Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!lll-crg!seismo!ll-xn!cit-vax!news From: news@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Usenet netnews) Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle Subject: Launching shuttles soon Message-ID: <1132@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> Date: Fri, 7-Nov-86 15:10:02 EST Article-I.D.: cit-vax.1132 Posted: Fri Nov 7 15:10:02 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 8-Nov-86 06:29:35 EST References: <7254@utzoo.UUCP> <346@xios.UUCP> <7275@utzoo.UUCP> <1010@husc2.UUCP> <7279@utzoo.UUCP> <201@cartan.Berkeley.EDU> Reply-To: jon@cit-vax.UUCP (Jon Leech) Organization: California Institute of Technology Lines: 30 Organization : California Institute of Technology Keywords: From: jon@oddhack.Caltech.Edu (Jon Leech) Path: oddhack!jon In article <201@cartan.Berkeley.EDU> desj@brahms (David desJardins) writes: >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 The only qualified people (the current members of the Astronaut Corps) say they will be happy to fly it - as soon as the SRBs are understood, fixed, and tested (at least, this is what Sally Ride said in a talk she gave at Caltech last night). Since these are the people who have been putting their lives on the line all along, I tend to trust their judgement. By the time any of the well-meaning volunteers could be trained, the joint redesign and testing program will hopefully be completed anyway. -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon) Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group __@/