hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) (02/04/86)
Below is a message I posted to our local bulletin board on 1/28/86. I'm
posting it because I've repeatedly heard (not here) the question raised as
to why we feel such strong emotion over the death of seven astronauts when
hundreds of people die on the highways each day. The second half of the
message is my attempt at an answer.
==============================================================================
From hollombe Wed Jan 29 10:29:34 1986
To: vox
Subject: Shuttle
I also watched the explosion on a VCR using extreme slow motion of NBC's
slow motion. There's no question it was the main tank that blew. In one
frame you can distinctly see the start of the major explosion at the
forward tip of the tank. This was preceded by flames at the rear of the
tank and one or two minor explosions near the center between the tank and
the Shuttle.
The Shuttle was doing Mach 3 at the time and the main tank is very fragile.
Even a minor compromise of its integrity at that speed would allow
aerodynamic forces to tear it to shreds. [Personal speculation: The minor
explosion blew a hole in the side of the tank which allowed external air
pressure to collapse the nose.]
That seems to be what happened. Why is still anyone's guess and likely to
be for some time. Last I heard the search planes had reported finding
pieces of Shuttle in the ocean off the cape.
As to why the depth of feeling expressed -- one could as well ask about the
feelings expressed over Kennedy's assassination. I think it's partly
because the astronauts were our personal representatives in space. Many of
us would have been willing to sacrifice our careers, plans, or part of our
anatomy to go where they went. We couldn't all go, so they went for us.
This time, they died for us.
It's also partly because the Shuttle is "our bird". We, the American
People, built it with our hopes, dreams, and tax money. Some of us worked
on it directly (I still have "Team Member -- Space Shuttle" license frames
on my car), but all of us contributed something. It hurts to see a piece
of that go down in flames.
-- Polymath
==============================================================================
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe)
Citicorp(+)TTI
3100 Ocean Park Blvd. Geniuses are people so lazy they
Santa Monica, CA 90405 do everything right the first time.
(213) 450-9111, ext. 2483
{philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombelmc@cisden.UUCP (Lyle McElhaney) (02/08/86)
> There's no question it was the main tank that blew. In one > frame you can distinctly see the start of the major explosion at the > forward tip of the tank. This was preceded by flames at the rear of the > tank and one or two minor explosions near the center between the tank and > the Shuttle. > With reference to the posting I made about 20 minutes ago about blaming various subsystems on the shuttle, well....there it is. Obviously, if something goes badly wrong on the stack, eventually the lox and lh are going to go up; its hard to image an accident that wouldn't involve the tank. Was it then the tank's fault (or that of its designers/builders)? > The Shuttle was doing Mach 3 at the time and the main tank is very fragile. > Even a minor compromise of its integrity at that speed would allow > aerodynamic forces to tear it to shreds. [Personal speculation: The minor > explosion blew a hole in the side of the tank which allowed external air > pressure to collapse the nose.] I beg to differ. The tank is holding the stack together; It is transmitting the 3,000,000 lb thrust of the SRBs to carry both itself and the orbiter through its structure. The maximum aerodynamic force on the tank is at Mach 1; at that point the main engines on the orbiter were at 65% thrust, and even more than at any other time, the tank was "carrying" the orbiter. Not only max-Q was involved at that point, but also max structural loading on the tank. And it made it. And continued to make it until something else happened. It is *not* a fragile structure. True, it is engineered close to its margins; it is huge, and any increase in skin thickness, for example, would have a decided disadvantage in its weight. The paint job that was left off the ET alone resulted in 400 lbs of savings. But to point the finger there on the basis of the released footage is irresponsible. Lyle McElhney ...hao!cisden!lmc