Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site sdcrdcf.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!sdcrdcf!lwall
From: lwall@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Larry Wall)
Newsgroups: net.columbia
Subject: Emergency landings and OMS
Message-ID: <1038@sdcrdcf.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 25-Apr-84 11:41:20 EST
Article-I.D.: sdcrdcf.1038
Posted: Wed Apr 25 11:41:20 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 27-Apr-84 05:13:34 EST
Reply-To: lwall@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Larry Wall)
Organization: System Development Corporation, Santa Monica
Lines: 15

If I were a Shuttle pilot, and decided that I was going to come up short
(or would that be "come down short"?) of the runway, I would be tempted to
fire up the OMS engines to stretch out my glide path a little.  Could
someone in the know say to what extent this is practical, and whether
NASA has considered this in its contingency plans?

And where can the Shuttle land (besides Easter Island, thank you
Mr. Stine/Correy) if it poops out partway up to a polar or sun-synch orbit?
If the Shuttle floats like it flies, I wouldn't want to try to ditch it,
though I s'pose if the tiles stayed on they might actually serve as
floatation for a short while.  I wouldn't put any money on the tiles staying
on, though, or even on the whole bird staying in one piece.  What say?

Larry Wall
{allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!lwall