Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site axiom.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!linus!axiom!paul
From: paul@axiom.UUCP (Paul O`Shaughnessy)
Newsgroups: net.columbia
Subject: Re: Range Safety System cause Challanger Explosion?
Message-ID: <194@axiom.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 30-Mar-86 19:39:04 EST
Article-I.D.: axiom.194
Posted: Sun Mar 30 19:39:04 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 2-Apr-86 00:56:51 EST
References: <158@pecnos.UUCP> <3412@sun.uucp>
Organization: Axiom Technology, Newton MA
Lines: 26


Alan Marcum @ Sun Microsystems in 3412@sun.uucp writes in reply to 
two postings on the possible role of on-board explosives,

>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.

Actually, yes.  I agree, and I was one of the original posters, although
I can't take credit for the title.  The EETimes article does have a whiff 
of sensationalism to it, and there's little doubt that the SRB is the real
culprit.  However, the one plausible part of the article is that the flames
detonated certain critical structural parts, particlularly the lower 
attachment point of the starboard SRB.  No doubt that NASA's job is to stop
the boosters from leaking in the first place, but each step in a chain 
reaction is important to understand and then correct, if such a correction 
would make the system significantly more robust. 

                 ****************

    Paul O'Shaughnessy @ Axiom Technology, Newton MA
           Home of the 'Management Team'
        {decvax,ihnp4,utzoo}!linus!axiom or
     {bellcore!topaz,seismo}!harvard!axiom on UUCP