Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Manned Vs. Unmanned
Message-ID: <1990Sep29.234324.6528@zoo.toronto.edu>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <4687@crash.cts.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 90 23:43:24 GMT

In article <4687@crash.cts.com> gandalf@pro-canaveral.cts.com (Ken Hollis) writes:
>... Would you like to sit in an
>inflatable module, knowing that there are pieces of meteors flying around
>outside that have chipped & scarred the heavy windows on the shuttle?  I am
>sure that the studies have been done on these modules as to safety factor,
>etc, but I guess that I am just old-fashioned.

You're not just old-fashioned, but actively misinformed, I'm afraid.  Any
space station will rely substantially on internal pressure for structural
strength, and any space station will have walls thin enough to need
external protection against debris.  The difference between Fred and
Livermore's inflatables is a matter of degree, not kind.

>SURPRISE ! ! ! Galileo & Ulysses were the next TWO launches after Challenger
>to be launched....

Surprise yourself!  No they weren't; this is a vulgar Luddite myth.
Challenger was launched late in January, and G+U were going into the
Jupiter launch window around the beginning of June.  There were several
intervening flights scheduled.

And by the way, launching in June rather than January, Galileo and
Ulysses were quite unlikely to experience a Challenger-type accident.
The O-ring design wasn't completely immune to problems when warm, but
the odds were much better.
-- 
Imagine life with OS/360 the standard  | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
operating system.  Now think about X.  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu   utzoo!henry