![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 7/16/2010 10:24 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
There were a couple of proposals for LOX/kerosene boosters to replace the SRB's, but those proposals went nowhere. Originally, the idea was to use liquid boosters for safety reasons, as unlike the SRBs they could be shut down and jettisoned if one of them went out-of-spec, and the orbiter could then hopefully return to the launch site, either alone or after burning some of the fuel in the ET. They also looked into a thrust termination system on the SRBs similar to the one that was going to be used on the manned Titan III's, but the ET apparently couldn't tolerate the blast effect of the blow-off venting portals on the SRB nosecone being activated so close to it. I still like the idea of sticking the Shuttle and ET atop a Saturn V first stage: http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/s/shusat1c.gif If something did go wrong with one of the F-1 engines, at least it would be way behind the orbiter. Combine that concept with the recoverable S-IC stage proposal, and you could have had a system as recoverable as the present one that offered superior safety during ascent due to having the ability to be shut down in an emergency. Pat |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Looking for responsive, low-cost space lift (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | News | 0 | February 27th 06 08:39 PM |
Any word on heavy lift? | MattWriter | Policy | 4 | August 29th 04 11:43 PM |
High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers | Cris Fitch | Technology | 40 | March 24th 04 04:28 PM |
High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers | Cris Fitch | Policy | 82 | March 24th 04 04:28 PM |
Clueless pundits (was High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers) | Rand Simberg | Space Science Misc | 18 | February 14th 04 03:28 AM |