Xref: utzoo sci.space:6755 sci.space.shuttle:1134
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!pacbell!ames!nrl-cmf!mailrus!eecae!nancy!usenet
From: usenet@nancy.UUCP (Usenet file owner)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST
Message-ID: <688@nancy.UUCP>
Date: 31 Aug 88 02:03:04 GMT
References: <1988Aug16.040406.5434@utzoo.uucp> <6137@dasys1.UUCP> <1988Aug29.172104.10823@utzoo.uucp>
Reply-To: krj@frith.UUCP (Ken Josenhans)
Organization: Michigan State Univ., Computer Lab, Systems
Lines: 19

In article <1988Aug29.172104.10823@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:

>Then we'll have to ground the shuttle permanently.  There is no way to
>fly it without risking loss of another orbiter.  The NRC report on
>shuttle frequency put it even more strongly:  if the shuttle continues
>flying, another orbiter *WILL* be lost eventually.

Unfortunately, in the wake of the Challenger explosion, no one has done
the necessary *political* work to get the message out to the US public
and Congress that spaceflight entails risks, and there are reasons for
taking these risks.  Instead, we've been fed a steady diet of "Safety 
first!" messages, and the public has been led to believe that there 
will be no more shuttle accidents.  What I fear this means is the next
shuttle accident will be the *last* US manned spaceflight, at least for 
several decades.

--Ken Josenhans
    UUCP:...{uunet,rutgers}!umix!itivax!msudoc!krj  (maybe...) 
    BITNET:  13020KRJ@MSU   Internet: krj@frith.egr.msu.edu