Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle Path: utzoo!henry From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Orbiter/SRB separation Message-ID: <1988Jun5.025213.23613@utzoo.uucp> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology References: <50665@ti-csl.CSNET> Date: Sun, 5 Jun 88 02:52:13 GMT > ... As long as the various > components separate cleanly, and don't make any extremely radical changes in > relation to flight path, I see no reason why the OV and ET/SRB (as separate > units) couldn't stay intact... As I've mentioned before, the aerodynamics of this sort of separation process are not trivial and should not be assumed to be trouble-free. Military aircraft are tested very carefully for proper separation of missiles, drop tanks, etc. > Besides, if the SSME's were still burning, at > least at partial throttle as I suggested above, the "jerk" would be greatly > reduced (if it matters at all), and the OV could quickly accelerate away > from the impending ET/SRB fireball (or whatever)... Uh, using what for fuel? The orbiter has no built-in tanks for the SSMEs, only for the low-thrust OMS. The SSMEs would have to be shut down either before or at the instant of separation. Once it separates, the orbiter is a glider; the ET/SRB combination will quickly accelerate away from it, potentially exposing it to the SRB exhaust. (Those who still think this is a trivial issue should consider that rocket engines have been used experimentally for drilling tunnels through hard rock; close-range exposure to the exhaust of a big rocket engine is likely to be fatal to something as flimsy as a shuttle orbiter). -- "For perfect safety... sit on a fence| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology and watch the birds." --Wilbur Wright| {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry