Doing a check before re-entry?

[georgeniebling]

I would direct you to the old movie "Marooned" or that Mars movie that was out a few years back ....

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The Orbiter could be made fully autonomous and remote piloted to an attempted landing.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I think the reasoning is that if it's already so badly damaged you can't send the crew home in it, would you trust it to make it through the reentry and landing intact and controllable, with no significant risk to people on the ground? Risk to people on the ground has often been a driving concern for these kinds of decisions. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I suspect the astronauts wanted job security........<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />That, or they just want to be able to say they flew the Shuttle, and it's really their only opportunity. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> (Yes, I know the docking is done manually too, but it's not the same as flying in an atmosphere.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>