Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site axiom.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!linus!axiom!paul From: paul@axiom.UUCP (Paul O`Shaughnessy) Newsgroups: net.space,net.columbia Subject: Re: Shuttle Challenger Explosion? Message-ID: <158@axiom.UUCP> Date: Wed, 5-Feb-86 15:12:28 EST Article-I.D.: axiom.158 Posted: Wed Feb 5 15:12:28 1986 Date-Received: Fri, 7-Feb-86 20:38:18 EST References: <661@tekigm.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: Axiom Technology, Newton MA Lines: 24 Xref: watmath net.space:5613 net.columbia:2109 In reply to some of the recent questions: The Challenger's payload was a large NASA communications sattelite to be used when the shuttles were out of good range of ground based stations. The Hubble telescope was not on board, and had been scheduled in one of the February or March flights. Cutaway diagrams of the external liquid fuel tank reveal that the liquid hydrogen is in a tank extending from the base to about 1/3 from the nose and the liquid oxygen is in a tank occupying the remainder of the nose. There is some open space between the tanks, and the point of the cone is also not filled. This is because the tanks themselved are cylindrically shaped with round ends. I assume that the most severely explosive area would be between those tanks, but the stiffness and strength of the tanks are largely provided by the pressurized liquid inside them. Once breached, they might come apart very quickly under the stress of flight. I don't know anything about how these materials would mix or explode under these conditions, so it's difficult to make much sense of the flashes coming from the external tank just before the explosion. What does seem much more obvious is that the starboard solid rocket booster had a burn-through or crack near its base some seconds before the explosion. If the plume was on a surface facing the liquid tank, then the flames could have breached the hydrogen tank.