Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!tank!eecae!netnews.upenn.edu!clarke.cis.upenn.edu!santerel From: santerel@clarke.cis.upenn.edu (Walter Santarelli) Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle Subject: Re: shuttle escape systems Message-ID: <15596@netnews.upenn.edu> Date: 17 Oct 89 18:34:00 GMT References: <538.252A3A3B@mamab.FIDONET.ORG> <34577@srcsip.UUCP> <126311@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <1307@accuvax.nwu.edu> Sender: news@netnews.upenn.edu Reply-To: santerel@clarke.cis.upenn.edu.UUCP (Walter Santarelli) Organization: University of Pennsylvania Lines: 33 In article <1307@accuvax.nwu.edu> phil@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre) writes: >separation. It is acknowledged that the first two minutes of >ascent---the time when the SRBs are burning---is the most critical and >the most sensitive to disaster. If something goes wrong during that >time, there is nothing that can be done. You just have to hope that you >can ride it out until the SRBs are separated. You can't turn off a solid >rocket, and in this case it is providing a very large percentage of the >total thrust (so you can't just "eject" them at will, either). > This is the reason I'm still amazed that we launch people on the current system at all. I believe the original concept called for a re-usable liquid fueled booster. Liquid fueled boosters offer the advantage that they can be throttled. SRB's can't. They just go. When I was an undergrad, I had a rocket propulsion professor who stated on more than one occasion that using SRB's for manned space flight was not smart safety-wise. In fact, before the Challenger accident, he stated predicted that the SRB's would be the cause of the first major accident. It's the system we've got now, might as well use it as safely as possible. Hopefully the next vehicle won't suffer from the budget cutter's axe in quite the same way. Blame Nixon, he halved the shuttle budget twice (at least). Walter Santarelli santerel@grad1.cis.upenn.edu Call your Congressman and Senators! Vote for more civilian space funding!