[robryk]

> The O ring was a necessary pressure valve (...)

Do I understand correctly that you're saying that the O-ring would be necessary even if the SRBs were constructed as a single long tube, instead of segments that are assembled together?

If so, would you mind expanding on that? I was under the impression that the only reason the whole O-ring and caulking of the joints was necessary was the existence of the joints.

[jedberg]

I'm not a rocket scientist so I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the O ring would be required no matter how it was constructed.

[0xffff2]

Why do you think that? As the person you replied to said, the only reason the O-ring is there at all is to seal the joint between the sections. If the join't didn't exist, there would be no reason at all for there to be a rubber ring embedded in the structure.

[jedberg]

Because that spot on the SRB is a flex joint to allow some movement of the nozzle as the engine fires. The joint isn't there because of transportation or other reasons.

[askvictor]

I'm no rocket scientist either, but happened to be reading in depth about SRBs in general and Challenger in particular, and my understanding is: the joint in question was a field joint, to be assembled in the field, as opposed to factory joints which were assembled in the factory. The construction of these joints were different (asbestos insulation vs O-rings). The differing design is due to transportation and logistics.

[robryk]

That spot was the "aft field joint" according to wikipedia. According to the diagram linked[1] that is distinct from the case-to-nozzle joint.

[1] https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/...

[oh_sigh]

And if the politicians didn't vote to build the SRBs in Utah, then maybe there would be no SRB at all, which is a good method to prevent deaths from SRBs.

[0xffff2]

Okay... how is that relevant to my comment at all?

[nerdponx]

I think this was meant to be a comment on the OP.