Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mmm.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!mmm!mrgofor
From: mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR)
Newsgroups: net.columbia
Subject: Re: Other types of SRBs
Message-ID: <571@mmm.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 27-Feb-86 10:57:25 EST
Article-I.D.: mmm.571
Posted: Thu Feb 27 10:57:25 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Mar-86 03:31:32 EST
References: <165@axiom.UUCP> <737@ism780c.UUCP> <1448@lanl.ARPA>
Reply-To: mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR)
Organization: none
Lines: 27
Summary: 

In article <1448@lanl.ARPA> jlg@a.UUCP (Jim Giles) writes:
>
>There is another solution to the SRB problem, and it is one that was going
>to be used at Vandenberg all along.  That is to use the present design, but
>to heat the SRB's before launch.  At Vandenberg, they had already planned
>to use modified jet engines to blow warm air on the SRB casings during any
>cold weather.  NASA officials didn't think the cold would be a problem at
>the Cape, so the heater engines were never installed there.  (Source:
>Wall Street Journal)
>
>I suspect that the SRB's will now be redesigned even if it turns out
>that the design was satisfactory as long as they were kept warm.  I think
>people will feel skittish about flying with boosters which caused an
>earlier catastrophe.  Even with a redesign though, I bet future Shuttle
>flights will start with a carefully maintained SRB temperature.
>
>J. Giles
>Los Alamos

	I also suspect they will be redesigned. The word I've heard is that
NASA ignored its usual fail-safe backup requirements regarding the O-rings,
and I suspect that they will be required to do something about that problem.

-- 
					--MKR

There is none so blind as he who cannot see.