Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!think!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!XEROX.COM!Gooding.WBST From: Gooding.WBST@XEROX.COM Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Pop-top SRB's Message-ID: <861014-135105-2695@Xerox> Date: Tue, 14-Oct-86 16:50:35 EDT Article-I.D.: Xerox.861014-135105-2695 Posted: Tue Oct 14 16:50:35 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 16-Oct-86 08:24:16 EDT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: Gooding.WBST@Xerox.COM Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 16 Consider the following scenario: A significant malfunction is detected during the early part of an STS mission following lift-off. The appropriate designated individual in mission control orders an abort. This order pops the tops of the SRB's off and away from the orbiter. Reverse thrust nozzles are now exposed and the SRB's top ends are ignited. The thrust of the already burning ends are effectively countered allowing the orbiter to detach before the SRB's buckle and submit to a destruct order along with the ET. The orbiter makes a best effort emergency landing based on speed, altitude, etc. Is this a viable method in which to minimize the risks of STS missions encountered from lift-off to SRB burnout? Steve Disclaimer disclaimer