Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!valid!caber!lou
From: lou@caber.valid.com (Louis K. Scheffer)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Skeptical Shuttle Enquirer
Message-ID: <351@valid.valid.com>
Date: 12 Apr 91 02:11:25 GMT
References: <910@idacrd.UUCP> <1991Apr9.172200.13427@zoo.toronto.edu> <HESKETT.91Apr9154409@polymnia.titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu>
Sender: news@valid.com
Lines: 19

>heskett@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Donald Heskett) writes:

>If you were a truly cynical person, and you were extremely worried
>about the manned space budgets during these times, and if you needed a
>GOLDEN opportunity to demonstrate why man needs to be launching
>satellites ...
> . . . .  I hate to be such a cynic and a skeptic but it is just too
>much like a choreographed melodrama for me.

I think this could also be explained by the fact that the engineers knew
that GRO would be launched via shuttle.  Therefore they probably did not
put in double redundant release mechanisms, etc., and spent their time
worrying about other problems that could not be fixed on the spot.

For example, Viking, the Mars lander,  had redundant lens cap jettison
mechanisms, since there was no chance of fixing it by hand, but Hubble does
not (I think).

   -Lou Scheffer-