Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!shadooby!ginosko!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
From: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: SRB solutions
Message-ID: <14798@bfmny0.UU.NET>
Date: 25 Oct 89 15:06:24 GMT
References: <5474@umd5.umd.edu> <5149@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> <12973@s.ms.uky.edu> <1989Oct18.172311.22863@utzoo.uucp> <838@cybaswan.UUCP>
Reply-To: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff)
Organization: ^
Lines: 21
Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Followup-To:

The standard range safety approach for SRM's is to detach the nosecone
so that the combustion chamber becomes an open cylinder with no net
thrust.  This would be dangerous to do to an assembled SRB/orbiter stack
in flight.  The whole thing would become an aerodynamic nightmare when
the SRB thrust stopped.  But separating the SRBs while still firing
would be equally unpredictable and dangerous.  "Forget it" would be a
good summation.

It would be more useful to have either liquid boosters which could be
throttled down in a controlled manner, and/or a means to eject the
entire crew compartment of the orbiter as a unit for separate recovery.
The standard roll program orients the orbiter dorsal-down for
the entire ascent, so rocket ejection of the compartment would pose
difficulties.

Needless to say this whole discussion is about some other orbiter, as
what we have now will stay the way it is.
-- 
Machines will never think, for "thought"   ?!     Tom Neff
will be redefined, as often as needed,      !?    tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET
as that which a machine cannot do.           ?!   ...uunet!bfmny0!tneff