The continued use of SRBs for Manned...

.... spaceflight by the US program has more to do with our militaristic
tendance than using tried and true, or even good technology. Without a
large consumer of solid rocket propellent, the plant producing it would
shut down. Extending the time to reproduce the production facilities, and a
whole category of weapons that depend on large supply of propellent.

The US should just build the most modern propellent plant we can, then
mothball it. So that NASA and our space program can move on to better
things than preparing for War.

Personally, I think it's time to get NASA out of the Launch/Landing business
and back into developing new technologies. The ones that haven't been tried
and aren't true yet. Building a mothballed propellent plant would satisfy
the demands of the military to "feel" secure, and free NASA from this
requirement.

Just my opinion.
--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @

On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 06:34:15 -0600, Craig Fink
wrote:

... spaceflight by the US program has more to do with our militaristic
tendance than using tried and true, or even good technology. Without a
large consumer of solid rocket propellent, the plant producing it would
shut down.

There are plenty of other customers for solid propellant other than
the SRBs. All the air-to-air missiles, air-to-surface missiles,
surface-to-air missiles, surface-to-surface missiles, strap-on motors
for Delta and Atlas, sounding rockets, ABM target launchers...

The SRB helps, but isn't essential. They're reusing SRB for Ares
because it was thought to be cheaper to develop (and that's no longer
the case, hopefully the next President will kill Ares before we've
wasted too much more money on it.)

Brian

Brian Thorn wrote:

On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 06:34:15 -0600, Craig Fink
wrote:

... spaceflight by the US program has more to do with our militaristic
tendance than using tried and true, or even good technology. Without a
large consumer of solid rocket propellent, the plant producing it would
shut down.

There are plenty of other customers for solid propellant other than
the SRBs. All the air-to-air missiles, air-to-surface missiles,
surface-to-air missiles, surface-to-surface missiles, strap-on motors
for Delta and Atlas, sounding rockets, ABM target launchers...

The SRB helps, but isn't essential. They're reusing SRB for Ares
because it was thought to be cheaper to develop (and that's no longer
the case, hopefully the next President will kill Ares before we've
wasted too much more money on it.)

This is what happens if you have a huge production facility to produce the
stuff, with no end user. This occurred when the Shuttle program shut down
for only three years after Challenger.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=HJVOUgCm5Jk
The video shows what happens to a component of the solid fuel that was
considered a non-explosive at the time. Mix it all together, and it's still
a non-explosive? I don't think so. Then put men and women in a vehicle
riding on this, non-explosive, that can't have higher order detonation,
like Ammonium Perchlorate can't? I don't think so.

Yes, solids are the militaries choice for use for many reasons, it's ready
to go, stores for a very long time, huge acceleration. All characteristics
they like. The milliary, if the world was right, would only produce
air-to-air missiles, air-to-surface missiles, surface-to-air missiles,
surface-to-surface missiles and never use them. Even in the last ten years,
not that many have been used when compared to what is produced for six
shuttle flights per year. (I could be wrong). The Titan was the militaries
big consumer, was canceled. They like the stuff, but can't use that much.

Yes there are a few other small consumers of the stuff, like Delta and
Atlas, both big military contractors trying to find a recurring use for the
stuff. Little reusable liquids could easily be substituted, and help
further develop a cheaper, more robust, safer alternative. Production for
civilian purposes is limited and the stuff is probably being overproduce
today for the same reason it's being used in Ares.

Somehow I think this aspect is probably the prime drive for it's use in
Ares.

Because it sure doesn't have to do with them being tried, true, safe, or
vibration free.

Supper Tuesday coming up, Vote Ron Paul in 08, our next president.
--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @

Craig Fink wrote in
:


The video shows what happens to a component of the solid fuel that was
considered a non-explosive at the time. Mix it all together, and it's
still a non-explosive? I don't think so. Then put men and women in a
vehicle riding on this, non-explosive, that can't have higher order
detonation, like Ammonium Perchlorate can't? I don't think so.

And you'd be wrong. Channeling Hob Baller again?

Granted, solids have unforgiving failure modes and I'm generally
not happy with Ares 1 as a concept, but the fuel grain won't detonate.
Your simplistic thinking ignores the engineering that went into
the propellant design that makes it very energetic, but stable.

--Damon

Damon Hill wrote:

Craig Fink wrote in
:


The video shows what happens to a component of the solid fuel that was
considered a non-explosive at the time. Mix it all together, and it's
still a non-explosive? I don't think so. Then put men and women in a
vehicle riding on this, non-explosive, that can't have higher order
detonation, like Ammonium Perchlorate can't? I don't think so.

And you'd be wrong. Channeling Hob Baller again?

Granted, solids have unforgiving failure modes and I'm generally
not happy with Ares 1 as a concept, but the fuel grain won't detonate.
Your simplistic thinking ignores the engineering that went into
the propellant design that makes it very energetic, but stable.

Yeah, hopefully I'd be wrong. Are you being nice to Bob Haller yet?

But, I wouldn't be surprised to see one go up like a firecracker.

So, you can tell I don't like them, probably comes from holding my breath
for two minutes.
--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @

On Feb 2, 4:34 am, Craig Fink wrote:
... spaceflight by the US program has more to do with our militaristic
tendance than using tried and true, or even good technology. Without a
large consumer of solid rocket propellent, the plant producing it would
shut down. Extending the time to reproduce the production facilities, and a
whole category of weapons that depend on large supply of propellent.

The US should just build the most modern propellent plant we can, then
mothball it. So that NASA and our space program can move on to better
things than preparing for War.

Personally, I think it's time to get NASA out of the Launch/Landing business
and back into developing new technologies. The ones that haven't been tried
and aren't true yet. Building a mothballed propellent plant would satisfy
the demands of the military to "feel" secure, and free NASA from this
requirement.

Just my opinion.
--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @

In that case, we'll need to get those Semitic Third Reich wizards of
rocket science back in full action, because otherwise we're screwed.
Of course, China's CATS is becoming about as good as it gets, so why
not use their services of reliably and most affordably getting our
stuff up and running.
- Brad Guth