4 ms·

Early this on, the process of building physically accurate "fake humans" was not really possible. Bear tests were probably more an early proof of viability tha

Early this on, the process of building physically accurate "fake humans" was not really possible. Bear tests were probably more an early proof of viability than anything else. The bears survived, proving that humans wouldn't be completely annihilated. Animal testing cruelty wasn't really being thought about heavily in post WWII military aerospace development. It's unfortunate but a historical footnote reminding us of the importance of proper testing.

sitkack 9y ago
Logging the max acceleration in x,y,z would have been better than throwing a bear out of plane. Knowing a bear survives is ridiculous and they knew it. Ethics are orthogonal, cadavers would have ben a better choice.
- LeifCarrotson 9y ago
  Logging what with what, in 1962?
  - asdf1234tx 9y ago
    He meant actually put a piece of wood log inside the capsule and observe the marks on it after it returned to earth.
  - Avshalom 9y ago
    A pencil on a spring is enough to measure maximum acceleration, I'm sure by 62 they had something at least as sophisticated.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - sitkack 9y ago
      Imagine if they have the advanced capability of moving the paper under the pencil, they might get acceleration over time.
      - sjburt 9y ago
        In 1962 they would have had multi-channel magentic tape (analog) recording. The first flight data recorders date to the early 1940s. Fitting it in ejection seat might be another challenge but I'm sure they would have developed something before moving to live subjects.
        sitkack 9y ago
        Might these proto-engineers also harnessed radio waves to transport signals across the aether for a form of telemetry?
- lopmotr 9y ago
  What can you compare that acceleration data to? Put a human on a shaker table and measure his brain damage? At some point you have to damage humans or animals to find out their limits.
  - sitkack 9y ago
    You would now have numerical values to compare rather the MILSPEC 'dead_bear' units. Nowhere did I make an ethical argument against animal trials or say that we should do experimentation on humans. But launching bears out of an ejection seat was even stupid then.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
coldtea 9y ago
>Animal testing cruelty wasn't really being thought about heavily in post WWII military aerospace development Considering that the endpoint is machines killing actual people, it would be the height of hypocrisy in my books for them to care about "animal testing cruelty".
- badosu 9y ago
  I don't (reading modern past and foreseeable future), but if you subscribe to the idea of 'just war'[0] it would make sense. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- uhtred 9y ago
  By "actual people" do you mean "who cares about animals dying in horrendous ways when people will be dying?"
  - coldtea 9y ago
    More precisely, if a project is about making killing machines for people, that it might kill some animals to test them is the least of its moral problems.

sitkack 9y ago

Logging the max acceleration in x,y,z would have been better than throwing a bear out of plane. Knowing a bear survives is ridiculous and they knew it. Ethics are orthogonal, cadavers would have ben a better choice.

LeifCarrotson 9y ago
Logging what with what, in 1962?
- asdf1234tx 9y ago
  He meant actually put a piece of wood log inside the capsule and observe the marks on it after it returned to earth.
- Avshalom 9y ago
  A pencil on a spring is enough to measure maximum acceleration, I'm sure by 62 they had something at least as sophisticated.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - sitkack 9y ago
    Imagine if they have the advanced capability of moving the paper under the pencil, they might get acceleration over time.
    - sjburt 9y ago
      In 1962 they would have had multi-channel magentic tape (analog) recording. The first flight data recorders date to the early 1940s. Fitting it in ejection seat might be another challenge but I'm sure they would have developed something before moving to live subjects.
      - sitkack 9y ago
        Might these proto-engineers also harnessed radio waves to transport signals across the aether for a form of telemetry?
lopmotr 9y ago
What can you compare that acceleration data to? Put a human on a shaker table and measure his brain damage? At some point you have to damage humans or animals to find out their limits.
- sitkack 9y ago
  You would now have numerical values to compare rather the MILSPEC 'dead_bear' units. Nowhere did I make an ethical argument against animal trials or say that we should do experimentation on humans. But launching bears out of an ejection seat was even stupid then.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

coldtea 9y ago

>Animal testing cruelty wasn't really being thought about heavily in post WWII military aerospace development Considering that the endpoint is machines killing actual people, it would be the height of hypocrisy in my books for them to care about "animal testing cruelty".

badosu 9y ago
I don't (reading modern past and foreseeable future), but if you subscribe to the idea of 'just war'[0] it would make sense. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
uhtred 9y ago
By "actual people" do you mean "who cares about animals dying in horrendous ways when people will be dying?"
- coldtea 9y ago
  More precisely, if a project is about making killing machines for people, that it might kill some animals to test them is the least of its moral problems.