(bob haller) writes:

This has been discussed before. There are alternative landing sites that
wouldnt endanger people.

Wouldn't endanger *as many* people. Unless your landing site is
completely deserted, there is still a risk that the shuttle will
"crack up" upon landing. If anything, you're risking exposure to
toxic hypergolics (major complaint of Proton's first stage).

besides if theres a 4% chance of a breakup on reentry would you
ditch it in the pacific?

It's a judgment call.

However the likelihood of such a scenario is so remote that NASA is
unlikely to spend the money necessary on orbiter upgrades to make the
auto-landing of a crippled orbiter a reality. You can't cobble these
sorts of upgrades together on short notice. They'd have to be in
place before return to flight, and I simply don't think that will
happen.


To put this into perspective, NASA and sent "working" satellites into
the ocean because they were one failure away from being
uncontrollable. This is despite the fact that their uncontrolled
re-entry would have resulted in a very slight risk to people on the
ground. The "bad press" they got for this decision was better than
the "bad press" they'd get if the pieces killed anyone.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.