Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site pur-phy.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!pucc-j!pucc-h!pur-phy!piner
From: piner@pur-phy.UUCP (Richard Piner)
Newsgroups: net.columbia
Subject: unanswered questions
Message-ID: <1956@pur-phy.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 4-Feb-86 04:54:23 EST
Article-I.D.: pur-phy.1956
Posted: Tue Feb  4 04:54:23 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Feb-86 21:30:43 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: Purdue Univ. Physics Dept., IN
Lines: 74


   Ok, now I have a few unanswered questions and some general observations.
I have watched three different interviews of William Graham on TV in the
last couple of days. Graham is currently the acting director of NASA
for those who don't know. I have a very bad feeling about all of this.
Is it just me, or do other people feel that Graham is stone-walling?
On several occasions, Graham artfully dodged direct questions. They
were good and fair questions too.
   From these interviews it seemed that Graham was saying that they
didn't monitor a number of important things because they believed the
system to be fail safe. For example, he said that they didn't have
sensors on the SRBs that could detect burn through because there
was nothing that could be done if it occurred, so they designed the
SRBs to not burn through. If this is indeed what NASA did, then they
were WRONG! I can't believe the engineers at NASA think that they
can build a fail safe rocket engine, either solid or liquid fueled.
At least not a booster rocket. Technology just hasn't gone that far
yet. If designing a spacecraft with today's boosters, you just have
to have a way to get away from those boosters, or their fuel. We still
haven't gotten a straight answer on whether or not the shuttle can
jetison the ET with the SRBs still burning. Yes it would be risky for
sure, but can it be done? A slim chance is better than no chance.
I get the feeling that there is a lot that NASA is not telling. I also
get the feeling that the news media is not really pressing for hard
answers. That is partly because they don't have the staff that
understands the issues. Do others have this feeling?
   Now on a political note, I'm also worried that Beggs has still not
stepped down. I don's see how NASA can do anything concrete until
they get a new director. Graham should not be considered for the
top post because he has too many enemies within NASA. This is going
to cause problems. I was glad to see an independent commission set
up to investigate this disaster. But that also means someone in the
White House does not trust NASA completely, or thinks there will be
charges of a white wash. The only way charges of a white wash would
show up, is if there are people within NASA who have already been
complaining about safety issues loud enough for the White House to
hear them.
   Then there are the folks at NASA saying they will be flying again
by summer. They must be dropping LSD. There is no way they will fly
till at least next year. The President's commission will not even
file it's report till June. Even if the disaster turns out to be
a traceable error in the manufacture of the SRB, it will take
months to settle on a management system to insure it doesn't
happen again. After all, they thought they had such a system.
   That's the best that can happen. If congress gets involved things
could get very messy. Also there is still the question of whether or
not it is safe to use solid boosters at all. People early in the
program said it was not. Have they been proven right. You can bet
this question will come up again. The debate could rage for months.
Even if it is decided the current system is safe, they will still
have to reinstall sensors in the SRBs. I would bet cold hard cash
that congress will insist on that. Congress will no doubt also insist
that there be a way to jetison the SRBs while still lit. Even these
minor changes will take time.
   Just to top things off, the President sent congress his budget
today. It contained a funding increase for NASA. That's the good news.
Enjoy it while you can. The budget also contained a $10 billion increase
for defense and a $30 billion cut in domestic spending. A snow ball in
h-ll would have a better chance than this budget. If the President and
congress could compromise, an increase for NASA could be maintained.
But that won't happen. So GRH (Graham-Rudman-Hollings) will kick into
effect and NASA will get cut. Given the current crisis, and a funding
cut, and high demand of the military for shuttle space, I expect space
science to be very very badly hurt. If any shuttle design changes are
needed and on a reduced budget, it could be two or more years before
another shuttle flight, or at least a civilian one. The military
may make a few flights before the shuttle is declared safe. After
all, test piloting is their job and their needs are very urgent.
Anyway, I expect that the space program has been set back a lot
more than anyone currently suspects. But then cynics are sometimes
pleasantly surprised.

					Richard Piner
					piner@pur-phy.UUCP