jrv@MITRE-BEDFORD.ARPA (James R. Van Zandt) (01/29/86)
Two questions for discussion...
1. How long should we wait before launching another shuttle,
if we CANNOT find the cause for the explosion?
2. Should we build another shuttle, or the next generation spacecraft?
- Jim Van Zandtspace@ucbvax.UUCP (01/31/86)
In article <8601291312.AA09715@mitre-bedford.ARPA> you write: >Two questions for discussion... > >1. How long should we wait before launching another shuttle, > if we CANNOT find the cause for the explosion? In his news conference, the acting director of NASA stated that if the definite cause isn't found, then a "shotgun fix" will be applied, as has been done in the past, meaning fixing everything that could have caused the problem. That'll be the determining time period. >2. Should we build another shuttle, or the next generation spacecraft? Use the existing ones, but start design on the next generation. Mojo ... Morris Jones, MicroPro Product Development {lll-crg,ptsfa,dual,well,pyramid}!micropro!kepler!mojo
jrv@MITRE-BEDFORD.ARPA (James R. Van Zandt) (02/02/86)
> Second [of the shuttle explosion] cause may be that the flame heated up the > detonation device that was supposed to blow up the shuttle in case it > was out of control headed toward populated area. If true, doubly > ironic that (1) detonation device actually was immediate cause of loss > of orbiter (2) huge chunks landed despite detonation The pieces may have been large, but wouldn't have caused NEARLY as much damage as a crash of the full external tank with its fuel. - Jim Van Zandt
animal@ihlpa.UUCP (D. Starr) (02/05/86)
> Two questions for discussion... > > 1. How long should we wait before launching another shuttle, > if we CANNOT find the cause for the explosion? Doesn't look like this will be a problem; there seems to be a new defect uncovered in the shuttle design with each morning's paper. A more serious problem is: 1(a). What do we do if it turns out that the shuttle design is fatally flawed--that we cannot, for any reasonable expenditure, get the chance of catastrophic failure below ~1-2%? > > 2. Should we build another shuttle, or the next generation spacecraft? From a crass political standpoint, the best thing to do would be to rise up in national righteousness and immediately build a replacement while there is still lots of public enthusiasm for carrying on. From the more practical point of view, the three remaining shuttles are sufficient to carry out the real purpose of the program--finding out (the hard way) how one goes about building a good space shuttle. I think we ought to take the latter course, sell shuttle space (for satellites, etc.) for rock bottom with the understanding that there will be delays and risks, and learn all we can with the goal (and commitment) of deploying a real "commercial airliner" quality space shuttle by 1993. Dan Starr **INSERT YOUR STANDARD DISCLAIMER HERE **