A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » History
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Shuttle cross-range Q.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old December 17th 12, 03:20 AM posted to sci.space.history
Brian Thorn[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,266
Default Shuttle cross-range Q.

On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 16:26:03 -0800 (PST), bob haller
wrote:


look at challengers videos, after the vehicle disengrated, the solids
were burning at odd angles, a announcer said guidance came back,


Cite, please. No such comment was ever made. Listen to Greg: the SRBs
were controlled BY THE ORBITER. They had no guidance computers of
their own. All they had was systems to carry out the instructions
(i.e., gimballing) sent to them by the Orbiter. When Challenger broke
up, control was lost.

the solids straightened up the contrails showed the control change,


No, they didn't, Bob. They were spinning around out of control until
thrust termination. I was there. I remember it clearly.

after that range safety ordered the solids destroyed,


Because as they were spinning around, they looked like they might
start spinning back toward land. Consider this: if they had control
over the SRBs, why would they destruct them? That just made the
investigation much more difficult. If they really had control, they
would have just directed them out to sea until natural burnout.

i believe its a zipper
like opening on the side.


No, it was blowing the top off, reducing chamber pressure to zero and
therefore ending powered flight.

....... apparently the solids were
endangering the area.......


Which by no means equals "toxic fuel endangering the area."

there was a non manned vehicle which failed on launch


10 seconds after launch. The 1997 Delta II explosion.

dropping parts
of burning solds on cars in the parking lot, it said this was very
dangerous....


Flaming debris falling from the sky is dangerous, Bob. It doesn't
matter what the material is (plain old rubber or toxic chemicals.)

solid exhaust is supposedly bad for the environment


In large quantities, but KSC doesn't seem to be an environmental dead
zone after 30 years of Shuttle launches. Quite the opposite.

Brian
  #22  
Old December 17th 12, 05:24 AM posted to sci.space.history
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default Shuttle cross-range Q.


solid exhaust is supposedly bad for the environment


In large quantities, but KSC doesn't seem to be an environmental dead
zone after 30 years of Shuttle launches. Quite the opposite.

Brian


the solids noxious chemicals werent just at KSC, they were released as
long as the boosters fired. and probably some got dispersed into the
ocean

  #23  
Old December 17th 12, 08:56 AM posted to sci.space.history
Philip Lantz[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default Shuttle cross-range Q.

Brian Thorn wrote:
after that range safety ordered the solids destroyed,
i believe its a zipper like opening on the side.


No, it was blowing the top off, reducing chamber pressure to zero and
therefore ending powered flight.


No. That is an accurate description of thrust termination in a solid
rocket, but that's not what the range safety system in the shuttle SRB's
does; it actually does split the rocket motor along its length and
fragment it into many pieces.

"The Command Destruct System (Fig. 4-1) ... consists of a dual linear-
shaped charge (LSC) running longitudinally along the outboard side of
the cylindrical case from the intersection with the forward dome (XB
531) to the ET attach ring (XB 1491)."

"Upon severing the solid rocket motor (SRM) skin along 70 percent of its
length, the internal pressure created by the burning propellant is
sufficient to open the SRB case and propellant grain in a clamshell-like
fashion. This now weakened SRB structure breaks along seven major
segment joints. The six cylindrical segments of the motor case cut by
the LSC break into twelve pieces, each segment breaking in half at the
clamshell hinge. The forward frustum and skirt and the aft case and
nozzle separate as individual large pieces: The equipment tunnel and its
contents also contribute to fragment production."

From NSWC TR 80-417
SPACE SHUTTLE RANGE SAFETY COMMAND
DESTRUCT SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND VERIFICATION
PHASE III - BREAKUP OF SPACE SHUTTLE CLUSTER VIA RANGE SAFETY COMMAND
DESTRUCT SYSTEM

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA103530

  #24  
Old December 17th 12, 08:56 AM posted to sci.space.history
Philip Lantz[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default Shuttle cross-range Q.

Fred J. McCall wrote:
I'd like a cite to your claim as to NASA saying they activated thrust
termination (there is no 'self destruct') on the solids ...


Actually, they don't use thrust termination; there really is a self
destruct in the SRB's. See my response to Brian for the cite.

(Of course, there's no cite for the other nonsense you were responding
to...)


  #25  
Old December 17th 12, 02:17 PM posted to sci.space.history
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default Shuttle cross-range Q.

On Dec 17, 2:56*am, Philip Lantz wrote:
Fred J. McCall wrote:
I'd like a cite to your claim as to NASA saying they activated thrust
termination (there is no 'self destruct') on the solids ...


