PART the FIRST;     NOTES:   REVIEW:

Hopefully it is becoming clear to the student (you)    what is going on in this class.

The points I am making are the point.  The substance of what I talk about in class are only tools. The point is the point.  Not the tools.  The tools are being used to increaes your skills.  To a very small extent I am telling you factual information. Substance.  Things being what they are (human nature and human intelligence being what it is) telling you substance will stimulate some of you to develop skills to know and do ‘law stuff.”  But the point is not the substance. The point is to get you to “activate.” To start  (to initiate) a dialogue within your own self (with-in your own mind’s eye) about things linked to law, law stuff, law doing (government, State stuff... etc. ‘that kind of thing.)

You all have it in you to be quite amazing. Quite competent.  Once activated you can do this stuff.  Just to do what it takes to get you there. That is the challenge for me.  

You all voluntarily signed up for school. You may not have realized why. Not specifically anyhow.  But obviously the general wide truth is you each wish to develop skills.  To learn.
Well; if the problem is not knowing;  and learning is the solution;  then you have to ask yourself “what is knowing?”

I’d say  (the same way i said that becuase my cat died I say the LAW of life is ‘death

,” after which I said death is ‘a constraint’ on life;    I then concluded that if Death is a law;  and death is a contraint;  law is a constraint.   I arrived at calling law “a constraint.”   You have to decide for yourself what you think law is.  That way when you are out in the world away from school and you find yourself explaining stuff;  you don’t simply repeat the stuff I said.   That is fine. But its not what law is.  That is my opinion. Law might be that.  But its more than that.  Or its not only that. Its not sufficient to say simply that.   That works for me;  in class (if you learn; if you don’t learn than its not it and I failed.)  But what works for you is what you think up.  Not what I say. Repeating what I say is flattering to me. But in the end it will leave you short. Leave you hanging.  In the end you have to come to your own decision about “what law is.”    And then about what the constitution is.  And when you do ...    nothing. When you do that is it. That is the objective. That is the game we are playing.   It could be good. It could be right. But also it will put you on much better footing to concretely function effectively in the harsh cruel world out there that in reality does not care at all if you live or die. 

Getting back to point then.    thinking is very much about reconsidering what came before.  

So I am like a court;  “reviewing” what we did before. This is biologically correct.   Why?   Because think how your brain works.  Your brain is “an associative” device.  (law... too; is associative...  the past informs the present.)  To illustrate:   you are born. Do you remember when you were?  No.  But at some point you start to have memory. Your brain has conscious and unconscious memory. Your brain has chemical memory.  Everything that happens effects how your brain is.  When things happen today, they fire up connections in your brain.  Today’s input rubs and runs into yesterday’s and last year’s conscious and unconscious mind waves;  and the connection between the two is what synthesizes out your reaction to current things.  The past associates with the present (input) and you come up with a course of action.  A path is taken. You are associative by nature.  Living things work that way. The larger your brain the more you do this.  A creature with a relatively small brain does not “learn.”   Monkeys in the bush signal danger when they see a snake.  But if they see a trail in the sand left by a snake most of the time they don’t connect the trail with the danger. They have to actually see the snake to signal danger.  They associate seeing the snake with danger.  But they don’t associate seeing evidence of the reptile with danger.  (Lower primates don’t get ‘circumstantial evidence.”)  Humans do get that though.  You see how the more brain you have, the more you can suppose about what is going on around you?


What does Law do?  The common law works associatively.  Imagine that 400 years ago;  in England

 or somewhere in Western Europe.  Imagine that two people are in a conflict.  Say; they live next to each other.  One plants some trees on the ground which all seem to have already agreed;  is the other person’s property.  Trespass has happened. The custom before was that whoever used the land could say it was theirs.  If they used it for many years, then they got to claim title to it.  So a property rights system arose.  Now suppose these two people are very mad at each other.  In their village there is a Lord. (not a king; but a Duke or something;   the head royal person of that village) That Duke has appointed a Magistrate to hear cases which involve social conflict. (in the past people used to kill each other ... this led to Feud.  One would kill the other. His relatives would kill. Then their relatives would get revenge. Vendetta would go on for years.  The impact of this was the society would become unproductive. The community would not work smoothly.  (people lived as wild creatures in a state of nature;  not as people working together)  So what happened somehow is a King arose or something; and law got created saying “no one shall feud;  and if there is a problem, bring it to the Magistrate and that office will bring a decision about the problem.”    


The common law is the law of the magistrates.   The Magistrate would listen to each side explain the problem.  Then the Magistrate would make a ruling. (how would that get made?  probably by asking;  how did they do it in the past;  what was done in Rome... in Egypt....  what should the good decision be? What should the right decision be?)    OK.  Suppose this specific problem had never happened before. The Magistrate would make a ruling.  

The ruling is... the ruling. (in our system they are called “opinions.”)

The ruling becomes a propoision of Law.  The ruling becomes like a rule.   

Now if the legislature passes a statute (a law) then you know; this is “the law” and you have to decide if you are going to follow it or not.  Yes?   (yes.)  So if the legislature passed a law saying people will pay tax;  and the president or governor of the state signed the law; then that is the law and people have to follow it.  The law is there because the legislature created a specific law.


The Magistrate is not a legislature.  But when the Magistrate makes a ruling;  it becomes like a custom which has to be followed.  It is a law which becomes binding on future cases.  The Magistrate’s ruling becomes “a precedent.” (in latin this is called  stare decisis.)  Whatever the principle or rule of the one case;  that rule or principle should not be ignored by future cases.  The past has associated with the present now (same way the brain naturally subconsciously runs present input by past memor)  ... past cases set rules and CONSTRAINTS which guide contemporary cases.

This is called THE COMMON LAW.    


The common law has been growing for hundreds of years.   There are rules about property; rules about contracts, rules about rules, rules about this; rules about that;   Anything that happens in court, which is not the consequence of a statute or an administrative order (by the president or one of the departments in the executive branch) is part of the court’s (the judiciaries) COMMON LAW.


The sense of the courts.  The sense of...    well. you see now?  This is the common law.  This way;  anyone who wants to can try to read in books what the court did with the past cases. And then you can predict what the court might do if you find yourself in some contemporary situation.


The present is guided by the past. The past is sometimes wise.  But sometimes it is not wise.  The law has to grow.  It has to meet current urgency.


And yet; it has to do so in a way which maintains the integrity of the correct parts of the past.


This class is all about getting you to realize that this is the way our system works.  And getting you to be able to function within our system.



Part of our law is CONSTITUTIONAL.  But part of our law is...COMMON LAW. Both are platforms and tools which people use to navigate through the turbulent rough waters of life.

_______________________

Now;  think back to our “problems.”

1.   You are the bus driver. Your bus brakes are gone.  You see you are going to smash into five people. But you also see your wheel works.  You can turn. But if you do you see you will hit one person on the road.  


     a/    before I asked you; what is the right thing to do?

      
    most of us said;   kill one. Let the five live.    But when I said;  ok;  if that is so; just like my cat dying means the law of life is death;  and law is CONSTRAINT....         I said;   if the principle of save five is to save the most;   then what use is this idea when you are a doctor who needs organs to transplent into five people;     Can you kill one person to save five people?  (all of you said no; ofcourse not!)   Well;  if you can’t kill a healthy man to save five... how come you can drive a bus into a healthy person to save five?


?    The idea that law is driven by the greatest GOOD for the greatest number of people (call it the happiness principle.. i.e. whatever brings the most happiness is the way to decide what to do) seems to be insufficient to answer the question of “what to do?” in difficult moments.


     HERE IS A CLUE:     is there any answer in some Law thing?   That will help guide us?


                Is there any help in THE CONSTITUTION?


            (you don’t know enough about that document yet to know the answer)

            Is there any help (guidance) in  THE COMMON LAW?


            Is there any help in  STATUTORY LAW?  (yes;    one statute says; if you take the life of another person by your own intentional conscious action.... you have perpetrated homicide.)  So by knowing the law of a Statute... you can say;  Maybe I better not bother with saving the five...



You see how LAW gives you   HELP   when things are D I F F I C U L T@!?


You have to reason your way to answers.  There are no certain answers. There is only what happens.   All of the above things have some relevance to seeing how to get from the moment we are in into the moment we will be in shortly.


The law involves great discipline.


The law does not directly try to answer what can’lt be answered.

Children ask for clear answers.

Adults realize that....       clear answers are not part of reality.

IS DEATH the Opposite of life?         How many angels can dance on the head of a pin.    Law is more like poetry than economics or social science.


How do you tell someone what “poetry is.?”


How do you learn about Law?


(by reading this stuff I write;  by coming to class;  by thinking about this all;  and by critically involving yourself with it)


that is how.


Some of you just will get it. Some will realize God planted their DNA ways differently.  


But for now;  our ambition is only to understand Law;  and the specific law called the Constitution.


What I say is only theoretic.  This is not the real world. The real world has different reality. This is the study of law in a class.  

And yet; this is what I see of what law is.

The law is there. Its part of our fabric. Its what we are. The universe decrees that we all are pulled by gravity; we all need sleep; water; food; love.   The nature of things decrees we all have moral feelings about what is beyond pure need; Good.  And we all have feelings about what is right.  Legal philosophy notices these things and creates books and books of discussion about them.


Nature also has real life.  IN real life there have to be as quick as possible responses to problems.  When we are upset we don’t always function too well.  So we as people found; if we right stuff down;  and use the stuff we wrote as tools...    Constitutions, judge made law (common law,) legislative/president made law (statutes and executive orders) ...  we look to this....   (sometimes it finds us when we wish it would not... )


nothing really to say;   that is the truth of it. now you know.  So now what?


(explore it in greater detail)  That is what we will do.



