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 sdcc6.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcc3!sdcc6!ix742
From: ix742@sdcc6.UUCP (James Hayes)
Newsgroups: net.columbia
Subject: Re: Speculation III
Message-ID: <2407@sdcc6.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 7-Feb-86 22:22:11 EST
Article-I.D.: sdcc6.2407
Posted: Fri Feb  7 22:22:11 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 11-Feb-86 04:27:47 EST
References: <1955@pur-phy.UUCP>
Reply-To: ix742@sdcc6.UUCP (James Hayes)
Distribution: net
Organization: UC San Diego EE/CS Department.
Lines: 29
Summary: Destruct pack

Richard Piner writes in article <1955@pur-phy.UUCP>:

>
>   I have seen the NASA films on the right SRB and there is no doubt
>that the fuel burned through the skin. However, I still have doubts
>about this causing the explosion the destroyed the Challenger.
.
. READ ON
.
>   The only way that a flame from the SRB could have caused the
>ET to explode instantly, would be if there were an internal leak
>inside the ET. Such leaks are not uncommon in cryogenic systems.
>But doesn't the ET have leak sensors in it? Or is there a nominal
>leak rate. A small leak could be ignored if there aren't any flames
>about. But of course this time there was.
.
.
.
>
>					Richard Piner
>					piner@pur-phy.UUCP

There was talk of the Challengers "destruct pack" detonating.
The theory aparently accounts for the red-orange cloud that
appeared.  Also: What about the small explosion toward the front of
the Challenger.  Isn't that where the destruct pack is detonated?

-Jim Hayes
ix742%sdcc6@SDCSVAX.ARPA