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 ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!ucbvax!space
From: mcgeer%ji@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU (Rick McGeer)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re:  SRB's
Message-ID: <8602031843.AA16460@ji.berkeley.edu>
Date: Mon, 3-Feb-86 13:43:25 EST
Article-I.D.: ji.8602031843.AA16460
Posted: Mon Feb  3 13:43:25 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 5-Feb-86 02:52:05 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 19

>Just heard they are saying that it WAS a burn through of the left SRB, and
>that it can be seen from  other camera angles.
>
>Can anyone explain why off earth the thing didn't go tumbling madly
>after seperating? How there was no apparent sign of flame from the side of
>the SRB after seperating?

After NASA released the film, I took another look at my recording of the
explosion; sure enough, after the explosion and before the left SRB exited
from the frame, you could just see a small plume above the rocket flame...
of course, that's not the question you are asking.  My suspicion is that
the acceleration imparted by the plume was very small, and in any case
both the direction of the plume and its position on the rocket was very
close to the exhaust.  Hence, while the plume no doubt imparted some torque
and sideways thrust, it wouldn't be enough to tumble the SRB; if it had been,
it's possible that the torque would have been sufficient to roll the orbiter
a little, and hence would have alerted the crew to danger.

				-- Rick.