X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from hogtown.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/Ubqn0j200WBwE1i04n>;
Mon, 11 Mar 91 02:22:24 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <Qbqn0cu00WBw01gE5B@andrew.cmu.edu>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 91 02:22:17 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #257
SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 257
Today's Topics:
Re: Re: Dyna-Soar
Re: Terraforming of Venus
Re: space shuttle design
[l/m 7/5] Reminders for Old Farts
Re: Space Profits
POTENTIAL GEOMAGNETIC STORM WARNING
MAJOR SOLAR FLARE ALERT - 07 MARCH
Description of Files in ames.arc.nasa.gov?
space shuttle design
Administrivia:
Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
space+@andrew.cmu.edu. Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests,
should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to
JD> Ah, why not 'just' set up lots and lots of surface
JD> based 'rockets', and jet the atmosphere away at very high
JD> velocities? You might change the rotation rate *and* dump the
JD> excess gas at the same time. Very high is defined as at least
JD> Solar Escape Velocity; jetting 89 atmospheres of CO2 into the
JD> inner system might be seen as pollution :)
People on this echo tend to forget that progress is being made in fields
other than rocket science. How about creating an organism that can take
whatever is in Venus' atmosphere and turning it into something that we
can handle? Some kind of cross between an algae and a Portugese Man-O'War
that can float in the atmosphere. I'm sure that it could even create
limestone to get rid of the excess CO2 if required. (You still might have
to import a comet to provide water/hydrogen).
--- via Silver Xpress V2.26 [NR]
--
Paul Blase - via FidoNet node 1:129/104
UUCP: ...!pitt!nss!Paul.Blase
INTERNET: Paul.Blase@nss.FIDONET.ORG
------------------------------
Date: 9 Mar 91 17:59:00 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!news.cs.indiana.edu!news.nd.edu!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!mace.cc.purdue.edu!dil@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Perry G Ramsey)
Subject: Re: space shuttle design
In article <248.27D8BD32@nss.FIDONET.ORG>, Paul.Blase@nss.FIDONET.ORG (Paul Blase) writes:
> investigation of the disaster. According to their findings, it was not
> an O-ring failure that triggered the explosion. Rather, it was a failure
> of one of the connecting struts that connect the boosters to the main tank.
>
> approximately 7 seconds after the main engines are ignited. Since the
> shuttle main engines are about 32 feet from the bolts, there is a tremendous
> torque bending the whole shuttle assembly sideways (on the order of 400x10^6
> inch lbs). When the main engines ignite, the top of the shuttle bends
>
> Lubkins (and McInnis' and AbuTaha's) allegation [which I won't go into much
> detail on here] is that NASA miscalculated the torque loads on the booster
Pretty ridiculous, if you ask me. The greatest loading would be when
the vehicle was on the pad. If the bolts were underdesigned by 3x
(in an industry where 2x margins are considered cautious), when why
didn't the whole thing collapse on the pad at maximum stress?
What was that black puff of smoke near the aft field joint? What was
that bright thing licking up the side of the SRB just before destruction?
Why did the bolts fail at that moment when they were relatively unloaded?
Why did the guidance system respond to unbalanced thrust of the SRB's?
If the tank had been significantly damaged before liftoff, it would have
been a major on-pad catastrophe, not an apparently normal takeoff.
The truth in the Challenger incident is sordid enough. There's no reason
to make up exciting fiction.
--
Perry G. Ramsey Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
perryr@vm.cc.purdue.edu Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN USA
dil@mace.cc.purdue.edu *** IMAGINE YOUR LOGO HERE ******
Ten thousand low-lifes a day read this space.
------------------------------
Date: 9 Mar 91 12:01:05 GMT
From: eagle!data.nas.nasa.gov!amelia!eugene@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Eugene N. Miya)
Subject: [l/m 7/5] Reminders for Old Farts
Hints for old users (subtle reminders) You'll know these.
Minimize cross references, [Do you REALLY NEED to?]
Edit "Subject:" lines especially if you are taking a tangent.
Send mail instead, avoid posting follow ups. [1 mail message worth 100 posts.]
Internet mail readers: send requests to add/drop to SPACE-REQUEST not SPACE.
Read all available articles before posting a follow-up. [Check all references.]
Cut down attributed articles. Summarize!
Put a return address in the body (signature) of your message (mail or
article), state institution, etc. don't assume mail works.
Use absolute dates. Post in a timely way. Don't post what everyone will
get on TV anyway.
Some editors and window systems do character count line wrapping:
please keep lines under 80 characters for those using ASCII terms (use <CR>).