Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site ism780c.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim
From: tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: net.columbia
Subject: Re: Other types of SRBs
Message-ID: <737@ism780c.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 21-Feb-86 23:51:11 EST
Article-I.D.: ism780c.737
Posted: Fri Feb 21 23:51:11 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 24-Feb-86 21:14:10 EST
References: <165@axiom.UUCP>
Reply-To: tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith)
Organization: Interactive Systems Corp., Santa Monica, CA
Lines: 14

A recent LA Times story ( I don't know the exact date ) talked about
this.  There were three companies that wanted to do the SRBs.  They
were Morton Thiokol(sp), someone I don't remember at all, and I think
United Technologies.  Thiokol was considered to have the best
management, but was behind the others in technology.  The company
with the best technology was behind the others in management, and
the other was in between on both.

The two companies that were not chosen wanted to do non-segmented
SRBs.  There were some quotes in the story from engineers from these
companies saying that it was clearly a *bad* *thing* to use segmented
SRBs, but this sounds a lot like sour grapes to me.
-- 
Tim Smith       sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim || ima!ism780!tim || ihnp4!cithep!tim