Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!amdcad!ames!sdcsvax!nosc!trout!ganzer
From: ganzer@trout.UUCP (Mark T. Ganzer)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
Subject: Re: Things aint so bad
Message-ID: <577@trout.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 23-Sep-87 16:12:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: trout.577
Posted: Wed Sep 23 16:12:38 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 26-Sep-87 05:43:36 EDT
References: <13312@amdahl.amdahl.com>, <7973@think.UUCP> <8561@utzoo.UUCP>, <2396@calmasd.GE.COM>
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Lines: 20
Xref: mnetor sci.space.shuttle:360 sci.space:3091

In article <2396@calmasd.GE.COM>, jnp@calmasd.GE.COM (John Pantone) writes:
> We had a VERY RELIABLE shuttle.  It blew up - AND WE KNOW WHY! If we avoid
> that condition (freezing the poor O-rings before launch) it would remain
> reliable.  By re-designing it we now have an unknown system -LESS RELIABLE 
> NOT MORE!

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that their was evidence of impending
seal failure in previous launches, indicating a highly marginal original
design. Freezing only aggravated the condition. There is no guarentee that it
could not happen in a warm weather flight. Also, as I recall, the original
joint design did not allow for testing the integrity of the joint in the
direction that it would normally seal prior to launch. Having dealt with
o-ring seals in the ocean environment, this testing is essential, because
o-rings are quite easily damage during assembly.

So given these two factors, a re-design of the o-ring joint is essential.
Failure to do so would inevitably result in another failure down the line.
-- 
MarK T. Ganzer                    Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Internet: ganzer@nosc.mil         UUCP: {ucbvax,hplabs}!sdcsvax!nosc!ganzer