🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <137@uniq.UUCP> rjnoe@uniq.UUCP (Roger J. Noe) writes:
>But flying the shuttle now, without fixing the SRBs (at least!) first, is
>unconscionable.  Should the tragedy repeat itself, the result would be a
>waste of human life.  I cannot condone such a waste, whether the life at
>stake is mine or not.  I hope there are not too many people who disagree.
>	Roger Noe			ihnp4!uniq!rjnoe

Well, at first I did.  I got the impression that we understood the
SRB failure well enough not to launch when conditions are right for
a second failure.  Right?  I mean, I had a car once that wouldn't run
when it rained.  Just stalled out.  I simply didn't try to drive it
when it rained...

Furthermore, although one can't deny the value of human life, (at least
that's the way I feel about *mine*) there *are* things that are more
important.  What constitutes an acceptable risk varies widely from
one individual to another.  Not suicidal.  Just placing a higher value
on the goal of the mission.

Then I got to thinking.  (Exit knee-jerk mode :-))  What happens if
*another* shuttle does the old skyrocket trick?  Does Congress shut
down NASA until the year 3000?  The point is, there is more at stake
here than a few lives.  Also, what happens when the weather's cold and
the President just has to be on television with the astronauts again? :-)
Let's fix the SRB's first.


				Ron
-- 
--
		Ronald O. Christian (Fujitsu America Inc., San Jose, Calif.)
		seismo!amdahl!fai!ronc  -or-   ihnp4!pesnta!fai!ronc

Oliver's law of assumed responsibility:
	"If you are seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it."