Xref: utzoo sci.space.shuttle:3139 sci.space:11439
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!cbnewsl!sw
From: sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stuart Warmink)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
Subject: Re: Magellan & SRB exhaust
Summary: Yes and yes
Message-ID: <606@cbnewsl.ATT.COM>
Date: 16 May 89 22:39:20 GMT
References: <982@syma.sussex.ac.uk>
Organization: Interface Systems @ AT&T Bell Labs
Lines: 28

In article <982@syma.sussex.ac.uk>, andy@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Andy Clews) writes:
> [...deleted...] If liquid fueled motors burn "invisibly" in the
> vacuum of space, what about the solid rocket motors? 

   There are some rather pretty pictures of an OMS burn and a "yaw" thruster
   firing as seen from the Shuttle's rear windows in the book _Entering Space_
   by Joseph Allen (mission specialist). They clearly show whitish plumes, but
   it dissipates within a meter or so for the thruster firing. Both OMS and
   attitude thrusters are liquid (hydrazine) fueled engines.

   Solid rocket motor should have a far more visible plume, because of the
   many solid exhaust products which will glow brightly. Just look at the
   Shuttle's boosters!

> Also, (rather naive question), would the shuttle have been "showered"
> with any of the impurities from the Magellan solid motor exhaust at burn
> time, even though it was obviously a long distance from it?

   Not so naive, because that it exactly why the Shuttle turns its undersurface
   towards where the probe/satellite starts its burn. The worry is that
   exhaust particles could damage or dirty the orbiter's windows.

   P.S. "Let's go Seagulls!" :-)
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Captain, I see no reason to stand here  |  Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA
 and be insulted" - Spock                | sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (att!cbnewsl!sw)
-------------------------> My opinions are just that <------------------------