Re: STS-1 Disaster -- follow-up #2

Article View: sci.space.shuttle

Article #3676

#3676

From: Hugh Emberson
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 03:49

14 lines
1092 bytes

>>>>> On 20 Dec 92 23:38:17 GMT, eidetics@nic.cerf.net (Eidetics Int'l) said:

JV>    SUBORBITAL FLIGHTS ARE *LESS* DANGEROUS BECAUSE THERE IS *NO* CHANCE OF
JV> BURNING UP ON RE-ENTRY.  EXPERIENCE IN ONE TYPE OF VEHICLE IS *NOT* MUCH HELP
JV> WITH A NEW AND DIFFERENT ONE.  ROCKET LAUNCHES DO *NOT* REQUIRE A PILOT, NOR DO
JV> PARACHUTE LANDINGS.

WHY did the ENTERPRISE need SHUTTLE TILES then, as you have PREVIOUSLY
stated?  

Hugh
--
Hugh Emberson -- CS Postgrad
hugh@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz

Technical Details

Message-ID: <HUGH.92Dec23154907@whio.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!usc!wupost!waikato.ac.nz!canterbury.ac.nz!cantua!hugh

References: <1h3059INNq8n@news.cerf.net>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!usc!wupost!waikato.ac.nz!canterbury.ac.nz!cantua!hugh
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: STS-1 Disaster -- follow-up #2
Message-ID: <HUGH.92Dec23154907@whio.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz>
From: hugh@whio.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz (Hugh Emberson)
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 03:49:07 GMT
References: <1h3059INNq8n@news.cerf.net>
Organization: Computer Science Dept., University of Canterbury, New Zealand
In-Reply-To: eidetics@nic.cerf.net's message of 20 Dec 92 23:38:17 GMT
Nntp-Posting-Host: whio.canterbury.ac.nz
Lines: 14

Reply to Parent Message