Xref: utzoo sci.space:6443 sci.space.shuttle:986
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!rutgers!ucsd!ames!umd5!eneevax!kerog
From: kerog@eneevax.UUCP (Keith Rogers)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability
Message-ID: <1704@eneevax.UUCP>
Date: 8 Aug 88 14:00:46 GMT
References: <3763@teklds.TEK.COM> <2087@silver.bacs.indiana.edu> <3659@drivax.UUCP>
Reply-To: kerog@eneevax.umd.edu.UUCP (Keith Rogers)
Organization: Elec. Eng. Dept., U of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
Lines: 17

In article <3659@drivax.UUCP> macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes:
>I disagree, strongly.  There should have been an investigation of the
>Challenger disaster, and when they found that the O rings failed below
>a certain temperature, they should have continued launching >above that
>temperature<, while working on a better engineering solution. 


	I couldn't agree more.  This has been my attitude ever since the
Challenger disaster.  I just don't see why they have to spend more than 
two years without a single flight, missing many important launch windows
for various projects, just to have an all temperature space shuttle,
when they could have just flown it on a warm day in almost perfect safety.

	Sure the O ring thing had to be fixed, but did it have to kill
the entire U.S. space program in the meantime?

Keith Rogers