From: Chris Davis (cdavis@webworldinc.com)
Date: Sat Feb 01 2003 - 11:40:09 PST
Hi Jay, and list...
Sad day for all of us, but I don't think the escape module would have
helped in this instance. If I remember right, the design was based on a
launch failure like Challenger's... not a "pod" that would withstand
re-entry speeds and heat.
Chris Davis
MVPA#20000
Lake Elsinore, CA
At 12:23 PM 2/1/03 -0600, J Travis wrote:
>> Looks like that decision to cut costs by eliminating the crew escape
>> module to save on the budget might not have been such a great idea after
>> all, huh? Thanks, Mr. Clinton. I'm sure all those public school library
>> copies of "Billy has Two Daddies" bought with the "savings" on the NASA
>> budget are a real comfort to the families of the astronauts...
>>
>>What we REALLY need is to go ahead and fund the development of the space
>>plane, to replace the Orbiter (space shuttle) system that SHOULD have
>>been done in the late eighties. But between cutting the NASA budget to
>>fund politically motivated social agendas and not being willing to
>>overhaul the industry built around continuing the support of this
>>obsolete technology, we now find ourselves right back where we were in
>>1986 with Challenger. My sympathies to the families of those lost today.
>
>
>Jay Travis
>
>
>Ryan Gill wrote:
>
>>At 9:48 AM -0500 2/1/03, Alan R Wise wrote:
>>
>>>Terrible day, February 1, 2003.
>>
>>
>>Damn it.
>
>
>
>
>===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
>To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
>To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
>To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Apr 23 2003 - 13:25:23 PDT