[ale] OT: Space Shuttle Columbia

[hbbs at attbi.com (Jeff Hubbs)]

> Ugh. Maybe? My recollection is that there is a point in liftoff where the 
> shuttle can achieve a low (but stable) orbit on two engines should the 
> third fail, but that all three are needed to get off the ground 
> (admittedly with some thrust to spare to allow for operational variance).
> So no, I don't think I missed your point.

You may be right about the main engines but I think my point still holds
up as far as the APUs and other redundant onboard systems.  

> 
> If I recall the Roger's Commission after the Challenger loss, there 
> were/are 70 (or more) single points of failure _known_ for the shuttle 
> design which would be expected to result in catastrophic loss of the 
> mission. Apparently, as a physical fact, the shuttle can not fly and carry 
> enough stuff to cover a fairly large class of options which are already 
> known.

Maybe so.  But, damage assessment is a place where the ball may well
have been seriously dropped.  Even without an EVA suit, what about a
radio-controlled bogey the size of a basketball with some lights and a
really good video camera?  

_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Ale at ale.org
http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale