Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site ada-uts.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!cca!ada-uts!callen
From: callen@ada-uts.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.columbia
Subject: Re: SRB vs liquid
Message-ID: <9400004@ada-uts.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 10-Feb-86 12:39:00 EST
Article-I.D.: ada-uts.9400004
Posted: Mon Feb 10 12:39:00 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 13-Feb-86 17:12:04 EST
References: <615@uwvax.UUCP>
Lines: 18
Nf-ID: #R:uwvax:-61500:ada-uts:9400004:000:786
Nf-From: ada-uts!callen    Feb 10 12:39:00 1986


--------------
Considering the near-legendary reliability of the all-solids Scout, I find
this doubtful.  The only novelties about the shuttle SRBs, as far as I know,
are their size and the fac that they are made out of segments instead of one
piece; the latter has been suggested as contributory to the right SRB
failure, but I don't see any reason to accept the allegation that solids are
per se less reliable.
--------------

The solid boosters on the Titan IIIc were segmented. The IIIc was also I
VERY reliable vehicle; I'm fairly sure that there was NEVER a failure of
a IIIc.

-- Jerry Callen      ...ihnnp4!inmet!ada-uts!callen

P.S. The IIIc was also a GREAT vehicle to watch; I used to live just south
     of Cape Canaveral and saw at least a dozen night launches of IIIc's.