Xref: utzoo sci.space:7272 sci.space.shuttle:1320
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!rutgers!mailrus!ames!lll-tis!oodis01!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet
From: bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Unmanned w/old SRBs (was Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST)
Message-ID: <981@esunix.UUCP>
Date: 26 Sep 88 19:56:44 GMT
References: <484@c10sd1.StPaul.NCR.COM>
Organization: Evans & Sutherland, Salt Lake City, Utah
Lines: 24

From article <484@c10sd1.StPaul.NCR.COM>, by johnson@c10sd1.StPaul.NCR.COM (Wayne D. T. Johnson):
- In article <1988Sep13.164340.1289@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
->                                                 Oh, there is a difference,
->but given the oxidizer shortage, one has to balance the risks against the
->utility of being able to fly more missions.  
- 
- Forgive me for asking what might seem to be a dumb question (I'm not as involved
- with the space program as I once was), but why not remove the oxidizer from the
- old segments and put it into the new ones?  
-  -- 

Ever tried to take the egg out of an angel cake? The oxidizer is mixed
into the propellent and then the whole mass is "baked" to form a
solid. Not to mention that in this case the "cake" (solid rocket
propellent) has been known to catch fire and even explode when it is
cut. 

			Bob P.

-- 
Bob Pendleton @ Evans & Sutherland
UUCP Address:  {decvax,ucbvax,allegra}!decwrl!esunix!bpendlet
Alternate:     utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet
        I am solely responsible for what I say.