🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6185@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>>... The NRC report on
>>shuttle frequency put it even more strongly:  if the shuttle continues
>>flying, another orbiter *WILL* be lost eventually.
>
>Yes, but the NRC doesn't really have any better basis for making a
>statement like that, than NASA does for implying we won't lose one.

Sorry, wrong.  NRC justified its predictions in detail.  Remember Murphy:
betting that things will fail is a whole lot safer than betting that
everything will work perfectly.  Check out the safety record of segmented
solid boosters.  Then look at the crash rate for advanced military aircraft.
Remember that losing an orbiter does not require another Challenger
disaster; possibly the most likely way to lose an orbiter is a landing
accident, which might well leave crew and payload intact but damage the
orbiter badly enough to make it unflyable.  This happens all the time to
aircraft.  There have been one or two narrow escapes in the shuttle
program already, in fact, due to the orbiter's somewhat marginal landing
gear.

>Sure, if we used the fleet for 30+ years and expanded it to 10
>orbiters, losses would be inevitable.  They would also be easier to
>take.  What we cannot afford to do is ace one of the remaining three
>right now...

Then, as I said, we must send them to the Smithsonian at once.  No matter
how careful you are, you cannot fly them without taking risks.  If we keep
on flying them, even just our present little fleet, losses are inevitable.
-- 
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