Actually, they don't use thrust termination; there really is a self
destruct in the SRB's. See my response to Brian for the cite.

(Of course, there's no cite for the other nonsense you were responding
to...)


well I beleve everyone agrees they did the self destruct to prevent
the solids from endangering nearby residents.

and watch the videos of the challenger loss.olids go in all directions
but then do start flying up. the contrails show what occured
  #26  
Old December 17th 12, 02:44 PM posted to sci.space.history
Jeff Findley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,388
Default Shuttle cross-range Q.

In article b7dd2f5e-a163-46b5-8788-efe2576f8f76
@r13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com, says...

On Dec 17, 2:56*am, Philip Lantz wrote:
Fred J. McCall wrote:
I'd like a cite to your claim as to NASA saying they activated thrust
termination (there is no 'self destruct') on the solids ...


Actually, they don't use thrust termination; there really is a self
destruct in the SRB's. See my response to Brian for the cite.

(Of course, there's no cite for the other nonsense you were responding
to...)


well I beleve everyone agrees they did the self destruct to prevent
the solids from endangering nearby residents.

and watch the videos of the challenger loss.olids go in all directions
but then do start flying up. the contrails show what occured


No, Bob, they didn't go in all directions and then start flying up.

When the connection with the rest of the stack was severed the SRB's
lost guidance control (the shuttle's computers controlled the solids).
They were literally flying out of control! When it became obvious that
the stack broke apart, range safety sent the command to the SRB's to
destruct.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer
  #27  
Old December 17th 12, 03:41 PM posted to sci.space.history
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 790
Default Shuttle cross-range Q.

"bob haller" wrote in message
...


look at challengers videos, after the vehicle disengrated, the solids
were burning at odd angles, a announcer said guidance came back, the
solids straightened up the contrails showed the control change, after
that range safety ordered the solids destroyed, i believe its a zipper
like opening on the side........ apparently the solids were
endangering the area.......



Even if the announcer said that, it doesn't mean a thing. The announcer
also initially said, "we have apparently have a major malfunction."

The announcer is not an accident expert and anything they said at the time
should be taken with a grain of salt.



--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

  #28  
Old December 17th 12, 07:23 PM posted to sci.space.history
Dean
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 323
Default Shuttle cross-range Q.

On Monday, December 17, 2012 9:11:01 AM UTC-5, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:





look at challengers videos, after the vehicle disengrated, the solids


were burning at odd angles, a announcer said guidance came back, the


solids straightened up the contrails showed the control change,...






Utter bull****.





... after


that range safety ordered the solids destroyed, i believe its a zipper


like opening on the side........ apparently the solids were


endangering the area.......






IMPACT danger, not danger from toxic solid fuel, as you've maintained.

Why not just admit you were wrong rather than trying to weasel word

your way out of it?





there was a non manned vehicle which failed on launch dropping parts


of burning solds on cars in the parking lot, it said this was very


dangerous....






Yes, chunks of burning ANYTHING falling on your head can be dangerous.





solid exhaust is supposedly bad for the environment






Well, it's burning rubber and aluminum, isn't it? However, the FUEL

is just pretty non-toxic and stable. It's something like 98%

butadiene rubber. Once again, your claims that solid fuel is toxic

are utter and absolute bull****.





--

"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the

truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."

-- Thomas Jefferson


A mild correction is due he The propellant used was 69.6% ammonium perchlorate, 16% aluminum, 0.4% iron oxide, 12.04% rubber binder, and 1.96% epoxy. The perchlorate was the oxidizer while the aluminum was primary fuel witht he rubber being secondary fuel. The iron oxide was a catalyst and the epoxy was a cross linker to stabilize the solid mass.

The exhaust was no doubt a wild mix of chemicals for a bit but upon cooling would be largely aluminum oxides and aluminum chlorohydrate. The latter stuff is the same stuff you rub under your arms to keep from sweating heavily.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
radio range calculator Eric[_29_] Amateur Astronomy 0 February 3rd 08 01:10 AM
Range of STA (747) ? John Doe Space Shuttle 17 January 4th 07 07:21 AM
Range violation JoKudabada Space Shuttle 2 July 2nd 06 02:40 AM
Down range thunderstorm Craig Fink Space Shuttle 2 July 1st 06 09:24 PM
Why is Einstein's Cross a cross? Robin Leadbeater UK Astronomy 1 November 4th 03 11:17 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.