I wish I could email all of you this so you could read it before class; so we could focus on more profound stuff in class. We don’t get a lot of time in class. So its better not to use too much time on simple stuff like this.


but...   uhh.. since no one emailed me; and only one person kept a journal....   uhh.. we’ll have to do it this way. (at harvard people keep a journal;  once you get your momentum going...   sometimes there is no time for the journal; the journal is really just a discussion with yourself)  

But... at harvard they tell you to keep a journal.  

Harvard kinda sets a standard for the intelligent effective productive way to do things.


in the modern life;   use of email       ...     lawyers don’t file papers anymore. We file lawsuits and papers in them through email.


no point in killing lots of trees. Killing trees is kinda like letting melons rot in the train station.

(the court said letting fruit rot in the train station was simply impossible;     I said not using email is like killing trees.)   Are there any objections to the comparisons I have made here?


NOTE:   (remember; we live in a Democratic Capitolistic Liberal Republic.   The idea of Liberal.... is the idea of we have “liberty”      Liberty is the idea that each person is free.   Each person has a liberty interest in thinking what they think.   So if what I say makes you upset; it kinda is a blot on your liberty.   The question is;  is it a legitimate contraint... or is it an undue imposition of force by me?   

So the idea of “objections” means;    what you say will be listened to. You will be respected at least to the extent that what you say will be listened too.

WE want to go further;  we want to learn skills here which will allow you to;   win;   not simply get listened too.


Its a very difficult thing to do actually;    (why?  because as if the intellectual side of it was not difficult; then there is the natural fact that big fish eats little fish.   Often you have to go against people with money and power.  And so they are of a size which   if god’s nature was totally in control; you’d have no chance. But thanks to LAW;  David can beat Goliath. (if Goliath is a boob.)


Big and forceful; can be defeated by;    more powerful becuase its RIGHT.

And legal.

Law becomes an equalizing force against tyranny and abuse of power by...     the gravitas of...  unthinking power.  


After all;   we can fly if we have a plane.  Human beings invented planes.   Despite the fact that in the long run Gravity wins;   in the short run we can beat it in a sense.


When we are faced with;      uncomforming melons;   or what to do; kill someone or let others die...  we can look to the law to fuel our mind with ideas.    We don’t have to reinvent the wheel each time a problem comes along.  We have past inventions;   common laws;  constitutions;  statutes....   and other things; which guide us. (we have religions... we have science... we have all this)       The question though is given an almost endless range of options; 


which one shall we take?


See you next week at which time I will tell you the final definitive answer to the secret of what to do in life.  Type your paragraph here.


FOOTNOTE ONE

 The reason I asked you “is death the opposite of life” is because the philosohper Plato, 2400 years ago)  has in the famous dialogue he wrote called Phaedo, has Socrates (his teacher) explaining close to the end of his life stuff.  At one point in this dialogue (the substance of which I don’t remember at the moment... remember how I lost my train of thought in class... how I kinda kept on babbling on until I caught my mind again?)   ...  Well I don’t remember what Phaedo was about (I think it was about him explaining why he accepted the death sentence of the Athenean government.. rather than flee...       at one point in Phadeo he in fact declares that “the opposite of life    is    ‘death.”   (I wondered about that.   Its not really the opposite. Its just a state of non life.   But I guess you could argue that the state or position of “non” is in fact the opposite. But if I was to say to you;  a cat is not a dog (a cat is a nondog) then.. they are not really opposites. They are just different.  So since I was not sure...     I put the thing to you.   

   I learn a lot from you all. You are supposed to learn from me. But also I learn (stuff about life) from you.  This is therefore also why I would like if you are serious.  And participate. I learn that way. I don’t learn anything if there is ...   you know if you are being serious or being silly.  Silly is ok. Its fun.   Its...   not the point. 



FOOTNOTE TWO

American law arose from a Revolutionary War against England.  Our legal system takes from the English system what it wants.   This is why I refer to England.  France, Spain, Italy and so on all have law. But we here don’t use their legal systems. Some of the principles under our system probably are the same as theirs. But we have SYSTEMATIC rules and procedures and so on which are different.  We adopted those systematic ways of doing things from the English model.  One such way of doing law is THE COMMON LAW. 






PART THE SECOND    DO LIST

in the class


explain the course of the legal system;

   administrative... to courts.







do the mediation stuff with the cantelope case.




an alternative to the litigation;




get the class to do a mock negotiation.

   appoint roles;   discuss what to do to settle the case.




Begin to explore the idea of  RIGHTS.







LAW...




  The constitution

       people use “the constitution” as a way of objecting to something the government does.




notice the use of the word “unconstitutional.”




Just knowing a little about the law and the constitution won’t really get you into the door of the courthouse; you have to know “how” to do things there.  But before you know “how” you have to know “what.”  (we are studying the “what” (the substance of it all) in this class.   We look at How a little. But mostly we are working on “what”  and really only in order to get you personally to Do stuff using the medium we call “law.”  




Medium is like  “the thing” called law.    Medium is like “genre.”







Correll v. State




Docket: SC15-147

Opinion Date: October 2, 2015

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Appellant was convicted of four counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for each murder. After Governor Scott signed the death warrant Appellant filed a third successive motion for postconviction relief, claiming, inter alia, that Florida’s death penalty statute is unconstitutional. Appellant also filed extensive public records requests with several entities. Appellant was provided with some, but not all, of the requested records. The circuit court summarily denied Appellant’s third successive postconviction motion. Appellant subsequently filed a fourth successive postconviction petition, asserting, inter alia, that Florida’s lethal injection protocol is unconstitutional because of the use of midazolam. The circuit court denied Appellant’s fourth successive motion for postconviction relief. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Appellant’s third and fourth successive motions for postconviction relief, as well as the circuit court orders sustaining the objections to the public records requests, holding (1) Appellant’s challenge to the use of midazolam failed; (2) Appellant’s public records challenges were without merit; and (3) Appellant was not entitled to relief on the remainder of his claims.



PART THE THIRD:   LESSON PROPER (DEMOCRACY IN WESTERN CIVILIZATION)


In REVIEW




in order to understand how to manage well in life, we have supposed that knowing “the law” and in particular stuff about “our constitution” (in other words the particular way the law of our “state” is administered)  will help you do this.


We looked at a lot of loose abstract stuff. Just to get to know each other and get a feel for what we are exploring.


We then looked at deep issues connected to  the taking of Life. 


We then looked at more ordinary (less dramatic) issues of business and commerce.


Where then turned ouf focus to Role Playing as if we were not students but respected participants in our societies offices.  We saw maybe how the law and how the constitution guide us.  Instead of just ourselves; maybe not even with names in caves and trees;  we were presidents, judges, lawmakers,  TV editors,  scholars and...   other people socially active.


NOW WHAT?


Again;  we travel between the general and theoretic; and the practical and specific.   


Where did ‘democracy” spring into being on this planet?    Were the great cultural empires of Egypt and Mesopotamia ‘democratic?”  No.  They had a pharoh or a king.  The people had no voice. There was a ruling class.  They had, as far as we know, the power to create the policy of the “state’s” doings.

The group of people who is seen as introducing the idea of members of the community voting I believe is Athenian Greece. 

Athens in about 500 BC and before had maybe 40,000 people who were considered to be “citizens.”   These people were allowed to vote on I suppose issues and maybe on who would be the ruler or office holder.  The culture had this small number of voting members;  and something like 350,000 people who would be considered if not out and out slaves; people of no social power.  

This is thought to be the birthplace of democracy.  We don’t exactly have tape recordings of the debates.  We don’t have videos.  The most popular descriptions of what was going on are in the works of Plato and Aristotle.  Philosopers.  People who write about “just stuff.”  

I could say;  lets pull out the works of Plato and Aristotle; and lets read them.  It would be puzzling and confusing.  And though fun;   tedious.  


So instead of the philosophers;  I’m going to pull out this other thing.  What I am going to do today is look to not; the text of the constitution (not law stuff;)  not other law stuff; i.e. books about justice and books about legal process:   not TV media seminars showing discussions led by the most wonderful of professors engaging the most socially engaged of people:       no; today the medium is    fantasy;   the gods...   the story which in some sense created the modern republican State.


Remember how I said a republic is group of smaller political entities that have been linked?  The 50 US states form one United State.  Our Federal government is comprised of 50 state states.  

Athens was one city.   A city has a kind of leadership/followers organization.  Its a kind of state. But its a city state. Its not a republic. Its more a band of families and more powerful  business organizations.  It may have some army. A police force.  A group of people who deal with the trash. Farmers.  Teachers.  Artists.  Shoemakers.  Prostitutes.  Always there will be people from other places.  A city group is... a kind of State.


Modern States are not small.  They are created by many many many cities.  And then a small state state can have a number of cities. And then a number of states connect it it becomes “the republic.”


Rome was this way.   

Just like I saw what law was from my dead cat....    how can we learn something of what “a republic is?”  Before we write up a blue print of how our republic’s laws shall be;  don’t we have to know what a republic is?

Isn’t the answer as obvious as 2 and 2 is not five?


____________________


The land to the east of the atlantic ocean is called Europe.  If you keep going further you hit Asia.  China and India are Asian like.  Japan and Korea and the PHillipines and Vietname and Cambodia and Laos and Thailand and Burma and Nepal and Buhtan and Pakistan are all Asian.  People tend to have less round look around their eyes.  


People in Russia are slavic.  They tend to as you go east blend into mongolian look. As you go South from Russia you will encouter Poland and Czechoslovokia and Hungary.  Romania and Bulgaria.  People there seem a bit of a mix of Asian and what we consider white christian.  


Germans and Fins and English and French and Italians and Swedes...   are more light skinned and some have blond hair.  As you get towards Asia you get a kind of look that mostlyl you don’t see in Western Europe. 


To the South of Europe on its eastern side you see;    what is called greece.   They are having a lot of problems.  They are not doing well capitolistically.   They have to be given money to survive. They are given money by Germany and the other Western European nations. Spain and Greece and Italy have econmic problems.  Germany is stronger.  

Just a bit under the land of the south slaves;  under russia; under bulgaria and romania and serbia and Croatia;   just to the west of Turkey;    you find GREECE.


Athens was not greece. Athens was Athens.  Other cities around that geographical part of the world were Sparta. Thessalonika.  Corinth. Delphi.   Many many cities.   

Did anyone here see the film 300?   Remember how the Persian army of Xerxes was trying to conquer the Spartans?   The Persians are down in what is now Iran.  That was a powerful culture.  If you go to Disney World you learn in the SpaceShip earth paviliion in Epcot that another group of people from the Southern side of the Medditerranean (the Phoenicians) invented a way of writing words which unified many different systems. (the alphabet was invented.)

The people of Athens joined up with the people of Sparta to resist Xerxes in the film 300.


The alliance...  was a kind of Republic.         Re are two letters in front of a lot of words.    Ic are letters at the end of many words.  these prefixes and suffixes are probably not the root of the word Republic.


Remember how I analyzed the word “constitution””   Con..    and    tution..  Those gloss the meaning of the core word. The core word is        stitu..      Remember how I observed that a fundamental mantra was OM Tat Sat... Om Tat Sat....  tat sat... the same letters are..     st  st


St is “state”

And the study of law... and the constitution; is all about gaining an awareness; a consciousness of what it means to be “conscious of the social.”     You see in nature;  chimpanzees and Gorillas and whales and wolves are all part of a social order.


Humans have a refined social order we call ‘the state.”


Its basic to our nature.


We have the capacity to think about it; and tell in words stuff about it. And in so doing we can control our own destiny much more than corals or bees or lemurs.   

But how?   What are the details?


You can imagine that when Xerxes came up;  and Athenian citizens joined with Spartan warriors to resist him....     but they did not create any long term alliance that created a piece of paper with words on it that they would call the compact or constitution between them.   Sparta and Athens did not the way the 50 N American states create the United States... Athens and Sparta did not do that. At least not to my knowledge?

WHAT CREATED THE nation STATE?

  (the substance of what this lecture involves comes from an EdX lecture from harvard college;  Greek Epic;  you can sign up for EdX and you can do the whole course if you want; its really good)


Have you seen the film Troy?   Remember Achiles?  (Brad Pitt)  Agememnon... Hector.  Paris..  Brisias;  Helen (played by Robin Wright; Princess Bride.. Sean Penn’s wife for a while)    King Priam;  Achilles’ mom Thetis (a goddess.)     I’m struggling to remember the name of Hector’s wife.  I realize I remember the males; but less the names of the females.  I discover I am a chauvinisit I guess.     Her name is Andromache;  (thank god for google.)


Remember how that one actor who was a bad dude in the Bourne films;  played the greedy king Agememnon?   When the princes of Troy (Troy is a city on the coast of what we’d call Turkey today) Hector and Paris went to Sparta to try to create peace with Menelaus;  Paris and Menelaus’ wife Helen got involved. When Paris and Hector went back to Troy, Helen went with Paris.  Menelaus got very mad.  Ran to his brother Agememnon.  Agememnon was the sort of ruler who liked to conquer weaker states.  He’d always wanted to conquer Troy.  Troy was strong.  Donald Trump had built a wall around it So no one could get in.  So it was “strong.”  Agememnon used the excuse of going after Helen for his brother Menelaus.  (remember we spoke of ‘revenge’ in this course?  Feuding?  You do me wrong... so I will do you wrong.. and the cycle goes on and on...)  Agememnon did not really care about Menelaus’ problem with Helen running off with Orlando Bloom playing Paris of Troy.   He just wanted an excuse to try to conquer Troy.  The people then were very concerned  (just like we are today) with their Gods. (we tend to look to one god.. but they were pagan and had many)   In order to have favor from the gods to go to war against Troy (remember all this is an invented story) the god of ... I forget which god it was;  Maybe the God of war (Diania... or something) told Agememnon he’d have to sacrifice his daughter Iphegenia.  Being a total creep he was willing to do it.  Iphegenia actually escaped.  But...   Agememnon and the invading army sailed off to Troy. When he came home ten years later his wife Clymenestra and her lover murdered Agememnon (because she was mad that he’d have sacrificed their daughter.  Then their other children (Orestes and Electra) killed Clymenestra and her lover.  Then stories were written about their suffering (due to having murdered their mother.) This set of stories was written by.. I forget; its either Aeschylus, Sophelces or Euripidies.  Some years after the story that we are concerned with.  All of these stories have points.  The great philsopher Aristotle explains:  “the point of drama is to teach people about life by watching the story; so they don’t necessarily have to learn the hard way by experience.    You learn to manage through problems... by watching hypotheticals. You reason about the problems. Since reasoning is hard and often boring;  sometimes its put into a story. So you end up learning a lesson just by enjoying the story.   These stories;   Agememnon’s assault on Troy... Odysseus’ return back to his home city of Ithica;  The Orestia...  all these stories were performed in .. it was not theater like we have in modern day. It was more like deeply involved theater. The audience was much more....    they were involved with the presentation of these stories the way we love Super Bowls and World Cups and....   war. We like to watch about war on TV.  CNN; Aljezeer; Fox news:  MSNBC;    even the Disney Channel has... the themes of human beings are all similar. You see if you have the chance to watch on TV.


Anyhow I’m getting way off point.     The point here is this.   Xerxes; the Persian (Iranian) leader really did attack the land we today call Greece.


All these other things are made up stories.  But there are facts.  Persia did try to go North and conquer Europe.  (they were not able too)  

The city of Athens (Southern Greece) and the Spartans (I don’t know where it is; in Greece somewhere) did join forces and battle against the Persians.

This connection was one of the things that started the development of GREECE;  one big state of many cities;  rather than a lot of independent cities.  This was how the republic was born.  It evolved slowly.

Another of the things which began to tie the many greek penninsula cities into one unified STATE was;    the story of Agememnon, Achilles, Odysseus, Hector, Priam, Paris, Ajax, Helen, Brisias, Andromache...(notice how I put the women last?  I am a total chauvinist.)

The book is called The Iliad.  Its said to be writen by HOMER.  Actually its doubtful any one person wrote the story.   Rather the story slowly grew over time; and it was said to be written by Homer.  Its not real likely though any one person created this story.

The story is called ‘epic.’  That is the name of its style.  Like you might say Adam Sandler makes comedy films. His medium is comedic.  Shakespeare created “tragedy.”   The Simpsons are “animation.”  These are the medium.   The medium of the Iliad and Odyssey are ‘epic.”

The storires are thought of as a kind of “constution.”   The story (of the journey of the many combined Greek city states.. the Spartans, the Daanans, the Acheans, the...  its like saying an all star team.  All the city states.  Achilles the super man of the time;  the man who was half god half human;  so not a man at all;   he had his troops.  Odysseus was from Ithica. He had his.  Agememnon was from somehwere.   Menelaus was Spartan.  From all over what is greece;  suddenly there was an alliance.

What tied it for greek people all over was; they all had similar gods.   Zeus; Athena;  Apollo;  all these greek city states had similar gods.   And now they had a similar story that talked about the Gods.

(you know the story;   the greeks arrive on the shore of Troy.  If you saw the movie you know.  They tried for ten years to defeat Troy. But ofcourse spears and chariots can’t penetrate high walls.   So it was a stalemate. But then Odysseus had a tricky idea.  He had the greeks build a huge hollow wooden horse.  The horse was left on the beach. Then all the greek ships disappeared.  The Trojans interpreted the horse as an expression of defeat.  They brought the horse into the city.

The horse was hollow. It was full of Greek soldieres.  At night they exited the horse.  They opened the gates of Troy. And the greeks soldiers rushed in.  The conquered Troy.   The king (Priam) was murdered.   Hector was by then dead.  Troy was burned.  Achilles... died (we don’t know how. The idea that he was shot in the heel by Paris... I never saw that in the book.)  I think Hollywood maybe added that.  

So anyhow ok; Agememnon now had what he wanted.  They killed the men. Took the women as slaves and probably the children.  And ok.  Time went on.  

Agememnon went back home and was murdered.




One of Troy’s other princes; Aeneas;   escaped;  got on ships and after sailing around for a while; left off his love afair with Queen Dido (down by what I think is Libya today; maybe Egypt) sailed up to what became Rome.    This then is another story by a man named Virgil (who I think unlike Homer maybe did exist... but I don’t know) of how Rome great. You all know.  Rome is on South West Italy.   It came to be a great civilization.  It had laws. The laws were based on something called The Twelve Tables.  Rome had a democracy in its republic for a while. But then that corrupted and fell and Ceasar became an empreror and Rome was no longer democratic.  Rome eventually fell.   The next great civilization to assume rank of super power was England.  France, Germany, Portugal, Spain;  all would have liked to have been the super power. But England won.  




We became the next one.   Some say China is overwhelming us now.




Time does not stop.



Death is there for all of us. The law is above all of us;  always.   


lets read some of the Iliad together.  This story;  is actually a kind of constitution.

There are many legal issues in it.

But this is the most commonly known one.

When the Greeks landed on the beach of Troy;   Achilles (super man)  was ahead of all. (you saw the film)  He seized the temple of Apollo that was on the beach. He capatured a princess of Troy named Brisias.  He would have her to be his....       (there are many stories of how Brisias would have loved to be Achilles wife; for all women loved Achilles;  if ever there was a 007 it was Achilles)  Achilles in fact made 007 and Jason Borurne and even Lebron James seem weak and foolish....   Achilles ....   I mean just wow;  Achilles.       Anyhow here is what happened. King Agememnon, being something of an idiot, offended his primary warrier Achilles by stealing Brisias from him.

Achilles got mad.  Brisias (in the film) said she did not want Achilles to kill Agememnon.. (so he did not) but he refused to fight Agememnon’s battle.  Without Achilles fighting the force attacking Troy had no chance to win. 


Three generals;   Odysseus, Ajax maybe and I forget who   went to Achilles and asked him to accept a settlement from Agememnon for the wrong (for the tort) he had perpetrated against Achilles.


