Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 SMI; site sun.uucp
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!sun!marcum
From: marcum@sun.uucp (Alan Marcum)
Newsgroups: net.columbia
Subject: Re: Range Safety System cause Challanger Explosion?
Message-ID: <3412@sun.uucp>
Date: Fri, 28-Mar-86 12:21:29 EST
Article-I.D.: sun.3412
Posted: Fri Mar 28 12:21:29 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 31-Mar-86 08:22:01 EST
References: <158@pecnos.UUCP>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Lines: 27

In article <158@pecnos.UUCP>, rod@pecnos (Robert O. Domitz) writes:
> The ELECTRONIC ENGINEERING TIMES, March 24, 1985, contains an article
> entitled "Did On-Board Self-Destruct System Cause Space Shuttle
> Explosion?"
> 
> According to the article, the flames escaping from the failed booster
> seal were superheated to approximately 6000 degrees F.  According to
> the article, either or both of the explosives could have detonated.

And in <192@axiom.UUCP>, paul@axiom (Paul O`Shaughnessy) writes:
> [again, paraphrasing from the EE TIMES article]
> Former section chief of test engineering for shuttle destruct systems
> electronics proposes that on-board HMX explosives could have been ignited
> by flame from starboard SRB.  These explosives were located on the external
> fuel tank 15 feet from the flaw in the starboard SRB and can be thermally 
> ignited at 350 degrees F.
> The engineer was employed by United Space Boosters Inc., under contract to
> NASA, from 1981 to 1982.

Now wait just a minute.  Does anyone else think the headline is a tad
misleading, at best?  Regardless of the range safety system, there was
a serious flaw with the right SRB.  Regardless of the presence or
absence of the range safety system explosives, Challenger was in
trouble.
-- 
Alan M. Marcum				Sun Microsystems, Technical Consulting
...!{dual,ihnp4}!sun!nescorna!marcum	Mountain View, California