feustel@ihlpl.UUCP (Feustel) (01/28/86)
Is it possible that Challenger was blown with a laser-beam weapon?
irwin@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU (01/29/86)
Nope, no laser. The main fuel tank ruptured. I viewed several network news broadcasts, saw the explosion in slow motion several times. When the pilot advanced the throttle to 104%, the thing blew up. I think, from the views of the flames licking the side of the main tank, that volatile fuel was leaking from the main tank, somewhat toward the nose of the tank. It was ignited by the exhaust flames as it passed the tail of the rockets, the flash flame followed up the tank to the hole, crack, whatever and she blew. It could well have cracked, where the nose mount of the shuttle was attached to the tank. The main tank, with 500,000 pounds of fuel to start, 1 and 1/4 min into the flight had a lot of fuel left. If it was half, that would be 250,000 pounds. At the G's they were pulling, that would multiply to maybe a million pounds stress on the walls of the tank. Remember, the solid fuel rockets are connected to the sides of the liquid fuel tank, and the shuttle to the top of it. The fuel from the tank supplies the engines in the shuttle, so the thrust from the shuttle engines was lifting on the top of the tank. The thrust of the shuttle engines did not bear all of the weight, as one has to consider the lift factor of the solid rockets. This when summed up, adds to one "H" of a lot of stress on the welded aluminum liquid fuel tank. From what I saw, the liquid fuel tank cracked or ruptured under the stress, and the leaking fuel was ignited by the thrust flames, and she vaporized. If one had the theory that one of the solid rockets flawed and burned a hole in the liquid main tank, you would have seen a torch of flames coming from the <side> of one or the other solid rockets. The views of them as they continued to burn and move on, only showed flames from the tail, where the flames should have been. Thus, the solid rockets did not burn a hole in the liquid fuel tank to cause the leak. If you sum this all up, it only leaves the rupture of the liquid fuel tank, from stress. Note, this is my opinion, based on the vidio shots that I saw. I may be proved wrong, but at this time, I think it makes sense. They had already passed through the high vibration point, which could have weakened the tank, and when they applied high throttle, it gave up.
rsk@pucc-j (Wombat) (01/29/86)
In article <540@ihlpl.UUCP> feustel@ihlpl.UUCP (Feustel) writes: >Is it possible that Challenger was blown with a laser-beam weapon? Yes; it is also possible that it turned into gingerbread, with approximately the same degree of probability. I think such ill-founded and unsupported speculation as this belongs in net.sf-lovers. -- Rich Kulawiec pucc-j!rsk or rsk@asc.purdue.edu
rfradenb@bbnccv.UUCP (Roger Fradenburgh) (01/30/86)
In article <540@ihlpl.UUCP> feustel@ihlpl.UUCP (Feustel) writes: >Is it possible that Challenger was blown with a laser-beam weapon? Is it possible you're serious?
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (01/31/86)
> Is it possible that Challenger was blown with a laser-beam weapon?
Yup. It's also possible that it was zapped by a UFO. There is, however,
not a shred of evidence for either.
--
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henryjer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (01/31/86)
> If one had the theory that one of the solid rockets flawed and burned > a hole in the liquid main tank, you would have seen a torch of flames > coming from the <side> of one or the other solid rockets. The views > of them as they continued to burn and move on, only showed flames from > the tail, where the flames should have been. But, this isn't true! In two separate frames, bright flames are visible appearing briefly around the body of the main fuel tank, near the forward point where the SRBs attach to the main tank. They appear to come from the far side of the tank, the side where the SRB that wasn't visible was attached. It would also seem possible that a lot of the vapor visible at the bottom of the fuel tank was actually coming from the far side of the tank, since it is difficult to find any point of origin for the vapors on the visible surface of the tank. It was also the far SRB which followed the most anomalous trajectory; it appeared to have been rotated out of its axis of flight, until it was struck by the air moving by it, which righted it again. By comparison, the near SRB remains visible in several frames, moving forward in a less disturbed trajectory; eventually it simply begins to roll out of its original path. -- UUCP: Ofc: jer@peora.UUCP Home: jer@jerpc.CCUR.UUCP CCUR DNS: peora, pesnta US Mail: MS 795; CONCURRENT Computer Corp. SDC; (A Perkin-Elmer Company) 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642 xxxxx4xxx "There are other places that are also the world's end ... But this is the nearest ... here and in England." -TSE
jkw@lanl.ARPA (01/31/86)
