Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!dogie.macc.wisc.edu!uwvax!rutgers!psuvax1!psuvm.bitnet!cunyvm!ndsuvm1!ndsuvax!nunelson
From: nunelson@ndsuvax.UUCP (James Nelson)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: 104% on shuttle launch
Message-ID: <2591@ndsuvax.UUCP>
Date: 24 Apr 89 15:59:59 GMT
References: <883@sactoh0.UUCP> <9130002@hpwrce.HP.COM> <2516@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Reply-To: nunelson@ndsuvax.UUCP (James Nelson)
Organization: North Dakota State University, Fargo
Lines: 21


In article <2516@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> ajk@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Jeff Boerio) writes:
>In article <9130002@hpwrce.HP.COM>, howeird@hpwrce.HP.COM (Howard Stateman) writes:
>> So to carry this over to your engine running at 104%, it is running
>> harder than at 100%, but it is past its point of peak efficientcy, and
>> may do something non-user-friendly, like blow everyone all to Hell.
>
>Something tells me that this is incorrect.  Why, in NASA's infinite wisdom



Some official type said (a few launches back, can't remember which one)
after the shuttle commander said "throttling back to 100%" that the engine
power is in relation to the original engines in Columbia.  It was because
that the current shuttle's engines are more powerful than the engines
originally in Columbia.  Upgrades, and all that.


                        Jim
Note: The opinions expressed here are entirely my own.  Why should I copy
      someone else?


#! rnews