Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ingr!boley
From: boley@ingr.com (Kirk Boley)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Apollo 8, 9, and 10
Summary: Apollo 10
Message-ID: <5891@ingr.com>
Date: 19 Jul 89 17:24:02 GMT
References: <377@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> <1989Jul19.005449.3163@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: Intergraph Corp. Huntsville, Al
Lines: 24

In article <1989Jul19.005449.3163@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> There was some discussion about whether Apollo 10 was really needed; why
> get to within 10 miles of the lunar surface and then go home?  But a lot
> of people felt that an all-up test, including a real lunar-orbit rendezvous,
> was a good idea before landing.  What finally settled the matter was that
> Apollo 10's LM was overweight and could not have flown a complete landing
> mission.
> -- 
> $10 million equals 18 PM       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
> (Pentagon-Minutes). -Tom Neff  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
	I always wondered about that, after reading about the descent.
(I was too young to remember much about the space program, even though
my dad was working on the Saturn V Instrument Unit for IBM.)
I remember thinking, "Hey if it was me, I'd made up some sort of
excuse for going ahead and landing!" I mean really, it's like Christopher
Columbus coming to within 30 feet of the American shoreline and saying,
"Nah, this is too dangerous, let's go back." It's nice to know the real
reason after all these years. Thanks, Henry.

-- 
*******************************************************************************
Standard disclaimer.  |   Kirk Boley, Intergraph Huntsville, UAH
Witty .sig message.   |   61 hours to go and counting...  ...!uucp!ingr!boley
*******************************************************************************