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.