XPost: sci.physics, sci.space.policy   
   From: fjmccall@gmail.com   
      
   JF Mezei  wrote:   
      
   >On 2017-05-26 13:01, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:   
   >   
   >> Not necessarily. Let's take the Challenger example.   
   >> So, Range Safety would want to wait as long as possible, but once it was   
   >> clear control was lost and they were leaving the range. BAM.   
   >   
   >73 seconds into flight, so with roughly 50 seconds of fuel left, would   
   >it be fair to state that a determined SRB without any payload would have   
   >had plenty of fuel to reach the coast?   
   >   
   >Does range safety look at worse case scenario of the SRB going staight   
   >for the coast, or would they consider the "real life" behaviour of a   
   >stray SRB veering off in random directions and having little chance of   
   >reaching coast with 50 seconds of fuel?   
   >   
      
   It's "Range Safety", not "Range Casino".  When a vehicle leaves the   
   range safety corridor that vehicle is pretty much done.  The part with   
   people in it might get a little leeway, but the rest of the vehicle   
   not so much.   
      
      
   --   
   "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar   
    territory."   
                                         --G. Behn   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)