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!hao!nbires!boulder!cisden!lmc
From: lmc@cisden.UUCP (Lyle McElhaney)
Newsgroups: net.columbia
Subject: Re: Challenger SRBs
Message-ID: <487@cisden.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 7-Feb-86 16:29:45 EST
Article-I.D.: cisden.487
Posted: Fri Feb  7 16:29:45 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 11-Feb-86 06:15:43 EST
References: <4270@mhuxd.UUCP> <6339@utzoo.UUCP> <344@frog.UUCP>
Organization: ConTel Information Systems, Denver
Lines: 18

> In fact, according to the Monday Boston Globe, "James Mizell, a retired NASA
> engineer working as a consultant to the space agency, said yesterday that in
> a ''thrust termination'' procedure, explosive charges were used to ''cut the
> top and bottom off, disableing the rockets.'' [PARAGRAPH] Under the procedure
> burning fuel then fires from both ends, Mizell said, stopping the rocket's
> forward motion."

I think this is highly improbable.  The nose cone of the SRB contains all
the electronics that the SRB possesses (destruct system, pyrotechnics
control, recovery beacon, etc.) and the *huge* parachute recovery system.
Thrust from both ends of the SRB would not slow down the SRB; it has
already burned out when it is jettisoned, and even if it were, such a
tactic would probably result in extreme tumbling of the rocket, making
parachute deployment impossible.  It seems to me that the top and bottom
of the SRB is it's most valuable parts; the rest is *just* stovepipe.

Lyle McElhaney
...hao!cisden!lmc