home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31 / NN_1992_31.iso / spool / sci / space / shuttle / 3010 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Internet Message Format  |  1992-12-22  |  1.1 KB
  1. Xref: sparky sci.space.shuttle:3010 alt.conspiracy:13363 talk.politics.misc:65189
  2. Path: sparky!uunet!usc!wupost!waikato.ac.nz!canterbury.ac.nz!cantua!hugh
  3. Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc
  4. Subject: Re: STS-1 Disaster -- follow-up #2
  5. Message-ID: <HUGH.92Dec23154907@whio.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz>
  6. From: hugh@whio.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz (Hugh Emberson)
  7. Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 03:49:07 GMT
  8. References: <1h3059INNq8n@news.cerf.net>
  9. Organization: Computer Science Dept., University of Canterbury, New Zealand
  10. In-Reply-To: eidetics@nic.cerf.net's message of 20 Dec 92 23:38:17 GMT
  11. Nntp-Posting-Host: whio.canterbury.ac.nz
  12. Lines: 14
  13.  
  14. >>>>> On 20 Dec 92 23:38:17 GMT, eidetics@nic.cerf.net (Eidetics Int'l) said:
  15.  
  16. JV>    SUBORBITAL FLIGHTS ARE *LESS* DANGEROUS BECAUSE THERE IS *NO* CHANCE OF
  17. JV> BURNING UP ON RE-ENTRY.  EXPERIENCE IN ONE TYPE OF VEHICLE IS *NOT* MUCH HELP
  18. JV> WITH A NEW AND DIFFERENT ONE.  ROCKET LAUNCHES DO *NOT* REQUIRE A PILOT, NOR DO
  19. JV> PARACHUTE LANDINGS.
  20.  
  21. WHY did the ENTERPRISE need SHUTTLE TILES then, as you have PREVIOUSLY
  22. stated?  
  23.  
  24. Hugh
  25. --
  26. Hugh Emberson -- CS Postgrad
  27. hugh@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz
  28.