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: <107@fai.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 14-Mar-86 13:44:24 EST
Article-I.D.: fai.107
Posted: Fri Mar 14 13:44:24 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 30-Mar-86 08:01:22 EST
References: <1402@garfield.columbia.edu> <86@fai.UUCP> <6465@utzoo.UUCP> <255@noscvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: ronc@fai.UUCP (Ronald O. Christian)
Organization: Fujitsu America, Inc.
Lines: 35

>>>(me)
>>Henry Spencer
>William Rupp

>> > ... 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? ...
>> [...] That's what he's there for.  Nobody said it was going to be easy.
>> ...he *earns* his pay when something goes horribly wrong and
>> prompt, perhaps very unpleasant, action is required.
>This possibility is truly frightening.  I keep thinking of those Word War
>II films of the experimental V-2's going off course just after launch or
>even blowing up on the launch pad.  Would it be possible to restrict  
>sight-seers from the immediate area (say a ten mile radius)?

****

But the V-2's weren't manned.

I must confess I wasn't considering the safety of the sight-seers, but
of the crew.  I was assuming that the range safety officer (Thanks for
the correction, Henry) would be required to sacrifice the crew if it
looked like the shuttle was out of control.  My original comment was that
the press resulting from such a decision would be really *really* bad.


			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."