Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!amdcad!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.columbia
Subject: Re: SRB vs liquid
Message-ID: <3045@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 4-Feb-86 23:32:16 EST
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.3045
Posted: Tue Feb  4 23:32:16 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 7-Feb-86 09:32:15 EST
References: <615@uwvax.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 19

In article <615@uwvax.UUCP> hagens@uwvax.UUCP writes:

>On the news last night (McNeil, Lehrer) two gentlemen 
>were disagreeing on the safety of a SRB vs. liquid fuel rocket. It
>was implied that due to NASA budget restrictions, SRBs were used
>when liquid fuel was better/safer.

>Whats the scoop on this? Is there any truth to it?

Considering the near-legendary reliability of the all-solids Scout, I find
this doubtful.  The only novelties about the shuttle SRBs, as far as I know,
are their size and the fac that they are made out of segments instead of one
piece; the latter has been suggested as contributory to the right SRB
failure, but I don't see any reason to accept the allegation that solids are
per se less reliable.

After all, there is Ariane....

C. Wingate