Morton Thiokol, Inc
Wasatch DivisionInteroffice Memo
31 July 1985
2870:FY86:073TO: R. K. Lund
Vice President, EngineeringCC: B. C. Brinton, A. J. McDonald, L. H. Sayer, J. R. Kapp
FROM: R. M. Boisjoly
Applied Mechanics – Ext. 3525SUBJECT: SRM O-Ring Erosion/Potential Failure Criticality
This letter is written to insure that management is fully aware of the seriousness of the current O-ring erosion problem in the SRM joints from an engineering standpoint.
The mistakenly accepted position on the joint problem was to fly without fear of failure and to run a series of design evaluations which would ultimately lead to a solution or at least a significant reduction of the erosion problem. This position is now drastically changed as a result of the SRM 16A nozzle joint erosion which eroded a secondary O-ring with the primary O-ring never sealing.
If the same scenario should occur in a field joint (and it could), then it is a jump ball as to the success or failure of the joint because the secondary O-ring cannot respond to the clevis opening rate and may not be capable of pressurization. The result would be a catastrophe of the highest order – loss of human life.
An unofficial team (a memo defining the team and its purpose was never published) with leader was formed on 19 July 1985 and was tasked with solving the problem for both the short and long term. This unofficial team is essentially nonexistent at this time. In my opinion, the team must be officially given the responsibility and the authority to execute the work that needs to be done on a non-interference basis (full time assignment until completed.)
It is my honest and very real fear that if we do not take immediate action to dedicate a team to solve the problem with the field joint having the number one priority, then we stand in jeopardy of losing a flight along with all the launch pad facilities.
(Signed)
R. M. Boisjoly
Concurred by:
(Signed)
J. R. Kapp, Manager
Applied Mechanics
Going to enjoy the years long legal battle between engineering and accounting as to which department was responsible…
Also common in some branches of the energy industry.
But the link you posted says
The Latin numeral M denotes thousands. Thus, MM is the same as writing “M multiplied by M,” which is equal to “1,000 times 1,000”, which equals 1,000,000
and all they said was basically the same thing…
This is so off-topic.
4 × 106
easy as π.
I was intrigued by the mention in the video that the building is concrete rather than steel, as the same is true of Trump Tower, which apparently originates from Trump’s mafia ties.
In researching the possibility of hiring a contractor for our house build, this practice leapt out as the most insane business practice. Quote a lump sum for the build, and pocket whatever they can save in subcontractors and materials. I…I can scarcely imagine a more perverse incentive than that, especially couched in such an area of stark information imbalance.
Concrete and bodies then?
I had a question about local time machine developers’ costs, but in an effort to be even more off topic, how is it the City or County get to pay for juggling costs after the OG builder’s per se outta there? They’re the double in the double millions?
Here’s a hint for chemists and mathematicians.
To write
The value of Kw at 25°C is therefore 1.0 × 10-14
use the <sub> and <sup> tags
The value of K<sub>w</sub> at 25°C is therefore 1.0 × 10<sup>-14</sup>
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
