Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jpl-devvax!lwall From: lwall@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry Wall) Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle Subject: Re: Single SRB Ignition Message-ID: <7716@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> Date: 9 Apr 90 21:28:17 GMT References: <109.261E583A@ofa123.FIDONET.ORG> Reply-To: lwall@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry Wall) Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA Lines: 27 In article <109.261E583A@ofa123.FIDONET.ORG> rick@ofa123.FIDONET.ORG (Rick Ellis) writes: : In a message of , Larry Wall (lwall@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV ) writes: : : LW> Uh, numeracy check. Did he mean 1.2 megapounds, or 1.2 kilotons? : LW> : LW> A loaded space shuttle stack only weighs about 2.2 kilotons. I don't : LW> think solid fuel and H2/O2 is THAT much more powerful than TNT. : : SRB propellant masses about 1.1 million pounds. (for each SRB) Well, yes, of course. That's about .55 kilotons. What are you getting at? Me, I was merely trying to indicate that the original figure was off by about 3 orders of magnitude. I was using the mass of the whole shuttle stack as an upper limit on the amount of combustibles the STS carries. I was assuming that the energy in the propellants is not very different from the amount of energy in a corresponding amount of TNT, which is the active ingredient in the usual interpretation of "megatonnage". All reasonable estimates for a mere numeracy check, no? If you were trying to answer my mostly rhetorical question, you forgot to include the H2/O2, and the conversion between the two fuels and TNT. Sorry I'm so snippy today. Must have been the full moon... Larry Wall lwall@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov