Sacraficial tanks

The shuttle's SRBs hit the ocean at about 85 mph. Would it be
practical to have a liquid booster with a 'crushable' upper tank to
absorb the force of that kind of impact to protect its engine? Some
kind of air bags could cushion and serve as floats when the upside down
booster falls on its side.

"Totorkon" wrote in news:1165374969.594129.193970@
73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com:

The shuttle's SRBs hit the ocean at about 85 mph. Would it be
practical to have a liquid booster with a 'crushable' upper tank to
absorb the force of that kind of impact to protect its engine? Some
kind of air bags could cushion and serve as floats when the upside down
booster falls on its side.

Falling objects tend to stabilize heavy-end first, and for liquid stages
that means that the engines will hit the water first. You'd need something
additional to make the falling stage stabilize tank-first.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Jorge R. Frank wrote:
"Totorkon" wrote in news:1165374969.594129.193970@
73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com:

The shuttle's SRBs hit the ocean at about 85 mph. Would it be
practical to have a liquid booster with a 'crushable' upper tank to
absorb the force of that kind of impact to protect its engine? Some
kind of air bags could cushion and serve as floats when the upside down
booster falls on its side.

Falling objects tend to stabilize heavy-end first, and for liquid stages
that means that the engines will hit the water first. You'd need something
additional to make the falling stage stabilize tank-first.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

I was assuming that as with the SRBs, parachutes would be
used...perhaps three astride the engine. However, in a strong
crosswind there might be problems.

In article . com,
Totorkon wrote:
The shuttle's SRBs hit the ocean at about 85 mph. Would it be
practical to have a liquid booster with a 'crushable' upper tank to
absorb the force of that kind of impact to protect its engine? Some
kind of air bags could cushion and serve as floats when the upside down
booster falls on its side.

As JRF has noted, there are some problems with this in a tail-heavy
booster. That said, schemes along those lines have been proposed many
times. It's not impossible, although there are a number of practical
difficulties. As with the SRBs, though, refurbishing rocket hardware
after it's been soaked in seawater is tedious and manpower-intensive, and
when all is said and done, there is a high payoff for "flyback" schemes
which recover the boosters onto land.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

Henry Spencer wrote:
In article . com,
Totorkon wrote:
The shuttle's SRBs hit the ocean at about 85 mph. Would it be
practical to have a liquid booster with a 'crushable' upper tank to
absorb the force of that kind of impact to protect its engine? Some
kind of air bags could cushion and serve as floats when the upside down
booster falls on its side.

As JRF has noted, there are some problems with this in a tail-heavy
booster. That said, schemes along those lines have been proposed many
times. It's not impossible, although there are a number of practical
difficulties. As with the SRBs, though, refurbishing rocket hardware
after it's been soaked in seawater is tedious and manpower-intensive, and
when all is said and done, there is a high payoff for "flyback" schemes
which recover the boosters onto land.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

Any site you could refer me to? What about a high lofting trajectory
that puts the boosters a few hundred miles down range in a desert? If
properly floated on the ocean, would the engines necessarily have to
get wet?

Henry,
As with the SRBs, though, refurbishing rocket hardware after it's
been soaked in seawater is tedious and manpower-intensive, and
when all is said and done, there is a high payoff for "flyback" schemes
which recover the boosters onto land.

"Boostback" schemes tend to look even more interesting. The GLOW
is higher, but the dry mass is often lower and less complex. Plus you
don't have to deal with the hypersonic glide issue.

~Jon

Henry Spencer wrote:
In article . com,
Totorkon wrote:
The shuttle's SRBs hit the ocean at about 85 mph. Would it be
practical to have a liquid booster with a 'crushable' upper tank to
absorb the force of that kind of impact to protect its engine? Some
kind of air bags could cushion and serve as floats when the upside down
booster falls on its side.

As JRF has noted, there are some problems with this in a tail-heavy
booster. That said, schemes along those lines have been proposed many
times. It's not impossible, although there are a number of practical
difficulties. As with the SRBs, though, refurbishing rocket hardware
after it's been soaked in seawater is tedious and manpower-intensive, and
when all is said and done, there is a high payoff for "flyback" schemes
which recover the boosters onto land.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

For the two (now NASA funded) upstarts, parachutes are the only game in
recovery. SpaceX ends with a splash in sal****er, Kistler with airbags
in the sand.
STs would be the next step in simplicity, a way to avoid the high up
front cost, complexity and weight of wings and landing gear.
With some control system for the parachutes, the zone of crash landing
could be shrunk and ground speed of final impact could be reduced.
There ought to be some testing before the concept is ruled out outright.

Totorkon wrote:

For the two (now NASA funded) upstarts, parachutes are the only game in
recovery. SpaceX ends with a splash in sal****er, Kistler with airbags
in the sand.
STs would be the next step in simplicity, a way to avoid the high up
front cost, complexity and weight of wings and landing gear.
With some control system for the parachutes, the zone of crash landing
could be shrunk and ground speed of final impact could be reduced.
There ought to be some testing before the concept is ruled out outright.



This is one of the odder projects of the late 50's early 60's:
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/wintitan.htm
The strange offspring of mating a Titan ICBM and B-58 Hustler
apparently. :-\

Pat

Totorkon wrote:
Henry Spencer wrote:
In article . com,
Totorkon wrote:
The shuttle's SRBs hit the ocean at about 85 mph. Would it be
practical to have a liquid booster with a 'crushable' upper tank to
absorb the force of that kind of impact to protect its engine? Some
kind of air bags could cushion and serve as floats when the upside down
booster falls on its side.

As JRF has noted, there are some problems with this in a tail-heavy
booster. That said, schemes along those lines have been proposed many
times. It's not impossible, although there are a number of practical
difficulties. As with the SRBs, though, refurbishing rocket hardware
after it's been soaked in seawater is tedious and manpower-intensive, and
when all is said and done, there is a high payoff for "flyback" schemes
which recover the boosters onto land.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

Any site you could refer me to? What about a high lofting trajectory
that puts the boosters a few hundred miles down range in a desert? If
properly floated on the ocean, would the engines necessarily have to
get wet?

Ask any sailor, and I'm sure they'll say yes.

Pat Flannery wrote:
Totorkon wrote:

For the two (now NASA funded) upstarts, parachutes are the only game in
recovery. SpaceX ends with a splash in sal****er, Kistler with airbags
in the sand.
STs would be the next step in simplicity, a way to avoid the high up
front cost, complexity and weight of wings and landing gear.
With some control system for the parachutes, the zone of crash landing
could be shrunk and ground speed of final impact could be reduced.
There ought to be some testing before the concept is ruled out outright.



This is one of the odder projects of the late 50's early 60's:
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/wintitan.htm
The strange offspring of mating a Titan ICBM and B-58 Hustler
apparently. :-\

Pat

The hustler had it's engines snug, virtually part of the wing. I
wouldn't trust those long pylons at even mach 1.
I expected the flyback F1 to morph into a glideback launched from the
pacific. There were pictures of the FF1 in Heppenheimers 'colonies in
space' and on page 158 of NASA's space settlements design study, but I
haven't been able to find anything on the net about it, other than
references in discussion groups.