Flying STS 335

Why not flying STS 335 anyway? If a LON 335 would be performed as a rescue
flight we would have the same situation: No further LON available. Taking
the enhanced performance of the recent ETs, the low overall risc and the
possibility to save a crew of two in a worst scenario by a soyuz launched
with only one astronaut, NASA could use existing resources for an additional
last mission.

Albert

Albert Blauensteiner wrote:
Why not flying STS 335 anyway? If a LON 335 would be performed as a
rescue flight we would have the same situation: No further LON
available. Taking the enhanced performance of the recent ETs, the low
overall risc and the possibility to save a crew of two in a worst
scenario by a soyuz launched with only one astronaut, NASA could use
existing resources for an additional last mission.

335 may fly (if it flies for a non-LON scenario, it will be renumbered
135), but it will never fly with a crew of two. Four, minimum.

On Oct 22, 6:54*pm, "Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
Albert Blauensteiner wrote:
Why not flying STS 335 anyway? If a LON 335 would be performed as a
rescue flight we would have the same situation: No further LON
available. Taking the enhanced performance of the recent ETs, the low
overall risc and the possibility to save a crew of two in a worst
scenario by a soyuz launched with only one astronaut, NASA could use
existing resources for an additional last mission.

335 may fly (if it flies for a non-LON scenario, it will be renumbered
135), but it will never fly with a crew of two. Four, minimum.

Interesting. One to keep our eye on; thanks.

/dps