Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!columbia!garfield!polish
From: polish@garfield.columbia.edu (Nathaniel Polish)
Newsgroups: net.columbia
Subject: Re: Challenger SRBs
Message-ID: <1388@garfield.columbia.edu>
Date: Sat, 1-Feb-86 21:05:33 EST
Article-I.D.: garfield.1388
Posted: Sat Feb  1 21:05:33 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 3-Feb-86 05:36:34 EST
References: <4270@mhuxd.UUCP> <436@mmm.UUCP>
Reply-To: polish@garfield.UUCP (Nathaniel Polish)
Organization: Columbia University
Lines: 27

Newsgroups: net.columbia
Subject: Re: Challenger disaster
Summary: 
Expires: 
References: <787@decwrl.DEC.COM> <496@eneevax.UUCP> <1771@bbnccv.UUCP>
Sender: 
Reply-To: polish@garfield.UUCP (Nathaniel Polish)
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: Columbia University
Keywords: 

There seems to be some confusion about the tank.  It is not reused.
Also, the range safty system (self-distruct) is included on almost
every rocket every built.  This is necessary for obvious reasons.
The external tank uses a linear shaped charge with a battery and encoded
receiver made by Motorola.  The kind of ordinace used is very hard to
set off accidently.  As for the rapid mixing and explosion: at 2000 miles
per hour things mix very fast with no help from explosives.  

There was at least one near burn through of an SRB last year so this is a
possable source of the explosion.  

The flare that we all saw appears quite a bit behind the umbilical area
of the orbiter.  But, who knows, the pictures are not very clear and
the events occured so rapidly that it is hard to figure which is cause
and effect.