🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6377@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>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...

This is in fact what I am suggesting, too.  We do not need to go back to
1986 to use the old SRBs; we now know much more about what makes them
fail.  With a few precautions like restraining bands on the joints, lower
leak-test pressures, and a sharp eye on joint temperatures, those old
SRBs are not a lot less safe than the new ones.  Oh, there is a difference,
but given the oxidizer shortage, one has to balance the risks against the
utility of being able to fly more missions.  That's what I was getting at:
given that any shuttle flying involves risks, it is irrational to reject
ideas like this without careful consideration of the tradeoffs.  Saying "we
must reduce risks as much as possible" is silly; we can reduce risks to
zero by not flying at all.  Tradeoffs are inevitable if we want to get
things done.
-- 
NASA is into artificial        |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
stupidity.  - Jerry Pournelle  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu