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 amdahl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!amdcad!amdahl!ems
From: ems@amdahl.UUCP (ems)
Newsgroups: net.columbia
Subject: Re: Speculation II
Message-ID: <2775@amdahl.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 10-Feb-86 14:47:44 EST
Article-I.D.: amdahl.2775
Posted: Mon Feb 10 14:47:44 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 12-Feb-86 20:12:24 EST
References: <1954@pur-phy.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Circle C Shellfish Ranch, Shores-of-the-Pacific, Ca
Lines: 18
Summary: And don't forget the G forces in flight...

In article <1954@pur-phy.UUCP>, piner@pur-phy.UUCP (Richard Piner) writes:
> 
>   It is now certain that the SRBs burned through. There have been near
> misses in the past. NASA claims to have solved all problems with the SRBs.
> But as I recall, the burn through problems were never duplicated in
> static test on the ground. So while we are speculating, I thought
> I might speculate on why the performance in flight might differ
> from performance in static test.
(long discussion of cold and air flow ...)

I was surprised that you did not mention the G forces in flight.
It would seem to me that the effects of a couple of g's on stacked
fuel pellets and seals would be a critical area of interest?
(And would not show up in static tests)
-- 
E. Michael Smith  ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems

This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything.