Xref: utzoo sci.space:7169 sci.space.shuttle:1281
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ncrlnk!ncrcce!c10sd3!c10sd1!johnson
From: johnson@c10sd1.StPaul.NCR.COM (Wayne D. T. Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Unmanned w/old SRBs (was Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST)
Message-ID: <484@c10sd1.StPaul.NCR.COM>
Date: 20 Sep 88 13:47:59 GMT
References: <1988Aug16.040406.5434@utzoo.uucp> <6137@dasys1.UUCP> <1988Aug29.172104.10823@utzoo.uucp> <6185@dasys1.UUCP> <1988Sep7.212736.6080@utzoo.uucp> <6377@dasys1.UUCP> <1988Sep13.164340.1289@utzoo.uucp>
Reply-To: johnson@c10sd1.StPaul.NCR.COM (Wayne D. T. Johnson)
Organization: NCR Comten, St Paul
Lines: 13

In article <1988Sep13.164340.1289@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>                                                 Oh, there is a difference,
>but given the oxidizer shortage, one has to balance the risks against the
>utility of being able to fly more missions.  

Forgive me for asking what might seem to be a dumb question (I'm not as involved
with the space program as I once was), but why not remove the oxidizer from the
old segments and put it into the new ones?  
-- 
Wayne Johnson                 (Voice) 612-638-7665
NCR Comten, Inc.             (E-MAIL) W.Johnson@StPaul.NCR.COM or
Roseville MN 55113                    johnson@c10sd1.StPaul.NCR.COM
These opinions (or spelling) do not necessarily reflect those of NCR Comten.