Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU!fcrary
From: fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Shuttle Status Report 5/24/91
Message-ID: <1991May29.070212.29259@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 29 May 91 07:02:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.1991May29.070212.29259
References: <1991May25.023009.4567@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu> <1991May28.122928.20347@cbnewsl.att.com>
Sender: root@agate.berkeley.edu (Charlie Root)
Organization: ucb
Lines: 20

In article <1991May28.122928.20347@cbnewsl.att.com> sw@cbnewsl.att.com (Stuart Warmink) writes:
>This seems kind of strange. Either the sensors are needed or they are not.
>If they are not, why scrub the mission when they are faulty? (OK, so this
>time they were cracked) If they are needed - presumably to guard against 
>dangerously high temperatures - then why fly without them?
>
If what is being considered is the permanent elimination of these sensors,
NASA is just being carefull. Untill they are SURE they do not need the
sensors, they will not fly without them. Once they are sure the sensors
are unnecessary, they will feel free to pull them.

>A further analysis in continuing to determine if 4 of the 5 flight control
>computers can also be eliminated :-)

What would you do, then, if the one flight control computer were to fail. Note
that, once the Shuttle is in orbit, it is possible for a chip to be damaged by
high energy particles (unlikely, but possible so the computer cannot really be
made fail-safe.)

					       Frank Crary