Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ingr!whitehrc
From: whitehrc@ingr.com (Robert C. Whitehead)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Blowing Up the Shuttle
Keywords: figures from USBI
Message-ID: <9739@ingr.com>
Date: 12 Apr 90 15:36:48 GMT
References: <9689@ingr.com> <1990Apr11.161459.14816@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>
Organization: Intergraph Corp. Huntsville, Al
Lines: 37

In article <1990Apr11.161459.14816@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, pjs@aristotle.JPL.NASA.gov (Peter Scott) writes:
> 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.
> >[...] 
> > CASE STUDY #2
> > 
> > Range Safety declared on the pad; only the ET RS device triggers.
> > Only the ET explodes.
> 
> I'd be curious to know where they get off speculating that the ET could
> blow up without setting off the SRBs.  With a fireball of 589' radius,
> and considering that the SRBs have their own oxidizer mixed in with them
> and require little more than a spark to ignite, this seems an unlikely
> scenario indeed.
> 
> Peter Scott, NASA/JPL/Caltech

Thanks for the catch, Pete...

Granted; what I should have said is that the figures represented
the amount of damage one could expect if the ET blew alone.

The case study scenario was poorly worded.  Let's just say that
if, for some reason, NASA wanted to blow up a full ET, that's
what you'd get (though God only knows why they'd want to blow
up a good ET.....)


 ----------------------------
| Robert C. (Bob) Whitehead  |
|         --=rcw=--          | Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville
| Direct Email Replies:      | Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are
|	ingr!b32a!rw8024!bob |  strictly mine
 ----------------------------