Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: space news from 22 Sept AW&ST
Message-ID: <7280@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 4-Nov-86 19:41:43 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.7280
Posted: Tue Nov  4 19:41:43 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 4-Nov-86 19:41:43 EST
References: <7254@utzoo.UUCP>, <346@xios.UUCP> <7275@utzoo.UUCP>, <192@ka9q.bellcore.com>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 29

> According to the Rogers commission, "O-ring thermal distress" has occurred
> during launches in temperatures as high as 75 deg F...

Agreed that I overstated the case a bit, but only a bit.  Being careful with
the O-rings will not reduce risk to zero, but it will improve the odds a lot.
Yes, there were O-ring problems in favorable conditions, but the points on
the graphs cluster awfully heavily on the "unfavorable" side.

> ... It would be mad to launch an unfixed SRB with that kind of track record.

Not mad, just a little daring in a good cause.  There is no such thing as
a zero-risk mission.  Remember "if we die, we want the program to continue;
the conquest of space is worth the risk of life"?  The continuation of the
shuttle program is receding steadily farther into the future.

> Perhaps I'd approve of a military flight of an unmodified shuttle if the DoD
> FIRST turned over its SDI funding for a year and built another orbiter (and
> possibly another launch pad) to cover NASA in the event of another disaster.

Sounds like a fine idea to me; pity it won't happen.

> Unfortunately, though, it's always NASA who gets to eat the risks.

I do agree that flying the shuttle again immediately is unacceptable without
a firm commitment to replacing further losses.  That's the biggest reason
why, unfortunately, it's not going to happen.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry