wjr@rayssd.UUCP (02/08/84)
I have three questions which may have been answered in the papers or on the news but have apparently missed: Is there any speculation as to why the rocket motors for the two satellites exploded? Did anybody catch which insurance company(s) insured the satellites? Does this mean that the insurance company(s) are going to sue the rocket manufacturers? Bill Ramey
karn@allegra.UUCP (02/10/84)
Is there any speculation as to why the rocket motors for the two satellites exploded? Yes - the speculation is that the nozzles were plugged by material from the initiators used to start the engines. This resulted in excessive chamber pressure and eventually blew the nozzles off. In a vacuum, the reduced chamber pressure without a nozzle is insufficient to keep the fuel burning. Did anybody catch which insurance company(s) insured the satellites? Lloyd's of London. Does this mean that the insurance company(s) are going to sue the rocket manufacturers? I doubt it. It's more important that it not happen in the future. Don't feel bad about the insurance companies; they'll just raise their rates. They've been collecting enough on the successful launches in the past. Phil
jhh@ihldt.UUCP (John Haller) (02/10/84)
In an article in this morning's (2/10) Chicago Tribune, Chicago based Morton Thiokol said that Lloyd's of London said that there would probably not be any liability for Morton Thiokol. Morton Thiokol manufactures both the booster nozzles that almost burned through on the last shuttle mission. They suspect a problem with the raw materials used in making the nozzle. Morton Thiokol is the sole source for both the shuttle booster rocket nozzle, and the nozzle on the rocket used for sending satellites from the shuttle into orbit. NASA financed the factory, and it would take 5 to 7 years to build another one. Coincidentally, this has been one of Morton Thiokol's best years financially. Revenues from the space program have provided a large part of their profit. John Haller