Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!ucbvax!agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU!fcrary
From: fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Shuttle computers (Really, "Drop the landin' gear, Jed!")
Message-ID: <1991May15.204629.5292@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 15 May 91 20:46:29 GMT
References: <1082@igor.Rational.COM> <1991May7.120505.1@vf.jsc.nasa.gov> <282b9084.2da2@petunia.CalPoly.EDU>
Sender: root@agate.berkeley.edu (Charlie Root)
Organization: ucb
Lines: 15

In article <282b9084.2da2@petunia.CalPoly.EDU> rteasdal@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Falconer) writes:
>	The original shuttle should have incorporated (encapsulated?)
>ejection capability. That it did not was one of the most egregious
>design flaws yet promulgated by NASA. Let's do it right next time, eh?
>
The incorporation of encapsulated ejection capability to the shuttle 
would have been quite expensive and massed several tonnes (which would
have cone out of payload capacity). NASA deciede that the extra safty
was not worth it. I would not call this a design flaw, unless the 
objective of the design was to make an spaceceaft which was as close
to perfectly safe as possible. The shuttle was intended to do other
things (be a "space truck"I think was the phrase.)

				 Frank Crary
				 UC Berkeley