ajs@hpfcla.UUCP (02/03/86)
New footage first aired (to my knowledge) Sunday morning shows the other
side of the Shuttle, with a clear plume of fire coming out of the right
side SRB, just above the nozzle, on the side away from the Orbiter.
You've probably seen it by now. It doesn't prove SRB wall failure was
the root cause of the explosion, but it was at least a key element.
From this I have several questions for anyone who knows (like our NASA
friends on the Net?):
1. How are the explosive bolts which hold the SRB to the ET situated?
Is there any chance at all that premature firing of one could either
(a) damage the SRB or (b) allow vibration damage to occur?
2. Why doesn't NASA have ground-based observers with telescopes who are
enabled to call an abort? I'm surprised, especially that the plume
apparently was completely unknown until the film was developed.
Yes, I know, that's 20-20 hindsight, and it might lead to a false abort.
Yet a few people can blow up (self-destruct) the package on the way up.
We trust their judgement not to do that unnecessarily. Likewise, the
film shows the crew might have had up to 15 seconds to execute a
survivable abort, if they had had warning. A ground-based observer
might have given an alert, then called for the abort when the fire was
seen to spread. It would at least have given a fighting chance.
3. When the commander flips the enable switch, then presses the abort
button (as I heard the action described), how long does it take for
the Orbiter to be free and clear of the ET?
4. If abort had been called just as the plume was clearly visible,
would the Orbiter have been clear of the inevitable fireball?
5. I heard that an abort at throttle-up means a dangerous ocean
ditching, with probable loss of the Orbiter. Why is that? I
thought the flight profile is such that an emergency landing can be
made from any point. Certainly eight miles up and eight miles out
sounds like a returnable point.
Thanks in advance for any answers.
Alan Silversteinjoels@tekred.UUCP (Joel Swank) (02/08/86)
> 2. Why doesn't NASA have ground-based observers with telescopes who are > enabled to call an abort? I'm surprised, especially that the plume > apparently was completely unknown until the film was developed. According to testimony by Sally Ride at the hearing by the President's Commission investigating the 51L mishap: No abort can even be contemplated until after SRB separation at about 2:10 after launch. After that time they have a procedure called RTLS (Return To Launch Site) that has never been tried. Even this procedure will only work under a strict set of curcumstanses, one of them being the availablity of at least one of the main engines. Joel Swank Tektronix, Redmond Oregon