Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!ucbvax!CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV!roberts
From: roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Two Shuttles at once
Message-ID: <9103090210.AA04529@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov>
Date: 9 Mar 91 02:10:06 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
	formerly National Bureau of Standards
Lines: 23


>From: clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones)
>Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
>Subject: Re: Fuel-line door questions...
>Date: 8 Mar 91 12:47:29 GMT
>Organization: Kendall Square Research Corp

>Given the shuttle processing facilities at the Cape, given the parts
>cannabilization that goes on to fly one shuttle at a time, 

>Chris Jones    clj@ksr.com    {world,uunet,harvard}!ksr!clj

I don't think it's nearly as bad as it was before Challenger - then, they
*couldn't* have had two orbiters up at once. One of the results of the analysis
following Challenger was a massive effort to increase the parts inventory.

Of course, there can still be problems when an entire lot is found to have
problems, like the fuel line interfaces last summer. Remember, there was a 
point at which there were two fully assembled Shuttle stacks on transporters,
so aside from perhaps a few of the defective parts, it looks as though they
had at least two full sets of everything.
      John Roberts
      roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov