Dale.Amon@FAS.RI.CMU.EDU (02/02/86)
Just heard they are saying that it WAS a burn through of the left SRB, and that it can be seen from other camera angles. Can anyone explain why off earth the thing didn't go tumbling madly after seperating? How there was no apparent sign of flame from the side of the SRB after seperating? (I think the rest of my analysis will probably still hold true: mainly incorrect in that the initial break in the ET was not a materials failure. Since Morton Thiokol already came close to a burn through once before, I suspect they are about to get put into some VERY hot water.
mcgeer%ji@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU (Rick McGeer) (02/03/86)
>Just heard they are saying that it WAS a burn through of the left SRB, and >that it can be seen from other camera angles. > >Can anyone explain why off earth the thing didn't go tumbling madly >after seperating? How there was no apparent sign of flame from the side of >the SRB after seperating? After NASA released the film, I took another look at my recording of the explosion; sure enough, after the explosion and before the left SRB exited from the frame, you could just see a small plume above the rocket flame... of course, that's not the question you are asking. My suspicion is that the acceleration imparted by the plume was very small, and in any case both the direction of the plume and its position on the rocket was very close to the exhaust. Hence, while the plume no doubt imparted some torque and sideways thrust, it wouldn't be enough to tumble the SRB; if it had been, it's possible that the torque would have been sufficient to roll the orbiter a little, and hence would have alerted the crew to danger. -- Rick.
eec3@ihuxx.UUCP (e. cumberland) (02/05/86)
> Just heard they are saying that it WAS a burn through of the left SRB, and > that it can be seen from other camera angles. > > Can anyone explain why off earth the thing didn't go tumbling madly > after seperating? How there was no apparent sign of flame from the side of > the SRB after seperating? > The pictures of the SRB burnthrough show the fame at what appears to be a horizontal seam in the SRB. If this seam was seriously weakened by the burnthrough then may be it was blown off by the explosion, and the upper portion continued on??? Edwin E. Cumberland III
ray@rochester.UUCP (02/07/86)
> Just heard they are saying that it WAS a burn through of the left SRB, and > that it can be seen from other camera angles. > > Can anyone explain why on earth the thing didn't go tumbling madly > after seperating? How there was no apparent sign of flame from the side of > the SRB after seperating? > I think the reason the SRB didn't spin off madly was due to the relatively small thrust of 4% coming out the side versus the 96% coming out the engine. I did notice one of the SRBs slowly turning, but I don't think 4% could cause it to spin wildly. It should be easy to calculate the trajectory of an object with a ratio of 24 to 1 rear thrust versus side thrust. ray
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (02/07/86)
>> Just heard they are saying that it WAS a burn through of the left SRB, and >> that it can be seen from other camera angles. >> Can anyone explain why off earth the thing didn't go tumbling madly >> after seperating? How there was no apparent sign of flame from the side of >> the SRB after seperating? I can't explain the former, but on the low-magnification film that was originally released, you can see the extra plume. It appears on the right booster (which is on the left side of the picture) immediately after the explosion. There is clearly a plume coming out of the side of the booster in the right place, and the loop in the contrail is in the right direction according to Newton. C. Wingate