Xref: utzoo sci.space:6444 sci.space.shuttle:987
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!cornell!dietz
From: dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu (Paul F. Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability
Message-ID: <20043@cornell.UUCP>
Date: 8 Aug 88 15:28:24 GMT
References: <3763@teklds.TEK.COM> <2087@silver.bacs.indiana.edu> <3659@drivax.UUCP> <1704@eneevax.UUCP>
Sender: nobody@cornell.UUCP
Reply-To: dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu (Paul F. Dietz)
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY
Lines: 16

In article <1704@eneevax.UUCP> kerog@eneevax.umd.edu.UUCP (Keith Rogers)
writes:
> 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.

It has been stated many times before, but let's do it again.  The Rogers
commission did NOT say that the shuttle would be safe to launch in warm
weather.  They said that so many things were wrong with the joint design
that it was impossible to determine what actually caused the leak.  Cold
was a contributing factor, but O ring damage has occured on launches in
hot weather, too.

Paul F. Dietz
dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu