NASA ATK SRB Train to Nowhere!

On 2 May 2007 14:00:20 -0700, Roger Coppock wrote:


NASA's original plan was to make the SRBs at
the Cape.

Neat trick, since NASA's original plan was launches at both the Cape
and Vandenberg...

Brian

In article .com,
Roger Coppock wrote:
But it definitely was not all politics.

What nonpolitical reason caused Utah to be picked then?

The fact that Thiokol was bidding segmented SRBs -- an established
technology that was well proven on Titan IIIC -- against the novel and
uncertain technology of big one-piece SRBs. Remember, the #1 priority
for the shuttle boosters was low development cost; had that not been the
dominant issue, they would have been liquids, not solids.

Also not insignificant was that segmented SRBs could fit within the
existing KSC infrastructure, while the handling problems of the immensely
massive one-piece SRBs would have required a number of changes, e.g.
heavier cranes in the VAB. (And there were technical unknowns there too:
you can *damage* a big solid if you don't handle it just so -- as witness
the Delta II explosion some years ago -- and solids are quite spectacularly
intolerant of even minor damage.)
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
On 2 May 2007 14:00:20 -0700, Roger Coppock wrote:


NASA's original plan was to make the SRBs at
the Cape.

Neat trick, since NASA's original plan was launches at both the Cape
and Vandenberg...


That is a decent point. But Roger is right, there was definite thought
given to creating monolithic SRBs in Florida.

There were a lot of issues though as Jorge has mentioned, including how to
transport them and insure they were correctly cast.

All in all, I'm not sure I'd feel any more comfortable with a monolithic
solid.


Brian



--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html

"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
Roger Coppock wrote:
But it definitely was not all politics.

What nonpolitical reason caused Utah to be picked then?

The fact that Thiokol was bidding segmented SRBs -- an established
technology that was well proven on Titan IIIC -- against the novel and
uncertain technology of big one-piece SRBs. Remember, the #1 priority
for the shuttle boosters was low development cost; had that not been the
dominant issue, they would have been liquids, not solids.


And that's probably still one of the biggest short-sighted mistakes with the
Shuttle.


Also not insignificant was that segmented SRBs could fit within the
existing KSC infrastructure, while the handling problems of the immensely
massive one-piece SRBs would have required a number of changes, e.g.
heavier cranes in the VAB. (And there were technical unknowns there too:
you can *damage* a big solid if you don't handle it just so -- as witness
the Delta II explosion some years ago -- and solids are quite
spectacularly
intolerant of even minor damage.)

Yeah, the idea of transporting such a large SRB, and if necessary rotating
it from vertical to horizontal to vertical again (I'm assuming they would
have rotated it horizontally for transport from the casting pit to the SRB,
though I could be wrong) scares the bejesus out of me.


--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |



Hey Henry, I've got a good Windows server I can setup spsystems.net for you
on. :-)


--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html

On May 3, 10:47 am, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:
"Henry Spencer" wrote in message


The fact that Thiokol was bidding segmented SRBs -- an established
technology that was well proven on Titan IIIC -- against the novel and
uncertain technology of big one-piece SRBs. Remember, the #1 priority
for the shuttle boosters was low development cost; had that not been the
dominant issue, they would have been liquids, not solids.

And that's probably still one of the biggest short-sighted mistakes with the
Shuttle.

Yes, but not quite as big a short-sighted mistake as the whole project
was.

"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:

:... a good Windows server ...

Isn't that something of an oxymoron?


--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden

On 3 May, 00:26, kT wrote:
I'm not totally opposed to big solids, but only for very heavy lift
launch vehicles (like the Ares V) with very low launch rates. But
clearly over the long term they have to be phased out, and the only
credible alternative is hydrogen.

Why hydrogen? Kerosene seems to be more effective. I believe for
example Atlas tends to come in cheaper than Delta.


The other major problem is the foam
insulation, which virtually prohibits the taking of the cryogenic first
stage all the way to orbit, something which is basically trivial for a
hydrogen core stage with large solid rocket booster assistance.

There are many problems with cryogenics which effect costs.


The *BIG* problem I have is with NASA upper management, the fraud they
have perpetrated upon the American people, by sidelining propulsion work
that is nearly finished, the RL-60 and the IPD - integrated full flow
closed cycle engine prototype, the hydrostatic bearings, and the channel
wall nozzle program, and even the SSME upgrades, the all electric nozzle
gimbles and fuel cell auxiliary power. Without those vital programs in
liquid propulsion, we have nothing. Nothing I tell you.

Agree there

All is lost.

ALL IS LOST! I am revolted.

Perhaps things just needed to get worse before they can get better.

Alex Terrell wrote:
On 3 May, 00:26, kT wrote:
I'm not totally opposed to big solids, but only for very heavy lift
launch vehicles (like the Ares V) with very low launch rates. But
clearly over the long term they have to be phased out, and the only
credible alternative is hydrogen.

Why hydrogen? Kerosene seems to be more effective. I believe for
example Atlas tends to come in cheaper than Delta.

I do believe Atlas does use hydrogen in the upper stage, feel free to
correct me if I'm wrong.

The other major problem is the foam
insulation, which virtually prohibits the taking of the cryogenic first
stage all the way to orbit, something which is basically trivial for a
hydrogen core stage with large solid rocket booster assistance.

There are many problems with cryogenics which effect costs.

Which explains why everybody either uses it, or wants to use it.

The *BIG* problem I have is with NASA upper management, the fraud they
have perpetrated upon the American people, by sidelining propulsion work
that is nearly finished, the RL-60 and the IPD - integrated full flow
closed cycle engine prototype, the hydrostatic bearings, and the channel
wall nozzle program, and even the SSME upgrades, the all electric nozzle
gimbles and fuel cell auxiliary power. Without those vital programs in
liquid propulsion, we have nothing. Nothing I tell you.

Agree there

All is lost.

ALL IS LOST! I am revolted.

Perhaps things just needed to get worse before they can get better.

They're demonstrably not going to get any better by continuing using
hydrocarbons and solids. It's over. The Neocene era is upon us.

You people are just complete mind****s, it's going to be so much fun
watching your lives crumble these next few years. But don't worry, great
grandchildren will be able to mine and burn coal until at least 2200,
when the planet will most likely become uninhabitable.

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

On Thu, 03 May 2007 02:42:36 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:

That is a decent point. But Roger is right, there was definite thought
given to creating monolithic SRBs in Florida.

In Florida, yes, but wasn't Aerojet's site at West Palm or somewhere
down south? Not at the Cape. Of course, barging a monolithic SRB up
the intracoastal might not have been that difficult, but there is
still room for accidents, so it isn't clear this method would have
avoided an accident something like this week's train derailment.

All in all, I'm not sure I'd feel any more comfortable with a monolithic
solid.

And at the time, they had big segmented solids which worked fine.

Brian

On Fri, 04 May 2007 00:49:18 GMT, in a place far, far away, Brian
Thorn made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

On Thu, 03 May 2007 02:42:36 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:

That is a decent point. But Roger is right, there was definite thought
given to creating monolithic SRBs in Florida.

In Florida, yes, but wasn't Aerojet's site at West Palm or somewhere
down south?

Much farther south...

http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/004685.html