Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!umich!dgsi!gregc
From: gregc@cimage.com (Greg Cronau)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Fuel-line door questions...
Message-ID: <1991Mar9.050346.28010@cimage.com>
Date: 9 Mar 91 05:03:46 GMT
References: <1991Feb25.204556.16156@athena.mit.edu> <1991Feb26.112746.11838@pbs.org> <1991Feb26.230611.4715@freedom.msfc.nasa.gov> <675@newave.UUCP> <62941@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> <2433@ksr.com> <1991Mar7.171349.14914@dmntor.UUCP>
Reply-To: gregc@dgsi.UUCP (Greg Cronau/10000)
Organization: Cimage Corp, Ann Arbor, MI
Lines: 28

In article <1991Mar7.171349.14914@dmntor.UUCP> bill@dmntor.UUCP (Bill Kyle) writes:
>>>>problem should not be fatal.  All they would have to do is send up
>>>>Columbia or Atlantis to pick up the crew of Discovery.  You might also
>>>>have to send up a Progress resupply ship (or two) for the crew while they
>>>>wait for the next shuttle to be mission ready  8-(
>>
>>This whole thread is a (bad) joke, right?  ALL they would have to do is to
>>
>Now now don't be harsh, yes your right about getting the doors closed however
>hypothetically if NASA HAD TOO they could probably manage a rescue with another
>shuttle. NASA would tempararily suspend many of its redundant safety
>proceedures and other proceedures that bog down the turn around time.
>Large organisations rarely are as efficient as they can be until an
>emergency takes-place.
>
>Bill

Speaking of bad jokes. How about a dose of reality here? Movies like
"Marooned" to the contrary, I sincerely doubt that NASA would risk losing
a *second* shuttle on the *very slight* chance of saving another one. When
I say "losing a shuttle", I mean both the vehicle *and* crew, not just the
vehicle. Those safety procedures are there for a reason. Unless there happens
to be a shuttle already sitting on the pad, I doubt they could get one
launched even if *ALL* safety procedure were ignored. And that would be a
suicidal risk.

gregc@cimage.com