Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!lll-winken!uunet!peregrine!ccicpg!zardoz!stanton!donegan
From: donegan@stanton.UUCP (Steve Donegan)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: 104% on shuttle launch
Summary: 104% Thrust...
Message-ID: <444@stanton.UUCP>
Date: 22 Apr 89 03:24:29 GMT
References: <883@sactoh0.UUCP> <1039@calvin.EE.CORNELL.EDU>
Organization: Stanton Public Domain Systems, Stanton, Ca.
Lines: 30

In article <1039@calvin.EE.CORNELL.EDU>, johns@calvin.EE.CORNELL.EDU (John Sahr) writes:
> In article <883@sactoh0.UUCP> bncox@sactoh0.UUCP (Brian N. Cox) writes:
> >This is little bit old, but during the last shuttle launch I heard
> >one of the radio messages say "...engines at 104%..."  This seems
> >like a contradiction to me.  If someone has succeeded in making the
> >perpetual motion machine let me know, an engine running at 104%
> >sounds great though.  Please excuse my cynicism, but I truly don't
> >understand.  Someone please explain?!

The explanation is really rather simple. The 104% is relative to the ORIGINAL
engine specifications.

The newer engines are capable (so I've heard, second-hand) of roughly 111%
maximum thrust relative to the original system.

I'm really surprised that such 'new' hardware hasn't met with the same
man-rating hassle that the mere suggestion of more modern computer systems
on-board seem to meet.

After all... isn't a modification of an explosive burning system just as
dangerous as the modification of antique core-memory control computer
systems?

Large smiley intended...

-- 
Steven P. Donegan                 These opinions are given on MY time, not
Area Telecommunications Engineer  Western Digital's
Western Digital Corp.
stanton!donegan || donegan@stanton.UUCP || donegan%stanton@UUCP