Article View: sci.space
Article #8075Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability
From: Paul F. Dietz
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 1988 15:28
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 1988 15:28
16 lines
1313 bytes
1313 bytes
In article <1704@eneevax.UUCP> kerog@eneevax.umd.edu.UUCP (Keith Rogers) writes: > I just don't see why they have to spend more than >two years without a single flight, missing many important launch windows >for various projects, just to have an all temperature space shuttle, >when they could have just flown it on a warm day in almost perfect safety. It has been stated many times before, but let's do it again. The Rogers commission did NOT say that the shuttle would be safe to launch in warm weather. They said that so many things were wrong with the joint design that it was impossible to determine what actually caused the leak. Cold was a contributing factor, but O ring damage has occured on launches in hot weather, too. Paul F. Dietz dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<20043@cornell.UUCP>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!cornell!dietzReferences:
<3763@teklds.TEK.COM> <2087@silver.bacs.indiana.edu> <3659@drivax.UUCP> <1704@eneevax.UUCP>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!cornell!dietz From: dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu (Paul F. Dietz) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle Subject: Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability Message-ID: <20043@cornell.UUCP> Date: 8 Aug 88 15:28:24 GMT References: <3763@teklds.TEK.COM> <2087@silver.bacs.indiana.edu> <3659@drivax.UUCP> <1704@eneevax.UUCP> Sender: nobody@cornell.UUCP Reply-To: dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu (Paul F. Dietz) Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY Lines: 16