polish@garfield.UUCP (02/26/86)
References: On the issue of one SRB igniting: It is very unlikely that this could happen as the the systems used are very reliable (we've heard that before.) If they kept the rocket bolted down during a situation like this the results would be as bad as not bolting it down. The vibration supressors (water) only last a few seconds so the rocket would be shaken to pieces (even from 3 miles out the vibration is substantial.) In addition, the heat build up would be very great. Basically, abort senerios from ignition to SRB separation are no win. On the issue of flaps: The rocket controls its course via gimbals and control surfaces. It is almost all computer controlled and the physics is very complex and requires very fast responce.
ronc@fai.UUCP (Ronald O. Christian) (03/01/86)
>On the issue of one SRB igniting: > >[...] If they kept the rocket >bolted down during a situation like this the results would be as bad >as not bolting it down. The vibration supressors (water) only last a >few seconds so the rocket would be shaken to pieces (even from 3 miles >out the vibration is substantial.) In addition, the heat build up >would be very great. Basically, abort senerios from ignition to SRB >separation are no win. **** This may be a stupid question, but what if you blow the SRB loose and let it continue on it's merry way alone? The only problem I see would be the danger of the exhaust from the launching SRB igniting the main tank. We all know how nasty *that* can be. I guess I answered my own question. A nasty thought occurrs to me. In such a situation, (only one SRB ignites) the shuttle probably becomes dangerous to the surrounding area, due to the unpredictability of flight direction. What is the flight officer supposed to do in such a case? Destruct the shuttle? If you think NASA got bad press *this* time... Ron -- -- Ronald O. Christian (Fujitsu America Inc., San Jose, Calif.) ihnp4!pesnta!fai!ronc Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: "If you are seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it."
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (03/05/86)
> >On the issue of one SRB igniting: > > This may be a stupid question, but what if you blow the SRB loose and > let it continue on it's merry way alone?... The orbiter and the tank fall over and go smash. The SRBs are the only support for the tank and orbiter on the pad. I doubt very much that the assembly would hold together with only one SRB supporting it. > ... In such a situation, (only one SRB ignites) > the shuttle probably becomes dangerous to the surrounding area, due to > the unpredictability of flight direction. What is the flight officer > supposed to do in such a case? Destruct the shuttle? ... (I assume you mean the Range Safety Officer or equivalent title.) That's what he's there for. Nobody said it was going to be easy. He gets paid to stand and watch the successful launches, but he *earns* his pay when something goes horribly wrong and prompt, perhaps very unpleasant, action is required. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
pritch@osu-eddie.UUCP (Norman Pritchett) (03/05/86)
In article <86@fai.UUCP> ronc@fai.UUCP (Ronald O. Christian) writes: >>On the issue of one SRB igniting: >> >>[...] If they kept the rocket >>bolted down during a situation like this the results would be as bad >>as not bolting it down. The vibration supressors (water) only last a >>few seconds so the rocket would be shaken to pieces (even from 3 miles >>out the vibration is substantial.) In addition, the heat build up >>would be very great. Basically, abort senerios from ignition to SRB >>separation are no win. >**** > >This may be a stupid question, but what if you blow the SRB loose and >let it continue on it's merry way alone? The only problem I see would >be the danger of the exhaust from the launching SRB igniting the main >tank. We all know how nasty *that* can be. I guess I answered my own >question. I don't know if it'd be a problem or not but something I'd worry about is whether the remainder of the shuttle would stay supported on pad. Idea: if simply blowing the nosecone off the SRB without destroying it entirely will stop the thrust could you do that in the event of a single SRB ignition? Could blowing the nosecone "snuff out" the SRB? >A nasty thought occurrs to me. In such a situation, (only one SRB ignites) >the shuttle probably becomes dangerous to the surrounding area, due to >the unpredictability of flight direction. What is the flight officer >supposed to do in such a case? Destruct the shuttle? If you think NASA >got bad press *this* time... > > Ronald O. Christian (Fujitsu America Inc., San Jose, Calif.) > ihnp4!pesnta!fai!ronc I think that a self-destruct ASAP would make sense. Worrying about just the effects of the blast would be preferable to worrying about the effects of the blast plus which way the cause of the blast is thrusting. -- Norm Pritchett, The Ohio State University BITNET: TS1703 at OHSTVMA Bellnet: (614) 422-0885 UUCP: cbosgd!osu-eddie!pritch CSNET: pritch@ohio-state ARPANET: NPRITCHETT%osu-20@ohio-state (or) pritch@ohio-state
rupp@noscvax.UUCP (William L. Rupp) (03/11/86)
In article <6465@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > > ... In such a situation, (only one SRB ignites) > > the shuttle probably becomes dangerous to the surrounding area, due to > > the unpredictability of flight direction. What is the flight officer > > supposed to do in such a case? Destruct the shuttle? ... > > (I assume you mean the Range Safety Officer or equivalent title.) That's > what he's there for. Nobody said it was going to be easy. He gets paid > to stand and watch the successful launches, but he *earns* his pay when > something goes horribly wrong and prompt, perhaps very unpleasant, action > is required. > -- > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry This possibility is truly frightening. I keep thinking of those Word War II films of the experimental V-2's going off course just after launch or even blowing up on the launch pad. Would it be possible to restrict sight-seers from the immediate area (say a ten mile radius)? Perhaps someone more familiar with the geography of the launch site could comment.
ronc@fai.UUCP (Ronald O. Christian) (03/14/86)
>>>(me) >>Henry Spencer >William Rupp >> > ... In such a situation, (only one SRB ignites) >> > the shuttle probably becomes dangerous to the surrounding area, due to >> > the unpredictability of flight direction. What is the flight officer >> > supposed to do in such a case? Destruct the shuttle? ... >> [...] That's what he's there for. Nobody said it was going to be easy. >> ...he *earns* his pay when something goes horribly wrong and >> prompt, perhaps very unpleasant, action is required. >This possibility is truly frightening. I keep thinking of those Word War >II films of the experimental V-2's going off course just after launch or >even blowing up on the launch pad. Would it be possible to restrict >sight-seers from the immediate area (say a ten mile radius)? **** But the V-2's weren't manned. I must confess I wasn't considering the safety of the sight-seers, but of the crew. I was assuming that the range safety officer (Thanks for the correction, Henry) would be required to sacrifice the crew if it looked like the shuttle was out of control. My original comment was that the press resulting from such a decision would be really *really* bad. Ron -- -- Ronald O. Christian (Fujitsu America Inc., San Jose, Calif.) ihnp4!pesnta!fai!ronc Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: "If you are seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it."