme—mercenaries are trapped in a bad contract, and there just isn’t enough time to find the flaw which would lead to a good outcome.
I probably read the same comment on the story. There is also a film version done for the twilight zone of the 80s.
Why do engineers use safety margins? Because the unexpected happens. There might be some need no maneuver around something or to compensate for unforeseen movements of the target. If you really want to go cheap then do away with the human pilot and the need for life support by just strapping the cargo on a simple autopiloted rocket.
A similar problem was discussed on a Star Trek TOS episode, where one leader decided to kill half his population to have the reserves to feed the rest. I do not think that was necessary either.
As I said, a sign on the door or a lock would do.