Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site decwrl.DEC.COM
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-star!fisher
From: fisher@star.DEC (Burns Fisher ZKO1-1/D42 DTN 381-1466)
Newsgroups: net.columbia
Subject: How to fix?
Message-ID: <968@decwrl.DEC.COM>
Date: Thu, 6-Feb-86 16:51:42 EST
Article-I.D.: decwrl.968
Posted: Thu Feb  6 16:51:42 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Feb-86 05:31:21 EST
Sender: daemon@decwrl.DEC.COM
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 77

>>BTW, did the Russians run out of craters on Venus or what?  Surely they
>>could find 5 more to name after the men abord the shuttle.  I like the
>>idea of naming 7 of the newly discovered moons of Uranus after the
>>astronauts.
>> 
>> 
>>					Don Nash
>>
> 
>This occurred to me also, but it turns out that they have named the other
>craters on Venus for Soviet women.  Thus naming only after Christa and Judy
>is consistent, and I would say, very thoughtful.  I appreciate that sort
>of gesture.
> 
>Burns

Sorry...I mispoke.  The craters are not necessarily being named after SOVIET
women.  They are just being named after women in the tradition established
by the planet name Venus. 

--------------------------

About a previous near-burnthrough on the SRBs:  Yes, there was a (or some?)
close calls.  The NOZZLE nearly burned through.  The problem was found to
be something improper done in forming them so they ablated faster than they
were supposed to.  That is fixed, and appears not to be relavent to the
disaster, since the current problem appears to have happened up higher.

--------------------------

And now to the subject of this note:  What can be done?

Let us make some assumptions and start a discussion.

Assumptions:

	1)  The explosion was caused by hot gasses coming through a hole in
	    the right srb and blowing the ET.

	2)  The hole was detectable something like 13 seconds before the
	    explosion.

	3)  The cause of the hole will be found and fixed without MAJOR
	    redesign.

I would say that not only should one attempt to minimize the possibility of
this happening again, but one should also attempt to find a way of minimizing
the effect if it DOES happen.  Therefore, I would like to discuss the 
possibility of escape if this ever happens again.

There have always been "contingency" escape modes, but I have always heard
that the chances of sucessful escape during SRB burn are minimal.  Can they
be improved?  Apparently it is not considered possible to jettison the SRBs
while they are still burning.  The contingency escapes I have heard involve
dumping both the ET and the SRB, and thus depriving the shuttle of propulsion
and forcing a ditch. 

Further assumptions:
	4.  You can't dump the SRBs while they are burning because
	    of the 3million pounds of thrust.

	5.  A "marginal" escape possibility is almost useless because very
	    few commanders would choose a known marginal situation over a
	    "possible problem" situation.  Would you have pushed the button
	    that meant 5% chance of survival if someone had said on the radio
	    "hey, that right srb does not look right"?

Suppose you blew off the front and back of the engines, thus lowering the
pressure and thrust, and possibly extinguishing the fuel.  Could you then
jettison the SRBs and do a regulation Return-to-launch-site abort by continuing
to burn the main engines to get into the proper energy state?  Presumably
this would only work after a certain height/velocity was reached, but it might
be an improvement on current conditions.

Burns

...decwrl!rhea!star!fisher