Re: Challenger, 20 years later...a blunt view
- From: "John A. Weeks III" <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 21:56:42 -0600
In article <1138479710.853968.195800@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
dunric@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> The shuttle was poorly designed in those days, what with the dangerous
> low-temperature malfunctioning of the O-rings in the SRBs, and the lack
> of any escape options once the flight was in the air.
Wrong on both counts. The shuttle itself was not the problem
with Challenger. The shuttle is pretty much the same today
was it was then. Even the replacement shuttle used pretty
much the same design as Columbia and Challenger in that it
was built mostly of spare parts.
There are a number of shuttle abort options, even after they
are airbrone. What you likely meant is that there are no
options until after the solid rocket booster separation.
Once that happens, they have abort to launch sites, abort
trans-atlantic, abort once around, and abort to orbit.
-john-
--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 john@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Challenger, 20 years later...a blunt view
- From: Bob Haller
- Re: Challenger, 20 years later...a blunt view
- References:
- Challenger, 20 years later...a blunt view
- From: dunric
- Challenger, 20 years later...a blunt view
- Prev by Date: Re: Long missions question
- Next by Date: Re: The Challenger Conspiracy -- Twenty Years of Betrayal
- Previous by thread: Re: Challenger, 20 years later...a blunt view
- Next by thread: Re: Challenger, 20 years later...a blunt view
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
