Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!amdcad!ames!aurora!labrea!rutgers!sri-unix!larson
From: larson@sri-unix.ARPA (Alan Larson)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
Subject: Re: Things aint so bad
Message-ID: <7405@sri-unix.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 23-Sep-87 17:44:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: sri-unix.7405
Posted: Wed Sep 23 17:44:53 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 26-Sep-87 05:52:07 EDT
References: <13312@amdahl.amdahl.com> <7973@think.UUCP> <8561@utzoo.UUCP> <8583@utzoo.UUCP> <477@eplrx7.UUCP> <772@maccs.UUCP>
Reply-To: larson@sri-unix.UUCP (Alan Larson)
Organization: SRI, Menlo Park, CA.
Lines: 13
Xref: mnetor sci.space.shuttle:361 sci.space:3093

In article <772@maccs.UUCP> gordan@maccs.UUCP (Gordan Palameta) writes:

>The shuttle, when it flies again, will be safe.
>It will *not* be cost-effective, and will *not* be able to fly often enough.

Am I the only one who is having trouble with this first claim?  There
were a large number of items (I think they called them criticality-1
items) which, if any one of the failed, would lead to catastrophe.

I don't have a list of these items, but I did have the impression that
there was very little being done them.

	Alan