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.