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 dg_rtp.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!goudreau
From: goudreau@dg_rtp.UUCP (Bob Goudreau)
Newsgroups: net.columbia
Subject: Re: Challenger SRBs
Message-ID: <149@dg_rtp.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 9-Feb-86 20:07:08 EST
Article-I.D.: dg_rtp.149
Posted: Sun Feb  9 20:07:08 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 11-Feb-86 07:33:41 EST
References: <4270@mhuxd.UUCP> <6800009@uiucdcsb> <247@hropus.UUCP>
Reply-To: goudreau@dg_rtp.UUCP (Bob Goudreau)
Organization: Data General, RTP North Carolina
Lines: 16

In article <247@hropus.UUCP> ijk@hropus.UUCP (Ihor J. Kinal) writes:
>It occurred to me that the design of the SRB's did not actually
>necessitate them being totally demolished upon destruct - insted, just blow
>the tops off - then the exhaust would come out of the top as well,
>since the SRBs are hollow.  This would stop them in short oreder.  In
>today's NY Times, I read that I was correct (except that the destruct
>mechanism also blows away the nozzles at the base).

Why should this stop them short?  True, blowing the top off allows equal
amounts of exhuast to issue from either end, but it is only the *acceleration*
that disappears; the booster still has its *velocity*.  Air resistance and
gravity will eventually bring it to a stop, but it might strike a populated
area in the meantime.  Blowing the entire booster to little bits will
greatly increase its coefficient of friction, stopping it sooner.

Bob Goudreau