And here you see; its the same as “settle the feud.”  This story is like the cornerstone of a written down solution to the problem of social conflict.   The story did not invent the “composition settlement.”  But by putting it into one story; which people all over the land area saw.... it unified greece.


(another thing that unified Greec was that ther was one Greek City State called Macedonia. A strong king named Phillip conquered a lot of the land down in that area of the world.  (just like Agememnon wanted to do to Troy.  Phillip did it in real life.)   He’d leave an administration where he went.  He’d get tax from people.  And it would have the effect of making all on social thing.


Phillip had a son named Alexander.   Alexander was schooled by Aristotle.   Alexander, like Xerxes, Phillip and   Agememnon;   took troops and “conquered” pretty much all the land around there. All the way into India.  (did you ever see the movie;  The Man who Would be King?... they refer to Segudna...  i.e. Alexander)   


The conquests by these greek dictators...   had a unifying effect.


But so did this story.   All greeks loved this story the way we love “the constitution.”



In our constitution;  we see the promise of Liberty;  of Propsertiy;  of Security.


The greeks found meaning for their own lives in this story. 


And that a lot of people in one part of the world; all held as dear the same story.....


do the math;   the people that    do the same thing...     become       connected.


A STATE becomes.


(eventually it will become one world State..  that is if we don’t globally warm ourself off the planet by extinction first) 


Lets read some of this just to get a feel for another “constitution” of sorts.


Believe me;   if you push yourself to do this now;  when you are struggling to manage the difficult things of life;  they will see less difficult.

You are become sophisisticated. you are learning.


One very great professor I had...  you see;  I’d gone to Nova.   That was ok. I liked it.  It was $5,000 a year in 1980 - 83.   But my brother went to MIT and my sister Brown and my brother in law Wharton (same as Donald Trump) and I would not have been able to feel equal if I did not get some noteworthy school after my name.  So I went to Columbia.

One professor at Columbia was Willis Reece.  Now the Iliad says Achilles was blond.  Professor Reece was never blond.  But from my point of view he and all these other amazing human beings I got to study under were as Achilles.



Professor Reece was... well;  I felt like a bug around him.  He was so great.  So knowledgeable.  So much like a god....

I did not take his class.  I took four or five classes.  But I’d heard of him. So I went and sat on on his class. Same way I did nto actually get a diploma from Harvard. But I went all together for a month or so and in that time saw quite a lot of what it must be like to spend four years there.  So I sat in on a number of Professor Reece’s lectures on torts.

(torts are the idea of a state response for inndividual wrongs between two people.  Remember how I explained that in a simple time;  if someone accidentally (or on purpose) hurt someone else... then that someone else or their family would go back and harm the person who hurt them. Then that person or his family would do the same back. And a feud would grow.   

THe king set up a system.  People were not allowed to engage in Blood Feud.  They’d have to bring the problem before the king (or his appointed magistrate.) Tell the story. The magistrate would then pronounce what the remedy would be When a person harms another a person you might say “tortures” them.   Breaking an agreement is not torturing. Its breaking a contract.  So you sue for damages.  

But if you do something carelessly;   say you drive on the wrong side of the street; or you drive drunk;  and you cause an accident; you have not broken any clear contract with another person. But you still have a duty to each person to be careful to not cause them harm. If you cause harm by breaking the basic duty to act reasonably fairly you have commited a “tort.”   A wrong.  And the law does not let you go and bring a similar wrong upon the person who caused it. No. The law lets you bring a civil lawsuit.


This is “torts.” (as opposed to contracts or constitutional law or criminal law or...   etc)



Professor Reece not only taught torts.  He wrote the thick book that people all over the USA use to teach torts. (its called a case book.) 




You saw Professor Hart and Professor Saks’ case book on legal process. (they did not publish the book. They kept it private just to Harvard students. But after they died their families had it published so everyone could use it.)

So I was sitting there; letting the brilliance of Professor Reece transform me from a complete idiot into something less confused.   I ran into him in the elevator one day. He was standing next to Benno Schmnidt.  Benno was a professor at Columbia too.  I’d seen Benno moderating the Fred Friendly shows we did last class.  I’d met Benno at my orientation the first day I ever was at Columbia.  I’d seen him on TV. So my jaw dropped to see him in real life. (how would you feel if you just saw Lebron James?)  And I said... “I saw you on TV.”    

Professor Reece and Benno both saw me.  And since their job was to do for me what I am trying to do for you; ... they     did the professor thing.

Professor Reece said “  .. suddenly; as if he’d pulled an idea out of the air”   “” the criminal law..  the criminal law... do you know that song.?  The criminal law..”  

ok?  So when you ask me how to manage;  how to learn...    you somehow interpret what I am saying so that it makes sense for you.  I’m trying to push you to be the best person you can be.

They were doing that; or some version of that.  Teaching; its called teaching.  Its called learning.

One day in class; Professor Reece; who was quite dramatic;    not boring at all (some professors put you to sleep faster than you can imagine...  some you just love to go see the way people from Athens would love the Homer and other festivals; for at festivals we becomes...     we go beyond our normal animals self;   we are not longer “individual.” We are part of the group. The group is much stronger than any one person.  (even Achilles died.)

When we are strong we are as god.

In reality we all die. But our law lives on. Our constitution is over 200 years old.

We still read the Iliad.   Its .. its... its   the state of mind and being it creates is over 2,500 years old.    

The story was this;    Agememnon was busy putting together his whore like murdering army.  He summoned all the great generals and warriors of the land area. (most probably did not want to go; but he’d have killed them if they did not.)  Nice man, huh?   Dictator... tyrant.     No wonder the authors killed him off.   If you cant’ kill.. you can at least get your revenge in the media.


Anyhow;  why would a superman like Achilles go off to fight Agememnon’s illegal war?   (now ask the deeper question;  the DRAFT;  if you are called to war... how realistic is it that you don’t go?)    

In the story;   (in real life you either go or not)  Achilles is talking to Thetis; his mom. (what person would not talk to their mom if they were called to go to a war?)   


Thetis knows his future. (gods know stuff; its what they do; if you are a god its what you do.)   She tells him; If you go to war you will have glory;   your name will be forever known. You will in effect live forever... (not really; but your name will.)  If you don’t go you will live to a ripe old age;  but no one will ever know your name.


Achilles.. the story gives us; went.  and died.


And we still talk about him today.




war you might say; is in our    blood;   in our being...   its our constitution.




. you can debate that; you can resist it;   you can wish it was not so.







But look around;    the facts of what has always happened and what is happening now;   







tells you waht you can and can’t do.  You can’t fly without a plane.







you have to obey the law.




And the law of the universe is;  clear;   we are constrained by death.










(for those who want to talk about life hereafter..       I don’t know. I just know the idea of dying causes me to get  weirded out;    I am straining when I think about it. I am troubed that so many people I loved died.  My cat especially.   My mother...   I only have my mother and my cousin left. All others are gone now.







No one is above this.







Lets read now.







Part the FOUR   (last for this installment)



REVIEW:







Hopefully it is becoming clear to the student (you)    what is going on in this class.




The points I am making are the point.  The substance of what I talk about in class are only tools. The point is the point.  Not the tools.  The tools are being used to increaes your skills.  To a very small extent I am telling you factual information. Substance.  Things being what they are (human nature and human intelligence being what it is) telling you substance will stimulate some of you to develop skills to know and do ‘law stuff.”  But the point is not the substance. The point is to get you to “activate.” To start  (to initiate) a dialogue within your own self (with-in your own mind’s eye) about things linked to law, law stuff, law doing (government, State stuff... etc. ‘that kind of thing.)




You all have it in you to be quite amazing. Quite competent.  Once activated you can do this stuff.  Just to do what it takes to get you there. That is the challenge for me.  




You all voluntarily signed up for school. You may not have realized why. Not specifically anyhow.  But obviously the general wide truth is you each wish to develop skills.  To learn.







Well; if the problem is not knowing;  and learning is the solution;  then you have to ask yourself “what is knowing?”







I’d say  (the same way i said that becuase my cat died I say the LAW of life is ‘death

,” after which I said death is ‘a constraint’ on life;    I then concluded that if Death is a law;  and death is a contraint;  law is a constraint.   I arrived at calling law “a constraint.”   You have to decide for yourself what you think law is.  That way when you are out in the world away from school and you find yourself explaining stuff;  you don’t simply repeat the stuff I said.   That is fine. But its not what law is.  That is my opinion. Law might be that.  But its more than that.  Or its not only that. Its not sufficient to say simply that.   That works for me;  in class (if you learn; if you don’t learn than its not it and I failed.)  But what works for you is what you think up.  Not what I say. Repeating what I say is flattering to me. But in the end it will leave you short. Leave you hanging.  In the end you have to come to your own decision about “what law is.”    And then about what the constitution is.  And when you do ...    nothing. When you do that is it. That is the objective. That is the game we are playing.   It could be good. It could be right. But also it will put you on much better footing to concretely function effectively in the harsh cruel world out there that in reality does not care at all if you live or die. 







Getting back to point then.    thinking is very much about reconsidering what came before.  




So I am like a court;  “reviewing” what we did before. This is biologically correct.   Why?   Because think how your brain works.  Your brain is “an associative” device.  (law... too; is associative...  the past informs the present.)  To illustrate:   you are born. Do you remember when you were?  No.  But at some point you start to have memory. Your brain has conscious and unconscious memory. Your brain has chemical memory.  Everything that happens effects how your brain is.  When things happen today, they fire up connections in your brain.  Today’s input rubs and runs into yesterday’s and last year’s conscious and unconscious mind waves;  and the connection between the two is what synthesizes out your reaction to current things.  The past associates with the present (input) and you come up with a course of action.  A path is taken. You are associative by nature.  Living things work that way. The larger your brain the more you do this.  A creature with a relatively small brain does not “learn.”   Monkeys in the bush signal danger when they see a snake.  But if they see a trail in the sand left by a snake most of the time they don’t connect the trail with the danger. They have to actually see the snake to signal danger.  They associate seeing the snake with danger.  But they don’t associate seeing evidence of the reptile with danger.  (Lower primates don’t get ‘circumstantial evidence.”)  Humans do get that though.  You see how the more brain you have, the more you can suppose about what is going on around you?




