Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!cartan!brahms!desj
From: desj@brahms (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: space news from 22 Sept AW&ST
Message-ID: <201@cartan.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Fri, 7-Nov-86 03:47:22 EST
Article-I.D.: cartan.201
Posted: Fri Nov  7 03:47:22 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 8-Nov-86 04:07:04 EST
References: <7254@utzoo.UUCP> <346@xios.UUCP> <7275@utzoo.UUCP> <1010@husc2.UUCP> <7279@utzoo.UUCP>
Sender: daemon@cartan.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: desj@brahms (David desJardins)
Organization: Math Dept. UC Berkeley
Lines: 12
Xref: watmath sci.space:106 sci.space.shuttle:14

In article <7279@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
> [...]  Not risky enough not to do it, but risky enough to think twice
>about launching one-of-a-kind payloads like the Space Telescope.  The
>loss of a single military payload wouldn't be a tenth of the disaster
>that losing the HST would be.

   As much as I agree with your sentiment (that shuttle launches should
resume ASAP), the above makes no real sense, except perhaps politically.
The $1G HST doesn't add significantly to the risk of losing the $2.5G
orbiter (certainly not "ten times"!).

   -- David desJardins