Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!ukma!gatech!mcnc!ecsvax!cjl From: cjl@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Charles Lord) Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle Subject: Re: Shuttle computer reprogramming Summary: Segmented SRB <= Pork Barrel Keywords: shuttle, wind, programming Message-ID: <5485@ecsvax.uncecs.edu> Date: 30 Sep 88 20:16:08 GMT References: <6689@nsc.nsc.com> <1543@hp-sdd.HP.COM> Organization: Triangle R&D Corp,RTP,NC Lines: 18 In article <1543@hp-sdd.HP.COM>, hinojosa@hp-sdd.hp.com (Daniel Hinojosa) writes: > So now I wonder why NASA decided to stay with O rings > at all. I seem to recall in the days right after Challenger, seeing > news stories about boosters. The Air Force had made boosters for use > at Vandenberg that were all one piece. I think they were a type of > fibre glass, and spun into a cylindrical shape. These were lighter, > therefor allowing a heavier payload. What's the story? I read that the main reason for M-T's contract was pork barrel politics on some senator's part. There are capable SRB mfg facilities on the Gulf that are capable of making one-piece SRBs and barging them to KSC. The whole reason for o-rings is that you cannot ship a whole SRB from Utah to Florida intact. -- * Charles Lord ..!decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!cjl Usenet (old) * * Cary, NC cjl@ecsvax.UUCP Usenet (new) * * #include cjl@ecsvax.BITNET Bitnet * * #include cjl@ecsvax.uncecs.edu Internet *