What does Law do?  The common law works associatively.  Imagine that 400 years ago;  in England

 or somewhere in Western Europe.  Imagine that two people are in a conflict.  Say; they live next to each other.  One plants some trees on the ground which all seem to have already agreed;  is the other person’s property.  Trespass has happened. The custom before was that whoever used the land could say it was theirs.  If they used it for many years, then they got to claim title to it.  So a property rights system arose.  Now suppose these two people are very mad at each other.  In their village there is a Lord. (not a king; but a Duke or something;   the head royal person of that village) That Duke has appointed a Magistrate to hear cases which involve social conflict. (in the past people used to kill each other ... this led to Feud.  One would kill the other. His relatives would kill. Then their relatives would get revenge. Vendetta would go on for years.  The impact of this was the society would become unproductive. The community would not work smoothly.  (people lived as wild creatures in a state of nature;  not as people working together)  So what happened somehow is a King arose or something; and law got created saying “no one shall feud;  and if there is a problem, bring it to the Magistrate and that office will bring a decision about the problem.”    




The common law is the law of the magistrates.   The Magistrate would listen to each side explain the problem.  Then the Magistrate would make a ruling. (how would that get made?  probably by asking;  how did they do it in the past;  what was done in Rome... in Egypt....  what should the good decision be? What should the right decision be?)    OK.  Suppose this specific problem had never happened before. The Magistrate would make a ruling.  




The ruling is... the ruling. (in our system they are called “opinions.”)




The ruling becomes a propoision of Law.  The ruling becomes like a rule.   




Now if the legislature passes a statute (a law) then you know; this is “the law” and you have to decide if you are going to follow it or not.  Yes?   (yes.)  So if the legislature passed a law saying people will pay tax;  and the president or governor of the state signed the law; then that is the law and people have to follow it.  The law is there because the legislature created a specific law.




The Magistrate is not a legislature.  But when the Magistrate makes a ruling;  it becomes like a custom which has to be followed.  It is a law which becomes binding on future cases.  The Magistrate’s ruling becomes “a precedent.” (in latin this is called  stare decisis.)  Whatever the principle or rule of the one case;  that rule or principle should not be ignored by future cases.  The past has associated with the present now (same way the brain naturally subconsciously runs present input by past memor)  ... past cases set rules and CONSTRAINTS which guide contemporary cases.




This is called THE COMMON LAW.    




The common law has been growing for hundreds of years.   There are rules about property; rules about contracts, rules about rules, rules about this; rules about that;   Anything that happens in court, which is not the consequence of a statute or an administrative order (by the president or one of the departments in the executive branch) is part of the court’s (the judiciaries) COMMON LAW.




The sense of the courts.  The sense of...    well. you see now?  This is the common law.  This way;  anyone who wants to can try to read in books what the court did with the past cases. And then you can predict what the court might do if you find yourself in some contemporary situation.




The present is guided by the past. The past is sometimes wise.  But sometimes it is not wise.  The law has to grow.  It has to meet current urgency.




And yet; it has to do so in a way which maintains the integrity of the correct parts of the past.







This class is all about getting you to realize that this is the way our system works.  And getting you to be able to function within our system.







Part of our law is CONSTITUTIONAL.  But part of our law is...COMMON LAW. Both are platforms and tools which people use to navigate through the turbulent rough waters of life.







_______________________




Now;  think back to our “problems.”




1.   You are the bus driver. Your bus brakes are gone.  You see you are going to smash into five people. But you also see your wheel works.  You can turn. But if you do you see you will hit one person on the road.  




     a/    before I asked you; what is the right thing to do?




           

    most of us said;   kill one. Let the five live.    But when I said;  ok;  if that is so; just like my cat dying means the law of life is death;  and law is CONSTRAINT....         I said;   if the principle of save five is to save the most;   then what use is this idea when you are a doctor who needs organs to transplent into five people;     Can you kill one person to save five people?  (all of you said no; ofcourse not!)   Well;  if you can’t kill a healthy man to save five... how come you can drive a bus into a healthy person to save five?




?    The idea that law is driven by the greatest GOOD for the greatest number of people (call it the happiness principle.. i.e. whatever brings the most happiness is the way to decide what to do) seems to be insufficient to answer the question of “what to do?” in difficult moments.




     HERE IS A CLUE:     is there any answer in some Law thing?   That will help guide us?




                Is there any help in THE CONSTITUTION?




            (you don’t know enough about that document yet to know the answer)




            Is there any help (guidance) in  THE COMMON LAW?







            Is there any help in  STATUTORY LAW?  (yes;    one statute says; if you take the life of another person by your own intentional conscious action.... you have perpetrated homicide.)  So by knowing the law of a Statute... you can say;  Maybe I better not bother with saving the five...













You see how LAW gives you   HELP   when things are D I F F I C U L T@!?










You have to reason your way to answers.  There are no certain answers. There is only what happens.   All of the above things have some relevance to seeing how to get from the moment we are in into the moment we will be in shortly.







The law involves great discipline.










The law does not directly try to answer what can’lt be answered.







Children ask for clear answers.







Adults realize that....       clear answers are not part of reality.







IS DEATH the Opposite of life?         How many angels can dance on the head of a pin.    Law is more like poetry than economics or social science.







How do you tell someone what “poetry is.?”







How do you learn about Law?







(by reading this stuff I write;  by coming to class;  by thinking about this all;  and by critically involving yourself with it)







that is how.







Some of you just will get it. Some will realize God planted their DNA ways differently.  







But for now;  our ambition is only to understand Law;  and the specific law called the Constitution.










What I say is only theoretic.  This is not the real world. The real world has different reality. This is the study of law in a class.  




And yet; this is what I see of what law is.







The law is there. Its part of our fabric. Its what we are. The universe decrees that we all are pulled by gravity; we all need sleep; water; food; love.   The nature of things decrees we all have moral feelings about what is beyond pure need; Good.  And we all have feelings about what is right.  Legal philosophy notices these things and creates books and books of discussion about them.







Nature also has real life.  IN real life there have to be as quick as possible responses to problems.  When we are upset we don’t always function too well.  So we as people found; if we right stuff down;  and use the stuff we wrote as tools...    Constitutions, judge made law (common law,) legislative/president made law (statutes and executive orders) ...  we look to this....   (sometimes it finds us when we wish it would not... )







nothing really to say;   that is the truth of it. now you know.  So now what?







(explore it in greater detail)  That is what we will do.




I wish I could email all of you this so you could read it before class; so we could focus on more profound stuff in class. We don’t get a lot of time in class. So its better not to use too much time on simple stuff like this.







but...   uhh.. since no one emailed me; and only one person kept a journal....   uhh.. we’ll have to do it this way. (at harvard people keep a journal;  once you get your momentum going...   sometimes there is no time for the journal; the journal is really just a discussion with yourself)  




But... at harvard they tell you to keep a journal.  







Harvard kinda sets a standard for the intelligent effective productive way to do things.







in the modern life;   use of email       ...     lawyers don’t file papers anymore. We file lawsuits and papers in them through email.







no point in killing lots of trees. Killing trees is kinda like letting melons rot in the train station.

(the court said letting fruit rot in the train station was simply impossible;     I said not using email is like killing trees.)   Are there any objections to the comparisons I have made here?




NOTE:   (remember; we live in a Democratic Capitolistic Liberal Republic.   The idea of Liberal.... is the idea of we have “liberty”      Liberty is the idea that each person is free.   Each person has a liberty interest in thinking what they think.   So if what I say makes you upset; it kinda is a blot on your liberty.   The question is;  is it a legitimate contraint... or is it an undue imposition of force by me?   




So the idea of “objections” means;    what you say will be listened to. You will be respected at least to the extent that what you say will be listened too.













WE want to go further;  we want to learn skills here which will allow you to;   win;   not simply get listened too.







Its a very difficult thing to do actually;    (why?  because as if the intellectual side of it was not difficult; then there is the natural fact that big fish eats little fish.   Often you have to go against people with money and power.  And so they are of a size which   if god’s nature was totally in control; you’d have no chance. But thanks to LAW;  David can beat Goliath. (if Goliath is a boob.)




Big and forceful; can be defeated by;    more powerful becuase its RIGHT.




And legal.










Law becomes an equalizing force against tyranny and abuse of power by...     the gravitas of...  unthinking power.  







After all;   we can fly if we have a plane.  Human beings invented planes.   Despite the fact that in the long run Gravity wins;   in the short run we can beat it in a sense.







When we are faced with;      uncomforming melons;   or what to do; kill someone or let others die...  we can look to the law to fuel our mind with ideas.    We don’t have to reinvent the wheel each time a problem comes along.  We have past inventions;   common laws;  constitutions;  statutes....   and other things; which guide us. (we have religions... we have science... we have all this)       The question though is given an almost endless range of options; 




which one shall we take?







See you next week at which time I will tell you the final definitive answer to the secret of what to do in life.  



PART FOUR


​Greetings everyone>







1.  First order of business today.   




        I wonder if what I wrote is read.  I think we will all get more out of this if it is.   I know a little about law and a little about the constitution.  I can push you to knowing about it.  My efforts to do that will work better if you read that stuff.




            I’m not going to print out the stuff.  I’ll put it on a blog.   If you read it, the class will mean more to you.   I’m at times interesting up here.  But in the end this is not about me being stimulating. Its about you getting stimulated.  Its about you forming ideas about law and about constitutions.  (The constitution after all is just  “a particular law.”)







