Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Russian Sub Sunk

["Dan J. Rice" <dan.j.rice@sherwin.com>]

Unfortunately the robust technologies include some pretty robust explosives
designed to do just such damage.  After the Challenger disaster my
over-optomistic views of  NASA technologies were revised considerably, and
riding in a sub that has an underfunded maintenance budget is pushing the saety
envelope to begin with.

Dan




David Buchner <buchner@wcta.net> on 08/17/2000 11:47:07 AM

Please respond to personal_submersibles@psubs.org

To:   personal_submersibles@psubs.org
cc:    (bcc: Dan J. Rice/EST/Sherwin-Williams)

Subject:  Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Russian Sub Sunk



At 00:49 -0700 8/17/00, S W wrote:
>--I can't believe no one is discussing the Russian
>submarine that is sitting on the bottom of the Barents
>Sea!

I don't know what to say. It sucks. I do have some technical questions, but I
figured at least wait till it's known, one way or another, if they're still
alive. I get used to thinking of these technologies as pretty robust and
foolproof; always a shock when something goes terribly wrong and nobody can do
anything about it. In the movies, there's always one more trick to try -- and
even when there isn't, you can fall back on sheer determination ("I don't
believe in the no-win scenario.").

--
David
Osage MN USA
buchner@wcta.net - http://customer.wcta.net/buchner