Actually in that case, it sounds like a very reasonable decision. Range safety is range safety- it's not Atlantic safety.On Sat, 31 May 2003, Ian Woollard wrote:There is a probability argument; about whether the panels can blow out when you don't want them to. I think that that probability can be negligible- after all, the Shuttle has range safety devices on it.Only on the SRBs (there used to be one on the ET, but not any more).
Yes, well, NASA doesn't exactly have the worlds best statisticians ;-)JSC adamantly refused to put a bomb on the orbiter itself, just like they adamantly refused to put one on the Apollo spacecraft; in both cases, considerable arguing with Range Safety was required. JSC was grudgingly willing to okay the presence of such things during launch, but categorically rejected having them hanging around later, endangering astronauts without urgent need. *They* didn't think the probability of trouble was negligible.
The Shuttle is unreliable enough that adding a pyrotechnic to it would probably have increased its reliability (per kg of landed mass anyway) ;-)
Henry Spencer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
-Ian "Everything I say is a lie"
Motto: "You're Not Authorized to Know Our Motto."
"The future isn't what it used to be, but then it never was."
"Everbody loves my Baby, but my Baby loves no one but me."
"Predestination was doomed from the start."
"Everything takes longer than you expect, even when you take
into account Hofstadter's Law" -Hostadter's Law