> > When the pilot advanced the throttle to 104%, the thing blew up. I > think, from the views of the flames licking the side of the main tank, > that volatile fuel was leaking from the main tank, somewhat toward the > nose of the tank. It was ignited by the exhaust flames as it passed > the tail of the rockets, the flash flame followed up the tank to the > hole, crack, whatever and she blew. It could well have cracked, where > the nose mount of the shuttle was attached to the tank. > Has anyone heard if the explosive bolts attaching the main tank and/or the solid-fuel boosters blew (or were blown by an on-board computer)? It seems to me that if they did blow, they would have ignited the leaking fuel and this could have been the cause of the ultimate explosion up between the tank and the orbiter. It would be ironic if Challenger's last attempt to save the orbiter touched off the blast (although I have no doubt that it would have happened within seconds anyway). Jay Wooten Los Alamos National Lab ARPA:jkw@lanl.ARPA
tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) (02/01/86)
In article <763@pucc-j> rsk@pucc-j.UUCP (Wombat) writes: > > I think such ill-founded and unsupported speculation as > this belongs in net.sf-lovers. Is this meant to be an attack on net.sf-lovers or science fiction in general? And why? -- Tim Smith sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim || ima!ism780!tim || ihnp4!cithep!tim
ins_apmj@jhunix.UUCP (Patrick M Juola) (02/01/86)
In article <763@pucc-j> rsk@pucc-j.UUCP (Wombat) writes: >In article <540@ihlpl.UUCP> feustel@ihlpl.UUCP (Feustel) writes: >>Is it possible that Challenger was blown with a laser-beam weapon? > >Yes; it is also possible that it turned into gingerbread, with >approximately the same degree of probability. I think such ill-founded >and unsupported speculation as this belongs in net.sf-lovers. >-- Hey, now, I read net.sf-lovers quite a bit, and no one has yet suggested it turned into gingerbread. Try net.paranoia! Pat Juola Hopkins Maths
rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) (02/02/86)
In article <410@ism780c.UUCP> tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) writes: >In article <763@pucc-j> rsk@pucc-j.UUCP (Wombat) writes: >> >> I think such ill-founded and unsupported speculation as >> this belongs in net.sf-lovers. > >Is this meant to be an attack on net.sf-lovers or science >fiction in general? And why? >-- I believe (not speaking for Wombat) that it was meant to be an attack on someone for cluttering a newgroup that discusses fact (or good rumors that approximate fact ;-) ) with fiction. Science FICTION is just that -- fiction. Therefore it need not have any basis in fact ("ill-founded" is harsh, but applies quite well in this case), and need not be supported by facts ("unsupported speculation"). Science fiction is fine and dandy -- what happened to Challenger was real, however, and many people grow amazingly sarcastic when subjected to tripe...er..."ill-founded and unsupported speculation" from the Twilight Zone -- namely laser weapons shooting down a space shuttle. Particularly when they've just watched several neat people get crispy- fried for the 473rd time on national TV... Don't tell Reagan, though -- he's probably just Hollywood enough to call Gorbachev on the hot-line and demand that the Russian bastard *immediately* remove the 10Mwatt ultra-fancy-tracking laser from the roof of the Cocoa Beach Holiday Inn. -- The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291) alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd mgnetp ]!burl!rcj ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua masscomp ]!clyde!rcj
halb@tekig5.UUCP (Hal Bates) (02/02/86)
In article <1732@bbnccv.UUCP> rfradenb@bbnccv.UUCP (Roger Fradenburgh) writes: > >In article <540@ihlpl.UUCP> feustel@ihlpl.UUCP (Feustel) writes: >>Is it possible that Challenger was blown with a laser-beam weapon? > >Is it possible you're serious? The laser idea is weird, however, I am suprised that some Arab nut hasnt claimed to have planted a bomb. Seems most logical to me that they would try get some free press. And the press would have been more than glad to host the idea. I better stop before I get carried away discussing my feelings about our media, you know, the ones that butchered the Challenger's exit. Im still bummed - but lets get going tektronix!tekig5!halb
dday@gymble.UUCP (Dennis Doubleday) (02/02/86)
In article <1951@peora.UUCP> jer@peora.UUCP writes: >> If one had the theory that one of the solid rockets flawed and burned >> a hole in the liquid main tank, you would have seen a torch of flames >> coming from the <side> of one or the other solid rockets. The views >> of them as they continued to burn and move on, only showed flames from >> the tail, where the flames should have been. > >But, this isn't true! In two separate frames, bright flames are visible >appearing briefly around the body of the main fuel tank, near the forward >point where the SRBs attach to the main tank. They appear to come from >the far side of the tank, the side where the SRB that wasn't visible was >attached. It would also seem possible that a lot of the vapor visible at >the bottom of the fuel tank was actually coming from the far side of the >tank, since it is difficult to find any