Space Forum / Shuttle / October 2007

(as to "explosion" and "explosive destruction," as well as "blown
outward" -- also, in testimony, as to "explosive force"and "load up,"
as well as "rupture.")

Roger Balettie wrote:

"I've given several talks over the years, and whenever someone refers
to the "Explosion", I always correct them to point out that Challenger
did not, indeed, "explode".    :) "

Later, Jon Berndt referred to as fact:

"... the explosive destruction of the LO2 tank and release of debris
and propellants which destroyed the intertank, liberated the SRBs, and
provided a nose outward impetus to both SRBs."

Still later, Jon continued:

"It appears as though the SRBs separate from the ET and fly forward of
the disintegrating ET while having "caught wind" or having been "blown
outward" at the nose ..."

(Links provided upon request, or just use a keyword search.)

Compare Jon's usage with the PC testimony of JSC's Tom Moser, on March
7, 1986:

" ... it [the right SRB] impacts the inner tank region, as shown here
on this drawing, between the LOX tank and the hydrogen tank,
there. ... This impacts the tank, as I said, causing the tank to load
up, rupturing the forward LOX tank, the hydrogen tank, and at the same
time probably causing the aft bulkhead of the hydrogen tank to
rupture."

Mr. Rummel then asks:

"The aft rupture in the ET is after the explosion, due to explosive
force?"

Again he asks:

"Well my question -- perhaps you're coming to it -- is the cause of
the aft rupture. It appears that the SRB didn't hit the tank in that
area. Was this due to overstressing from this rupture forward?"

Moser finally says:

"Yes sir."