🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1988Sep7.212736.6080@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> ... 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.  

Thank you for pointing this out, I really wasn't taking nonfatal
"totallings" into account but it's nice to think about ANY kind of
shuttle accident (if we are indeed fated to have them) where the crew
is OK.

>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.

The point you are missing is that your proposed "remedy" is equal in
severity to the worst consequences of leaving things unremedied.  In
other words, if an accident is SOMEDAY inevitable and if such an
accident would put the remaining orbiters in the Smithsonian for you
anyway, then why jump the gun and do the future accident's work for it
immediately, without getting some orbital missions in there first.
Just doesn't make sense.  (Flight 25's disaster was horrendous, but even
it could not erase the manifest for the previous 24 flights!)

You are proposing a dichotomy: go back to the old pre-1986 practices or
shut everything down immediately.  I am saying there is a middle ground:
proceed, but more conservatively.  Strapping those old SRBs onto our tiny
remaining fleet, even unmanned, is just asking for trouble.  (Tough to
remember but that's what got this conversation started. :-) )  We both
agree trouble is inevitable eventually, but I insist we can and should
increase the odds in our favor whenever we have a chance.
-- 
Tom Neff			UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
	"None of your toys	CIS: 76556,2536	       MCI: TNEFF
	 will function..."	GEnie: TOMNEFF	       BIX: t.neff (no kidding)