Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!emory!gatech!prism!ccoprmd
From: ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Skeptical Shuttle Enquirer
Message-ID: <25889@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Date: 9 Apr 91 19:26:58 GMT
References: <910@idacrd.UUCP> <25875@hydra.gatech.EDU> <1991Apr9.183719.29582@cbnewsl.att.com>
Organization: The Dorsai Grey Captains
Lines: 23

In article <1991Apr9.183719.29582@cbnewsl.att.com> sw@cbnewsl.att.com (Stuart Warmink) writes:
>(Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>> Perhaps I'm not as cynical [:-)] as you are, but I doubt that this is the 
>> case; there's any number of instances in recent history ('flyswat' operation
>> on dead satellite, Skylab repairs, Mir hatch problems...) that demonstrate

>But that is not a very good argument; it is like saying that there
>must be a manned presence in space because of a manned presence in space.

Well, these were just the easy examples that came to mind.  How about Solar
Max, the near-problem with the Hubble cabling, and Syncom (the 'flyswat'
mentioned above, I think)?  The larger and more capable your platforms are, 
the more risk you have of something going wrong, and sometimes there's just 
no substitute for giving something a swift kick to get it going.

>Ah, this subject ranks up there with abortion and gun control :-)

Perhaps we should have talk.politics.man-in-space? :-)
-- 
Matthew DeLuca                   
Georgia Institute of Technology      "I'd hire the Dorsai, if I knew their
Office of Information Technology      P.O. box."  - Zebadiah Carter,
Internet: ccoprmd@prism.gatech.edu    _The Number of the Beast_