2.      Law;   for those of you who want to see;    there is a photo of my cat at markandrewtrop.com .   




3.      There was a comment that  I am a lawyer because I talk in circles.    Let me explain something to you.  I talk that way because that is how law is.  No one is able to be clear the way 2 and 2 is 4 for children.  Law is like poetry.  Its fragmented.   The constitution (like all positive laws) attempts to hypostatify (to make a clear concrete thing)  “law.”  To make it useful for real life.   In the end any law (including any provision of the constitution) has to be “applied.”   Doing it will bring to your view the truth; that people don’t interpret any part of the constitution the same.  Conflict will emerge. And then the court; the legislature and the Executive will deal with the controversy. This is all very real stuff.  This is the life of law.  Practical experience.




I could perhaps be a little more clear.  But the point of my haze is to push you to answer the questions I ask (and more importantly get you to answer the questions you ask) for your self.  I am unclear because I am pushing you to fill in the blanks I am purposefully leaving there. Your test answers will communicate to me if you “got it” or if I failed.   




4.   We use hypothetical cases; and real cases that we play around with to raise fundamental problems human beings in fact face.







5.      Since we all realized that no clear obvious answers ever solves the problems;   what then can we do about that?    One thing is we can realize what we are doing. And that is “law stuff.”  Its fun. But its very real. Its very serious.  Its not a game that you put away and forget out.  Each day when you awake and start to do things;   its not very long before some aspect of real like law constrains your experience.   Perhaps the only time when law and human law does not control is in the time of dreaming;  when though law still is there;  you can warp and bend it in ways nature, you know, does not tolerate.




6.        Lets do a little exercise.   

   Over here we will put;    two parties to a contract.  The party of the first part contracted with the party of the second part to ship Grade A Lima beans from Arizona to Jacksonville.  When the train arrived, the buyer realized that the product was non conforming (non conforming to the terms of the contract.)  (the beans are Grade C.)




   Lets put the buyer here;   and the seller here.   They will do now ....     we the people of the class will watch.    And we will draw lessons from what we see.   We will put it down on paper.  




     It will be like a judicial opinion.  Or a legislature bill.   







       Just as the royal seat appointed a magistrate in feudal europe to settle social conflicts so as to stop people from starting to feud with each other;    we see that unperformed promises create a problem for the common weal.  We need a law. We need to declare rules.   We need to refine our thought into principles.  We need to write them down.   We need a procedure for applying them to cases of business catastrophe.




   

Watch;   as if we were Gods... reaching in and putting the people involved straight.   Lets do it. It will be fun.   And profitable.










      6(a)   And;  we will do it for our class.   Suppose we want to create some fundamental law of this class.  Call it our constitution;   Take sheet of paper number two.   And put a title of this law; this constitution; this compact. These are your notes.  Then we must distill it into one document which speaks for all of us.




                We must find a name for our document.  And we must fill it with...  words.




Written words;  on a piece of paper.   







This is our challenge.







Let us not be afraid or weary;  for this is difficult and hardly rewarding.   But we are compelled to do this; for doing this is our nature.   Nature cannot be fooled.





FOOTNOTE ONE

 The anecdotal phrase “nature cannot be fooled” is taken from a report written by Richard Feynman.  Mr Feynman was one of the many scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project circa WW II.  A brilliant man;  saddened by the death of his wife and eventually losing a battle against cancer himself; he still gave to the world many nobel like insights.  Being who he was, he was asked and accepted the honor of investigating the crash of the space shuttle Challenger in 1985.  He refused to accept the overall Commission’s conclusions.  He had a demanding standard by which he conceived of what had gone wrong.  His critique was that sloppy work;  sloppy because it disregarded the laws of nature; had led to the disaster.   His minority report ended with the words;  ‘NASA owes it to the people it represents to abide by the laws of nature;  Nature cannot be fooled.”  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Commission_Report   




RF’s exact law words were For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.  (see App.F below) http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/rogers-commission/Appendix-F.txt




WE can fool ourselves.  But if we do, in the end; isn’t the point here that nature’s truth will march on and pave right over us if we fail to accept and abide   the LAW?  

 



































































Challenger explosion  Jan 28, 1986. 



















Appendix  F - Personal observations on the reliability of the Shuttle     http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/rogers-commission/Appendix-F.txt




    by R. P. Feynman 




Introduction




   It appears that there are enormous differences of opinion as to the probability of a failure with loss of vehicle and of human life. The estimates range from roughly 1 in 100 to 1 in 100,000. The higher

figures come from the working engineers, and the very low figures from management. What are the causes and consequences of this lack of agreement? Since 1 part in 100,000 would imply that one could put a Shuttle up each day for 300 years expecting to lose only one, we could properly ask "What is the cause of management's fantastic faith in the

machinery?"




   We have also found that certification criteria used in Flight

Readiness Reviews often develop a gradually decreasing strictness. The

argument that the same risk was flown before without failure is often

accepted as an argument for the safety of accepting it again. Because

of this, obvious weaknesses are accepted again and again, sometimes

without a sufficiently serious attempt to remedy them, or to delay a

flight because of their continued presence.




   There are several sources of information. There are published criteria

for certification, including a history of modifications in the form of

waivers and deviations. In addition, the records of the Flight

Readiness Reviews for each flight document the arguments used to

accept the risks of the flight. Information was obtained from the

direct testimony and the reports of the range safety officer, Louis

J. Ullian, with respect to the history of success of solid fuel

rockets. There was a further study by him (as chairman of the launch

abort safety panel (LASP)) in an attempt to determine the risks

involved in possible accidents leading to radioactive contamination

from attempting to fly a plutonium power supply (RTG) for future

planetary missions. The NASA study of the same question is also

available. For the History of the Space Shuttle Main Engines,

interviews with management and engineers at Marshall, and informal

interviews with engineers at Rocketdyne, were made. An independent

(Cal Tech) mechanical engineer who consulted for NASA about engines

was also interviewed informally. A visit to Johnson was made to gather

information on the reliability of the avionics (computers, sensors,

and effectors). Finally there is a report "A Review of Certification

Practices, Potentially Applicable to Man-rated Reusable Rocket

Engines," prepared at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory by N. Moore, et

al., in February, 1986, for NASA Headquarters, Office of Space

Flight. It deals with the methods used by the FAA and the military to

certify their gas turbine and rocket engines.  These authors were also

interviewed informally.




Solid Rockets (SRB)




   An estimate of the reliability of solid rockets was made by the range

safety officer, by studying the experience of all previous rocket

flights. Out of a total of nearly 2,900 flights, 121 failed (1 in

25). This includes, however, what may be called, early errors, rockets

flown for the first few times in which design errors are discovered

and fixed. A more reasonable figure for the mature rockets might be 1

in 50. With special care in the selection of parts and in inspection,

a figure of below 1 in 100 might be achieved but 1 in 1,000 is

probably not attainable with today's technology. (Since there are two

rockets on the Shuttle, these rocket failure rates must be doubled to

get Shuttle failure rates from Solid Rocket Booster failure.)




   NASA officials argue that the figure is much lower. They point out

that these figures are for unmanned rockets but since the Shuttle is a

manned vehicle "the probability of mission success is necessarily very

close to 1.0." It is not very clear what this phrase means. Does it

mean it is close to 1 or that it ought to be close to 1? They go on to

explain "Historically this extremely high degree of mission success

has given rise to a difference in philosophy between manned space

flight programs and unmanned programs; i.e., numerical probability

usage versus engineering judgment." (These quotations are from "Space

Shuttle Data for Planetary Mission RTG Safety Analysis," Pages 3-1,

3-1, February 15, 1985, NASA, JSC.) It is true that if the probability

of failure was as low as 1 in 100,000 it would take an inordinate

number of tests to determine it ( you would get nothing but a string

of perfect flights from which no precise figure, other than that the

probability is likely less than the number of such flights in the

string so far). But, if the real probability is not so small, flights

would show troubles, near failures, and possible actual failures with

a reasonable number of trials. and standard statistical methods could

give a reasonable estimate. In fact, previous NASA experience had

shown, on occasion, just such difficulties, near accidents, and

accidents, all giving warning that the probability of flight failure

was not so very small. The inconsistency of the argument not to

determine reliability through historical experience, as the range

safety officer did, is that NASA also appeals to history, beginning

"Historically this high degree of mission success..."




   Finally, if we are to replace standard numerical probability usage

with engineering judgment, why do we find such an enormous disparity

between the management estimate and the judgment of the engineers? It

would appear that, for whatever purpose, be it for internal or

external consumption, the management of NASA exaggerates the

reliability of its product, to the point of fantasy.




   The history of the certification and Flight Readiness Reviews will not

be repeated here. (See other part of Commission reports.) The

phenomenon of accepting for flight, seals that had shown erosion and

blow-by in previous flights, is very clear. The Challenger flight is

an excellent example. There are several references to flights that had

gone before. The acceptance and success of these flights is taken as

evidence of safety. But erosion and blow-by are not what the design

expected. They are warnings that something is wrong. The equipment is

not operating as expected, and therefore there is a danger that it can

operate with even wider deviations in this unexpected and not

thoroughly understood way. The fact that this danger did not lead to a

catastrophe before is no guarantee that it will not the next time,

unless it is completely understood. When playing Russian roulette the

fact that the first shot got off safely is little comfort for the

next. The origin and consequences of the erosion and blow-by were not

understood. They did not occur equally on all flights and all joints;

sometimes more, and sometimes less.  Why not sometime, when whatever

conditions determined it were right, still more leading to

catastrophe?




  In spite of these variations from case to case, officials behaved as

if they understood it, giving apparently logical arguments to each

other often depending on the "success" of previous flights. For

example. in determining if flight 51-L was safe to fly in the face of

ring erosion in flight 51-C, it was noted that the erosion depth was

only one-third of the radius. It had been noted in an experiment

cutting the ring that cutting it as deep as one radius was necessary

before the ring failed. Instead of being very concerned that

variations of poorly understood conditions might reasonably create a

deeper erosion this time, it was asserted, there was "a safety factor

of three." This is a strange use of the engineer's term ,"safety

factor." If a bridge is built to withstand a certain load without the

beams permanently deforming, cracking, or breaking, it may be designed

for the materials used to actually stand up under three times the

load. This "safety factor" is to allow for uncertain excesses of load,

or unknown extra loads, or weaknesses in the material that might have

unexpected flaws, etc. If now the expected load comes on to the new

bridge and a crack appears in a beam, this is a failure of the

design. There was no safety factor at all; even though the bridge did

not actually collapse because the crack went only one-third of the way

through the beam. The O-rings of the Solid Rocket Boosters were not

designed to erode. Erosion was a clue that something was wrong.

Erosion was not something from which safety can be inferred.




  There was no way, without full understanding, that one could have

confidence that conditions the next time might not produce erosion

three times more severe than the time before. Nevertheless, officials

fooled themselves into thinking they had such understanding and

confidence, in spite of the peculiar variations from case to case. A

mathematical model was made to calculate erosion. This was a model

based not on physical understanding but on empirical curve fitting. To

be more detailed, it was supposed a stream of hot gas impinged on the

O-ring material, and the heat was determined at the point of

stagnation (so far, with reasonable physical, thermodynamic laws). But

to determine how much rubber eroded it was assumed this depended only

on this heat by a formula suggested by data on a similar material. A

logarithmic plot suggested a straight line, so it was supposed that

the erosion varied as the .58 power of the heat, the .58 being

determined by a nearest fit. At any rate, adjusting some other

numbers, it was determined that the model agreed with the erosion (to

depth of one-third the radius of the ring). There is nothing much so

wrong with this as believing the answer! Uncertainties appear

everywhere. How strong the gas stream might be was unpredictable, it

depended on holes formed in the putty. Blow-by showed that the ring

might fail even though not, or only partially eroded through. The

empirical formula was known to be uncertain, for it did not go

directly through the very data points by which it was

determined. There were a cloud of points some twice above, and some

twice below the fitted curve, so erosions twice predicted were

reasonable from that cause alone. Similar uncertainties surrounded the

other constants in the formula, etc., etc. When using a mathematical

model careful attention must be given to uncertainties in the model.




Liquid Fuel Engine (SSME)




  During the flight of 51-L the three Space Shuttle Main Engines all

worked perfectly, even, at the last moment, beginning to shut down the

engines as the fuel supply began to fail. The question arises,

however, as to whether, had it failed, and we were to investigate it

in as much detail as we did the Solid Rocket Booster, we would find a

similar lack of attention to faults and a deteriorating

reliability. In other words, were the organization weaknesses that

contributed to the accident confined to the Solid Rocket Booster

sector or were they a more general characteristic of NASA? To that end

the Space Shuttle Main Engines and the avionics were both

investigated. No similar study of the Orbiter, or the External Tank

were made.




  The engine is a much more complicated structure than the Solid

Rocket Booster, and a great deal more detailed engineering goes into

it. Generally, the engineering seems to be of high quality and

apparently considerable attention is paid to deficiencies and faults

found in operation.




   The usual way that such engines are designed (for military or

civilian aircraft) may be called the component system, or bottom-up

design. First it is necessary to thoroughly understand the properties

and limitations of the materials to be used (for turbine blades, for

example), and tests are begun in experimental rigs to determine

those. With this knowledge larger component parts (such as bearings)

are designed and tested individually. As deficiencies and design

errors are noted they are corrected and verified with further

testing. Since one tests only parts at a time these tests and

modifications are not overly expensive. Finally one works up to the

final design of the entire engine, to the necessary

specifications. There is a good chance, by this time that the engine

will generally succeed, or that any failures are easily isolated and

analyzed because the failure modes, limitations of materials, etc.,

are so well understood. There is a very good chance that the

modifications to the engine to get around the final difficulties are

not very hard to make, for most of the serious problems have already

been discovered and dealt with in the earlier, less expensive, stages

of the process.




   The Space Shuttle Main Engine was handled in a different manner,

top down, we might say. The engine was designed and put together all

at once with relatively little detailed preliminary study of the

material and components.  Then when troubles are found in the

bearings, turbine blades, coolant pipes, etc., it is more expensive

and difficult to discover the causes and make changes. For example,

cracks have been found in the turbine blades of the high pressure

oxygen turbopump. Are they caused by flaws in the material, the effect

of the oxygen atmosphere on the properties of the material, the

thermal stresses of startup or shutdown, the vibration and stresses of

steady running, or mainly at some resonance at certain speeds, etc.?

How long can we run from crack initiation to crack failure, and how

does this depend on power level? Using the completed engine as a test

bed to resolve such questions is extremely expensive. One does not

wish to lose an entire engine in order to find out where and how

failure occurs.  Yet, an accurate knowledge of this information is

essential to acquire a confidence in the engine reliability in use.

Without detailed understanding, confidence can not be attained.




   A further disadvantage of the top-down method is that, if an

understanding of a fault is obtained, a simple fix, such as a new

shape for the turbine housing, may be impossible to implement without

a redesign of the entire engine.




   The Space Shuttle Main Engine is a very remarkable machine. It has

a greater ratio of thrust to weight than any previous engine. It is

built at the edge of, or outside of, previous engineering

experience. Therefore, as expected, many different kinds of flaws and

difficulties have turned up. Because, unfortunately, it was built in

the top-down manner, they are difficult to find and fix. The design

aim of a lifetime of 55 missions equivalent firings (27,000 seconds of

operation, either in a mission of 500 seconds, or on a test stand) has

not been obtained. The engine now requires very frequent maintenance

and replacement of important parts, such as turbopumps, bearings,

sheet metal housings, etc. The high-pressure fuel turbopump had to be

replaced every three or four mission equivalents (although that may

have been fixed, now) and the high pressure oxygen turbopump every

five or six. This is at most ten percent of the original

specification. But our main concern here is the determination of

reliability.




   In a total of about 250,000 seconds of operation, the engines have

failed seriously perhaps 16 times. Engineering pays close attention to

these failings and tries to remedy them as quickly as possible. This

it does by test studies on special rigs experimentally designed for

the flaws in question, by careful inspection of the engine for

suggestive clues (like cracks), and by considerable study and

analysis. In this way, in spite of the difficulties of top-down

design, through hard work, many of the problems have apparently been

solved.




   A list of some of the problems follows. Those followed by an

asterisk (*) are probably solved:




   1.Turbine blade cracks in high pressure fuel turbopumps (HPFTP). (May have been solved.)




   2.Turbine blade cracks in high pressure oxygen turbopumps (HPOTP).




   3.Augmented Spark Igniter (ASI) line rupture.*




   4.Purge check valve failure.* 




   5.ASI chamber erosion.*




   6.HPFTP turbine sheet metal cracking.




   7.HPFTP coolant liner failure.*




   8.Main combustion chamber outlet elbow failure.* 




   9.Main combustion chamber inlet elbow weld offset.* 




  10.HPOTP subsynchronous whirl.*




  11.Flight acceleration safety cutoff system (partial failure in a redundant system).*




  12.Bearing spalling (partially solved).




  13.A vibration at 4,000 Hertz making some engines inoperable, etc.




   Many of these solved problems are the early difficulties of a new

design, for 13 of them occurred in the first 125,000 seconds and only

three in the second 125,000 seconds. Naturally, one can never be sure

that all the bugs are out, and, for some, the fix may not have

addressed the true cause. Thus, it is not unreasonable to guess there

may be at least one surprise in the next 250,000 seconds, a

probability of 1/500 per engine per mission. On a mission there are

three engines, but some accidents would possibly be contained, and

only affect one engine. The system can abort with only two

engines. Therefore let us say that the unknown suprises do not, even

of themselves, permit us to guess that the probability of mission

failure do to the Space Shuttle Main Engine is less than 1/500. To

this we must add the chance of failure from known, but as yet

unsolved, problems (those without the asterisk in the list

above). These we discuss below. (Engineers at Rocketdyne, the

manufacturer, estimate the total probability as 1/10,000. Engineers at

marshal estimate it as 1/300, while NASA management, to whom these

engineers report, claims it is 1/100,000. An independent engineer

consulting for NASA thought 1 or 2 per 100 a reasonable estimate.)




   The history of the certification principles for these engines is

confusing and difficult to explain. Initially the rule seems to have

been that two sample engines must each have had twice the time

operating without failure as the operating time of the engine to be

certified (rule of 2x). At least that is the FAA practice, and NASA

seems to have adopted it, originally expecting the certified time to

be 10 missions (hence 20 missions for each sample). Obviously the best

engines to use for comparison would be those of greatest total (flight

plus test) operating time -- the so-called "fleet leaders." But what

if a third sample and several others fail in a short time? Surely we

will not be safe because two were unusual in lasting longer. The short

time might be more representative of the real possibilities, and in

the spirit of the safety factor of 2, we should only operate at half

the time of the short-lived samples.




   The slow shift toward decreasing safety factor can be seen in many

examples. We take that of the HPFTP turbine blades. First of all the

idea of testing an entire engine was abandoned. Each engine number has

had many important parts (like the turbopumps themselves) replaced at

frequent intervals, so that the rule must be shifted from engines to

components. We accept an HPFTP for a certification time if two samples

have each run successfully for twice that time (and of course, as a

practical matter, no longer insisting that this time be as large as 10

missions). But what is "successfully?" The FAA calls a turbine blade

crack a failure, in order, in practice, to really provide a safety

factor greater than 2. There is some time that an engine can run

between the time a crack originally starts until the time it has grown

large enough to fracture. (The FAA is contemplating new rules that

take this extra safety time into account, but only if it is very

carefully analyzed through known models within a known range of

experience and with materials thoroughly tested. None of these

conditions apply to the Space Shuttle Main Engine.




