Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cwjcc!gatech!prism!ccsupos From: ccsupos@prism.gatech.EDU (SCHREIBER, O. A.) Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle Subject: Re: Why 3 SSME's? Message-ID: <2430@hydra.gatech.EDU> Date: 11 Oct 89 20:07:41 GMT References: <538.252A3A3B@mamab.FIDONET.ORG> Reply-To: ccsupos@prism.gatech.EDU (SCHREIBER, O. A.) Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology Lines: 32 In article shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes: >As Gene Miya says, if you have a great idea to make the Shuttle >better, someone probably already thought of it. ...and didn't do anything about it you could add. >Since the entire Shuttle would have to be rebuilt to do this, it's not >practical. Or cost-effective. That is the whole point of engineering: to design something from the start to meet some functionalities and an escape system for the propelled phase of the ascent should have been one of them way back in 1972 when the design was chosen. >flights, and don't want to wait around for the Shuttle to be perfectly >safe. I think this type of vehicle, without an escape system can never be safe enough. >still go fly, because I'm willing to accept the risk. It's worth it >to me. [...] >But there's risk in everything that we do. How do you deal with risk? How much risk is the question -- Olivier Schreiber (404)894 6147, Office of Computing Services Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!ccsupos ARPA: ccsupos@prism.gatech.edu