point of origin for the vapors on >the visible surface of the tank. > >It was also the far SRB which followed the most anomalous trajectory; it >appeared to have been rotated out of its axis of flight, until it was >struck by the air moving by it, which righted it again. By comparison, >the near SRB remains visible in several frames, moving forward in a less >disturbed trajectory; eventually it simply begins to roll out of its >original path. This man appears to have hit the nail on the head. Film released by NASA last night which shows the craft from the opposite side clearly shows an anomalous plume of flame spewing from the side of the right SRB, beginning about 58 seconds into the flight and growing larger and larger until the moment of explosion. The plume of flame looks in the film like a blow torch pointed right at the liquid hydrogen tank. NASA is still being cautious, but this looks like it must be the primary cause of the explosion. Speculation about the cause of the anomalous plume centers around a possible uneven burn of the solid fuel at one of the joints. -- UUCP: seismo!umcp-cs!dday Dennis Doubleday CSNet: dday@umcp-cs University of Maryland ARPA: dday@gymble.umd.edu College Park, MD 20742 Fan of: Chicago Cubs, Chicago Bears, OU Sooners (301) 454-6154
cipher@mmm.UUCP (Andre Guirard) (02/04/86)
In article <763@pucc-j> rsk@pucc-j.UUCP (Wombat) writes: >In article <540@ihlpl.UUCP> feustel@ihlpl.UUCP (Feustel) writes: >>Is it possible that Challenger was blown with a laser-beam weapon? > >... I think such ill-founded >and unsupported speculation as this belongs in net.sf-lovers. HEY!!! I consider that a vile and undeserved crack about net.sf-lovers. Contrary to what you appear to believe, that newsgroup does not serve as a forum for idiot theories. You must be thinking of net.rumor. -- ===+=== Andre Guirard /@ @\ The eyes have it. /_____\ ihnp4!mmm!cipher ( @ @ ) Beanies ahoy! \ _ / `-'
tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) (02/06/86)
In article <464@tekig5.UUCP> halb@tekig5tes.UUCP (Hal Bates) writes: > >The laser idea is weird, however, I am suprised that some Arab nut hasnt >claimed to have planted a bomb. Seems most logical to me that they would >try get some free press. And the press would have been more than glad to I think they realized that either they would not be believed, in which case they would look silly for claiming credit, or they would be believed, in which case Reagan would bomb the heck out of them! -- Tim Smith sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim || ima!ism780!tim || ihnp4!cithep!tim
hijab@cad.UUCP (Raif Hijab) (02/13/86)
In article <437@ism780c.UUCP>, tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) writes: > In article <464@tekig5.UUCP> halb@tekig5tes.UUCP (Hal Bates) writes: > > > >The laser idea is weird, however, I am suprised that some Arab nut hasnt > >claimed to have planted a bomb. Seems most logical to me that they would > >try get some free press. And the press would have been more than glad to > > I think they realized that either they would not be believed, in which > case they would look silly for claiming credit, or they would be > believed, in which case Reagan would bomb the heck out of them! > -- > Tim Smith sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim || ima!ism780!tim || ihnp4!cithep!tim It seems too many people are eager to find an Arab nut for any occasion. Such scapegoating is loathsome and dangerous. Unfortunately it has come into vogue with wild utterances of supposedly responsible people, and the media has jumped on it as juicy topic which they can milk to the last Nielsen's point. A most indecent recent example is NBC's mini series which was aired earlier this week (the name was "State of Siege", I think). To see the unreasonable slander implied in such statements, try replacing Arab with Irish, Italian, Black or Jewish, and see how it sounds to you. I'll admit this is not a topic for net.columbia, but I think it is an appropriate response to the speculators about "Arab Nuts".
tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) (02/17/86)
In article <48@cad.UUCP> hijab@cad.UUCP (Raif Hijab) writes: >In article <437@ism780c.UUCP>, tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) writes: >> In article <464@tekig5.UUCP> halb@tekig5tes.UUCP (Hal Bates) writes: >> > [This is the original article] >> >The laser idea is weird, however, I am suprised that some Arab nut hasnt >> >claimed to have planted a bomb. Seems most logical to me that they would >> >try get some free press. And the press would have been more than glad to >> [This is my response] >> I think they realized that either they would not be believed, in which >> case they would look silly for claiming credit, or they would be >> believed, in which case Reagan would bomb the heck out of them! > > [probably justified complaints about people trying to blame everything > on "arab nuts", the media treating Arabs badly, etc. ] Uh, why is my response included in the above? I don't think I said anything against Arabs. -- Tim Smith sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim || ima!ism780!tim || ihnp4!cithep!tim