Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!ucselx!crash!adamsd
From: adamsd@crash.cts.com (Adams Douglas)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: MANY QUESTIONS (Shuttle cabin survival)
Message-ID: <8097@crash.cts.com>
Date: 20 Mar 91 06:46:52 GMT
References: <0566B3896080344E@splava.cc.plattsburgh.edu> <1991Mar13.045435.3817@zoo.toronto.edu> <923@igor.Rational.COM>
Organization: Crash TimeSharing, El Cajon, CA
Lines: 17

If you're going to start mounting pyro-sep devices all over the orbiter,
then the logical place to do it would be on the ET mounts. The reason there
is no escape protocol when the SRBs are still attached is because all
simulations show that a "normal" ET sep triggered at such a time would
cause the orbiter to hang up on the aft attach points, flip over and break up.
Remember, the ET explosion did _not_ cause Challenger to break up, it was
being flopped around in a Mach 5 airflow that accomplished that.

I, personally, would rather try to ditch or land with a reasonaly intact
orbiter than a front cabin.

-- 
====================================================================
Adams Douglas
3206 Raintree Circle         -sometime I'll think of a good quote for here-
Culver City, CA 90230
                                          crash!adamsd