Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site alice.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb
From: alb@alice.UUCP (Adam L. Buchsbaum)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: Shuttle abort procedures question
Message-ID: <4089@alice.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 1-Aug-85 20:01:33 EDT
Article-I.D.: alice.4089
Posted: Thu Aug  1 20:01:33 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 3-Aug-85 02:17:34 EDT
References: <2865@mordor.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs, Murray Hill
Lines: 11

The shuttle, believe it or not, is designed to float for a while
in water.  So a water landing, assuming its controlled, does not
necessarily mean doom for the crew.  An engine blowing up, though,
almost certainly does (if you've ever seen the films of the explosions
encountered when the ME's were in testing phase, you know what
I mean).  Also, the shuttle can land on any runway that is at
least 10,000 feet long.  This means almost every major airport
in the world.  Of course, it's not the most desireable situation,
but again, it beats and explosion.  In short, in any circumstance
I can think of, I would think NASA would want to make an emergency
landing somewhere rather than risk a blowup.