   Cracks were found in many second stage HPFTP turbine blades. In one

case three were found after 1,900 seconds, while in another they were

not found after 4,200 seconds, although usually these longer runs

showed cracks. To follow this story further we shall have to realize

that the stress depends a great deal on the power level.  The

Challenger flight was to be at, and previous flights had been at, a

power level called 104% of rated power level during most of the time

the engines were operating. Judging from some material data it is

supposed that at the level 104% of rated power level, the time to

crack is about twice that at 109% or full power level (FPL). Future

flights were to be at this level because of heavier payloads, and many

tests were made at this level. Therefore dividing time at 104% by 2,

we obtain units called equivalent full power level (EFPL). (Obviously,

some uncertainty is introduced by that, but it has not been studied.)

The earliest cracks mentioned above occurred at 1,375 EFPL.




   Now the certification rule becomes "limit all second stage blades

to a maximum of 1,375 seconds EFPL." If one objects that the safety

factor of 2 is lost it is pointed out that the one turbine ran for

3,800 seconds EFPL without cracks, and half of this is 1,900 so we are

being more conservative. We have fooled ourselves in three ways. First

we have only one sample, and it is not the fleet leader, for the other

two samples of 3,800 or more seconds had 17 cracked blades between

them. (There are 59 blades in the engine.) Next we have abandoned the

2x rule and substituted equal time. And finally, 1,375 is where we did

see a crack. We can say that no crack had been found below 1,375, but

the last time we looked and saw no cracks was 1,100 seconds EFPL. We

do not know when the crack formed between these times, for example

cracks may have formed at 1,150 seconds EFPL. (Approximately 2/3 of

the blade sets tested in excess of 1,375 seconds EFPL had cracks. Some

recent experiments have, indeed, shown cracks as early as 1,150

seconds.) It was important to keep the number high, for the Challenger

was to fly an engine very close to the limit by the time the flight

was over.




   Finally it is claimed that the criteria are not abandoned, and the

system is safe, by giving up the FAA convention that there should be

no cracks, and considering only a completely fractured blade a

failure. With this definition no engine has yet failed. The idea is

that since there is sufficient time for a crack to grow to a fracture

we can insure that all is safe by inspecting all blades for cracks. If

they are found, replace them, and if none are found we have enough

time for a safe mission. This makes the crack problem not a flight

safety problem, but merely a maintenance problem.




   This may in fact be true. But how well do we know that cracks

always grow slowly enough that no fracture can occur in a mission?

Three engines have run for long times with a few cracked blades (about

3,000 seconds EFPL) with no blades broken off.




   But a fix for this cracking may have been found. By changing the

blade shape, shot-peening the surface, and covering with insulation to

exclude thermal shock, the blades have not cracked so far.




   A very similar story appears in the history of certification of the

HPOTP, but we shall not give the details here.




   It is evident, in summary, that the Flight Readiness Reviews and

certification rules show a deterioration for some of the problems of

the Space Shuttle Main Engine that is closely analogous to the

deterioration seen in the rules for the Solid Rocket Booster.




Avionics




   By "avionics" is meant the computer system on the Orbiter as well

as its input sensors and output actuators. At first we will restrict

ourselves to the computers proper and not be concerned with the

reliability of the input information from the sensors of temperature,

pressure, etc., nor with whether the computer output is faithfully

followed by the actuators of rocket firings, mechanical controls,

displays to astronauts, etc.




   The computer system is very elaborate, having over 250,000 lines of

code. It is responsible, among many other things, for the automatic

control of the entire ascent to orbit, and for the descent until well

into the atmosphere (below Mach 1) once one button is pushed deciding

the landing site desired. It would be possible to make the entire

landing automatically (except that the landing gear lowering signal is

expressly left out of computer control, and must be provided by the

pilot, ostensibly for safety reasons) but such an entirely automatic

landing is probably not as safe as a pilot controlled landing. During

orbital flight it is used in the control of payloads, in displaying

information to the astronauts, and the exchange of information to the

ground. It is evident that the safety of flight requires guaranteed

accuracy of this elaborate system of computer hardware and software.




   In brief, the hardware reliability is ensured by having four

essentially independent identical computer systems. Where possible

each sensor also has multiple copies, usually four, and each copy

feeds all four of the computer lines. If the inputs from the sensors

disagree, depending on circumstances, certain averages, or a majority

selection is used as the effective input. The algorithm used by each

of the four computers is exactly the same, so their inputs (since each

sees all copies of the sensors) are the same. Therefore at each step

the results in each computer should be identical.  From time to time

they are compared, but because they might operate at slightly

different speeds a system of stopping and waiting at specific times is

instituted before each comparison is made. If one of the computers

disagrees, or is too late in having its answer ready, the three which

do agree are assumed to be correct and the errant computer is taken

completely out of the system. If, now, another computer fails, as

judged by the agreement of the other two, it is taken out of the

system, and the rest of the flight canceled, and descent to the

landing site is instituted, controlled by the two remaining

computers. It is seen that this is a redundant system since the

failure of only one computer does not affect the mission. Finally, as

an extra feature of safety, there is a fifth independent computer,

whose memory is loaded with only the programs of ascent and descent,

and which is capable of controlling the descent if there is a failure

of more than two of the computers of the main line four.




   There is not enough room in the memory of the main line computers

for all the programs of ascent, descent, and payload programs in

flight, so the memory is loaded about four time from tapes, by the

astronauts.




   Because of the enormous effort required to replace the software for

such an elaborate system, and for checking a new system out, no change

has been made to the hardware since the system began about fifteen

years ago. The actual hardware is obsolete; for example, the memories

are of the old ferrite core type. It is becoming more difficult to

find manufacturers to supply such old-fashioned computers reliably and

of high quality. Modern computers are very much more reliable, can run

much faster, simplifying circuits, and allowing more to be done, and

would not require so much loading of memory, for the memories are much

larger.




   The software is checked very carefully in a bottom-up

fashion. First, each new line of code is checked, then sections of

code or modules with special functions are verified. The scope is

increased step by step until the new changes are incorporated into a

complete system and checked. This complete output is considered the

final product, newly released. But completely independently there is

an independent verification group, that takes an adversary attitude to

the software development group, and tests and verifies the software as

if it were a customer of the delivered product. There is additional

verification in using the new programs in simulators, etc. A discovery

of an error during verification testing is considered very serious,

and its origin studied very carefully to avoid such mistakes in the

future. Such unexpected errors have been found only about six times in

all the programming and program changing (for new or altered payloads)

that has been done. The principle that is followed is that all the

verification is not an aspect of program safety, it is merely a test

of that safety, in a non-catastrophic verification. Flight safety is

to be judged solely on how well the programs do in the verification

tests. A failure here generates considerable concern.




   To summarize then, the computer software checking system and

attitude is of the highest quality. There appears to be no process of

gradually fooling oneself while degrading standards so characteristic

of the Solid Rocket Booster or Space Shuttle Main Engine safety

systems. To be sure, there have been recent suggestions by management

to curtail such elaborate and expensive tests as being unnecessary at

this late date in Shuttle history. This must be resisted for it does

not appreciate the mutual subtle influences, and sources of error

generated by even small changes of one part of a program on

another. There are perpetual requests for changes as new payloads and

new demands and modifications are suggested by the users. Changes are

expensive because they require extensive testing. The proper way to

save money is to curtail the number of requested changes, not the

quality of testing for each.




   One might add that the elaborate system could be very much improved

by more modern hardware and programming techniques. Any outside

competition would have all the advantages of starting over, and

whether that is a good idea for NASA now should be carefully

considered.




   Finally, returning to the sensors and actuators of the avionics

system, we find that the attitude to system failure and reliability is

not nearly as good as for the computer system. For example, a

difficulty was found with certain temperature sensors sometimes

failing. Yet 18 months later the same sensors were still being used,

still sometimes failing, until a launch had to be scrubbed because two

of them failed at the same time. Even on a succeeding flight this

unreliable sensor was used again. Again reaction control systems, the

rocket jets used for reorienting and control in flight still are

somewhat unreliable. There is considerable redundancy, but a long

history of failures, none of which has yet been extensive enough to

seriously affect flight. The action of the jets is checked by sensors,

and, if they fail to fire the computers choose another jet to

fire. But they are not designed to fail, and the problem should be

solved.




Conclusions




   If a reasonable launch schedule is to be maintained, engineering

often cannot be done fast enough to keep up with the expectations of

originally conservative certification criteria designed to guarantee a

very safe vehicle. In these situations, subtly, and often with

apparently logical arguments, the criteria are altered so that flights

may still be certified in time. They therefore fly in a relatively

unsafe condition, with a chance of failure of the order of a percent

(it is difficult to be more accurate).




   Official management, on the other hand, claims to believe the

probability of failure is a thousand times less. One reason for this

may be an attempt to assure the government of NASA perfection and

success in order to ensure the supply of funds. The other may be that

they sincerely believed it to be true, demonstrating an almost

incredible lack of communication between themselves and their working

engineers.




   In any event this has had very unfortunate consequences, the most

serious of which is to encourage ordinary citizens to fly in such a

dangerous machine, as if it had attained the safety of an ordinary

airliner. The astronauts, like test pilots, should know their risks,

and we honor them for their courage. Who can doubt that McAuliffe was

equally a person of great courage, who was closer to an awareness of

the true risk than NASA management would have us believe?




   Let us make recommendations to ensure that NASA officials deal in a

world of reality in understanding technological weaknesses and

imperfections well enough to be actively trying to eliminate

them. They must live in reality in comparing the costs and utility of

the Shuttle to other methods of entering space. And they must be

realistic in making contracts, in estimating costs, and the difficulty

of the projects. Only realistic flight schedules should be proposed,

schedules that have a reasonable chance of being met. If in this way

the government would not support them, then so be it. NASA owes it to

the citizens from whom it asks support to be frank, honest, and

informative, so that these citizens can make the wisest decisions for

the use of their limited resources.




   For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over

public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.