Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!clyde!bellcore!petrus!ka9q!karn
From: karn@ka9q.bellcore.com (Phil Karn)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: space news from 22 Sept AW&ST
Message-ID: <192@ka9q.bellcore.com>
Date: Tue, 4-Nov-86 04:40:24 EST
Article-I.D.: ka9q.192
Posted: Tue Nov  4 04:40:24 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 4-Nov-86 10:46:32 EST
References: <7254@utzoo.UUCP>, <346@xios.UUCP> <7275@utzoo.UUCP>
Organization: Home for Burned-out Hackers
Lines: 18
Xref: mnetor sci.space:106 sci.space.shuttle:10

> Given some care -- warm weather, careful booster stacking, avoiding high
> pressures in leak tests -- there is no real doubt that unmodified Shuttles
> could be launched with little chance of disastrous failure.  There wouldn't
> be the slightest problem finding qualified volunteer crews.

According to the Rogers commission, "O-ring thermal distress" has occurred
during launches in temperatures as high as 75 deg F (STS-61A, two different
joints). Anomalies also occurred on STS-41D and STS-2, which were both
launched at 70 F, despite a lower leak check pressure (100 psi on the nozzle
joint on 41D, 50 psi on STS-2).  It would be mad to launch an unfixed SRB
with that kind of track record.

Perhaps I'd approve of a military flight of an unmodified shuttle if the DoD
FIRST turned over its SDI funding for a year and built another orbiter (and
possibly another launch pad) to cover NASA in the event of another disaster.
Unfortunately, though, it's always NASA who gets to eat the risks.

Phil