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!ucbvax!brahms!weemba
From: weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: Shuttle Ditching
Message-ID: <11707@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Mon, 3-Feb-86 21:36:24 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.11707
Posted: Mon Feb  3 21:36:24 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 5-Feb-86 05:04:01 EST
References: <8602032227.AA10998@s1-b.arpa>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: weemba@brahms.UUCP (Matthew P. Wiener)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 17

In article <8602032227.AA10998@s1-b.arpa> ac%mit-oz@MIT-MC.ARPA writes:
>3) Shuttle breaks away from external tank soon enough to survive the
>explosion.  I have no idea how different the trajectories of the
>shuttle and the ET/SRB assembly can be made to be during an abort.
>I would guess that in any case, to survive the explosion, the
>ET/SRB-Shuttle separation would have to be at least a thousand feet or
>so.  Even at this distance, any shock wave effects could still be
>dangerous.

If the explosion was caused by an SRB burning into the ET, as seems
likely from the latest news, then presumably the SRBs would travel
separately from the ET, and there would be no explosion.

But I've read on the nets that the ejection cannot occur until the
SRBs have burned out anyway, so the question is moot.

ucbvax!brahms!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720