Article View: sci.space
Article #8122Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST
From: Henry Spencer
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 1988 17:21
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 1988 17:21
19 lines
1272 bytes
1272 bytes
In article <6137@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes: >Excuse me, but are we really supposed to believe that omitting the >flight crew makes using the old SRBs an acceptable risk? Rationally, you have a point. Congress is not rational. Losing hardware is troublesome, but it would not be anything like the political disaster that more dead astronauts would be. >Challenger is >every bit as "dead" as its crew, and we cannot afford to lose another >orbiter under any circumstances... Then we'll have to ground the shuttle permanently. There is no way to fly it without risking loss of another orbiter. The NRC report on shuttle frequency put it even more strongly: if the shuttle continues flying, another orbiter *WILL* be lost eventually. -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1988Aug29.172104.10823@utzoo.uucp>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!henryReferences:
<1988Aug16.040406.5434@utzoo.uucp> <6137@dasys1.UUCP>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!henry From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST Message-ID: <1988Aug29.172104.10823@utzoo.uucp> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology References: <1988Aug16.040406.5434@utzoo.uucp> <6137@dasys1.UUCP> Date: Mon, 29 Aug 88 17:21:04 GMT