Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 System V-beta 12/2/85; site fai.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!sun!saber!qubix!wjvax!fai!ronc
From: ronc@fai.UUCP (Ronald O. Christian)
Newsgroups: net.columbia
Subject: Re: SRBs and Flaps
Message-ID: <86@fai.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 28-Feb-86 16:29:50 EST
Article-I.D.: fai.86
Posted: Fri Feb 28 16:29:50 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 4-Mar-86 04:05:31 EST
References: <1402@garfield.columbia.edu>
Reply-To: ronc@fai.UUCP (Ronald O. Christian)
Organization: Fujitsu America, Inc.
Lines: 32

>On the issue of one SRB igniting:
>
>[...] If  they  kept the  rocket
>bolted down during a situation like this the results would  be as  bad
>as not bolting it down.  The vibration supressors (water)  only last a
>few seconds so the rocket would be shaken to pieces (even from 3 miles
>out the vibration  is substantial.)  In addition, the  heat  build  up
>would be very great.  Basically,  abort senerios from  ignition to SRB
>separation are no win.
****

This may be a stupid question, but what if you blow the SRB loose and
let it continue on it's merry way alone?  The only problem I see would
be the danger of the exhaust from the launching SRB igniting the main
tank.  We all know how nasty *that* can be.  I guess I answered my own
question.

A nasty thought occurrs to me.  In such a situation, (only one SRB ignites)
the shuttle probably becomes dangerous to the surrounding area, due to
the unpredictability of flight direction.  What is the flight officer
supposed to do in such a case?  Destruct the shuttle?  If you think NASA
got bad press *this* time...


				Ron
-- 
--
		Ronald O. Christian (Fujitsu America Inc., San Jose, Calif.)
		ihnp4!pesnta!fai!ronc

Oliver's law of assumed responsibility:
	"If you are seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it."