Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!pdn!rnms1!dave
From: dave@rnms1.paradyne.com (Dave Cameron (Consultant))
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Blowing Up the Shuttle
Keywords: figures from USBI
Message-ID: <7748@pdn.paradyne.com>
Date: 11 Apr 90 23:02:00 GMT
References: <9689@ingr.com>
Sender: usenet@pdn.paradyne.com
Reply-To: dave@rnms1.paradyne.com (Dave Cameron )
Organization: AT&T Paradyne, Largo, Florida
Lines: 34

In article <9689@ingr.com> whitehrc@ingr.com (Robert C. Whitehead) writes:
>
>I finally got the definitive figures from my reliable source
>(aka my brother-in-law, who wrote the specs and redlines
>for the Range Saftey System on STS).  I have appended them with
>the parameters of the explosion.
>
>TERMS:
 [Defined as area of X psi overpressure]
>	5% STRUCTURAL DAMAGE AREA (aka 50% casualty area,
>	meaning that 50% of the people in this area die)
>	Defined as area of 1.2 psi overpressure
>
>I'll be happy to pass on any objections, but I remind you that
>these figures come from the people who *build* the SRBs - 
>United Technologies/USBI.

Now Wait A Minute - somebody clearly misunderstood something.

The accepted definition of casualty is injury, not death. Even with this
change I wonder about that part.

One of the first lessons to come out of WWII was how RESISTANT to 
overpressure the human body is.

[The English government planned for way too many dead and way too few
homeless and minor injuries for the bombing of London.
After the first big raid they had a lot of unneeded coffins and a lot of
basically unhurt people looking for shelter.
]

[The structural damage numbers are reasonable for normal construction.]

dave "thinkin about the unthinkable" cameron