Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!shadooby!samsung!usc!venera.isi.edu!rogers
From: rogers@wlf.isi.edu (Craig Milo Rogers)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Boat vs. 747 (was Re^2: Hawaii as a launching site)
Message-ID: <11095@venera.isi.edu>
Date: 21 Dec 89 23:21:13 GMT
References: <IA80024.89352200552@MAINE.BITNET> <3831@orion.cf.uci.edu> <9222@elsie.UUCP> <771@ritcsh.cs.rit.edu> <1989Dec21.050541.293@ultra.com> <SHAFER.89Dec21092542@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov>
Sender: news@venera.isi.edu
Reply-To: rogers@wlf.isi.edu.UUCP (Craig Milo Rogers)
Organization: USC-Information Sciences Institute
Lines: 16

In article <SHAFER.89Dec21092542@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer (OFV)) writes:
>Putting the Shuttle on a boat is a dam-fool idea.  By the time you get
>this big piece of deck cargo where you want it, it will be corroded
>into worthlessness.

	I know the Shuttle's big, I've been inside the mockup at Rockwell
International in Downey, CA.  I expect that the Shuttle's not built to
show the same level of environmental tolerance as a Navy fighter.
Nonetheless, I don't see why you couldn't build a *big* metal shipping
container with positive-pressure dehumidified air that would allow the
Shuttle to survive the passage from Hawaii to the mainland.

	Does anyone on the net know whether NASA has detailed contingency
plans for returning the Shuttle from one of the non-CONUS landing sites?

					Craig Milo Rogers