rcpilz@ablnc.ATT.COM (Robert C. Pilz) (05/02/89)
The shuttle was shut down with 31 seconds left in the countdown. It was determined that engine #1 had a problem with the pump that cools the engine. Also, a leak in the hose to the pump was detected. I would like to know: How serious was that problem? What would happen if that problem was not detected? Abort to Orbit as in a previous mission? Which engine is engine #1? Was the pump one of those new turbo pumps that were redesigned since Challenger? Could Magellan have been launched from a diminished orbit? Although I was disappointed, I have the feeling that people out at KSC are being more careful. Am I being naive? R.C. Pilz AT&T IMS Orlando FL
phil@titan.rice.edu (William LeFebvre) (05/04/89)
In article <2282@ablnc.ATT.COM> rcpilz@ablnc.ATT.COM (Robert C. Pilz) writes: >It was determined that engine #1 had a problem with the pump >that cools the engine. Sort of. It was a recirculation pump. It is activated within the last few minutes to bring the engine down closer to the temperature of the fuel. I don't believe that it is used after liftoff. >I would like to know: How serious was that problem? Very. >What would happen if that problem was not detected? There would have been unexpeted stresses in the engine as very cold liquid hit metal that was about ambient temperature. Sudden contraction of the metal, I suspect. >Abort to Orbit as in a previous mission? What probably would have happened is that the on-board computers would have detected something wrong with the engines between T-6 seconds and T-0 (the main engines are started at T-6s) and would have halted the countdown before it reached T-0. If that didn't happen, then the engine would have been shut down within the first 2 minutes of flight (assuming it didn't fly apart, that is) and they would have done an RTLS (return to launch site) abort after the SRBs separated. >Was the pump one of those new turbo >pumps that were redesigned since Challenger? No, I believe that the turbo pumps are something entirely different. >Although I was disappointed, I have the feeling that people out >at KSC are being more careful. Am I being naive? I think that in this particular case, KSC did the appropriate thing. But can you really blame them for being overly cautious? They cannot afford another catastrophe from a political and PR standpoint. You and I know that this is a risky business, the astronauts know it, the launch and flight controllers know it, most of the people reading this message know it. But Joe Average Taxpayer and John Average Congressperson don't know it. And you can't convince them of the risks, either. Public support would fall to almost nothing, whether NASA deserved such treatment or not. Oh well.....off my soapbox and back to work. William LeFebvre Department of Computer Science Rice University <phil@Rice.edu>