Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle Path: utzoo!henry From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Challenger tragedy Message-ID: <1988Aug3.150925.8434@utzoo.uucp> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology References: <1001@scicom.alphacdc.com> <5827@dasys1.UUCP> <14876@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> <6081@ihlpl.ATT.COM> Date: Wed, 3 Aug 88 15:09:25 GMT In article <6081@ihlpl.ATT.COM> knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) writes: >As I remember, one of the things that helped the Apollo Project >catch up to schedule after the tragic fire, >was the combining of lower and upper stage tests. >Originally the first few 1st stage tests were to be launched >with dummy upper stages (tanks full of water). >Instead these firings were made with the complete 3-stage >rocket, thus getting 3 tests for the price of one. I don't recall the details of the timing, but I think Von Braun was talked into "all-up testing" well before the fire. It was not just a time issue (although he later admitted that, in retrospect, they could not possibly have made the Kennedy deadline with the traditional approach); there was also a problem with dummy stages in that they are not representative of real upper stages for characteristics like structural vibration. The only way to do a first-stage test with a fully realistic environment was to use real, loaded upper stages, and then one might as well try to test them too, if the first stage worked. >I think there was one malfunction where we even got a freebie >checkout of the escape tower rockets that pull the CM away >from the stack. Not on a Saturn, that I recall, but there was such a malfunction with one of the Little Joe II rockets used for testing the CM and its escape system. >I'm still impressed that no Saturn stage EVER screwed up in >a crewed launch! ... Well, actually there were some minor screwups in the upper stages once or twice, but nothing disastrous. -- MSDOS is not dead, it just | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology smells that way. | uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu