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

Large SRB test site in Florida



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old November 14th 12, 05:38 PM posted to sci.space.history
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 790
Default Large SRB test site in Florida

In article ,
says...

On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 11:18:41 AM UTC-6, David Lesher wrote:

How can you have a silo when the water table is a few feet below
ground level?


...Simple. You find a material to line the outer walls of the silo to
prevent sandtrout from encysting the water. It helps keep the sandworm
population down to a bare minumum, and if you think twenty thumpers will
call a bunch of worms, just watch what happens when someone fires off an
SRB or two from Canaveral!


Surprisingly, urban explorers have not found as much water inside the
silo as one might expect. Certainly there is water at the lowest level,
but it's not like the silo is completely full of water. The engineers
must have done a good job making the thing relatively water tight. If
it had been used operationally, I'm sure an appropriately sized sump
pump would have sufficed to keep the silo dry.

Jeff


Well, part of the problem isn't so much water intrusion as much as creating
a "raft". As long as you anchor the silo or somehow make it weigh enough,
it shouldn't float to the surface.

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

  #12  
Old November 14th 12, 05:39 PM posted to sci.space.history
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 790
Default Large SRB test site in Florida


"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

http://www.businessinsider.com/aeroj...cility-2012-10

Anyone have more details?


This is well known by space history buffs who are interested in solids
in particular. There is quite a bit of info about this on the Internet.
As usual, astronautix.com has a good summary:

AJ-260-2
http://www.astronautix.com/engines/aj2602.htm


Hmm, I guess I wasn't aware they had actually done any testing. I know they
had talked a lot about monsters this big.

I just can't imagine a SRB 21' in diameter!

The acoustics on that at lift-off would have been... incredible.


NASA Technical server has a very good report:

FINAL REPORT
DETERMINATION OF PROCESSING AND TEST FACILITY
REQUIREMENTS FOR LARGE SOLID ROCKET MOTORS VOLUME I: TASKJ -FACILITY
MODIFICATION FOR FULL-LENGTH 260-IN.-DIA MOTOR PROCESSING AND TEST
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...v/19700027475_
1970027475.pdf
Also, there are several websites showing pictures of the site taken by
"urban explorers" (or whatever they like to call themselves these days).

Abandoned Florida - Aerojet-Dade Rocket Facility
http://www.abandonedfl.com/?p=627

Jeff


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

  #13  
Old November 14th 12, 06:14 PM posted to sci.space.history
David Lesher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 198
Default Large SRB test site in Florida



Turns out a friend has been there. He worked for a guy who had a
contract to make some sounding rockets for NASA. They visited
the site as a possible manufacturing location.

The only use being made of it at the time was the cops had a
target range in one building.

The rockets they made were solid fuel, with a nitrous oxide tank
on top. They topped it off as it boiled until just before ignition.

I got to sit in the control room at Wallops Island during one launch.
--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
  #14  
Old November 14th 12, 06:16 PM posted to sci.space.history
Orval Fairbairn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 267
Default Large SRB test site in Florida

In article ,
"Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote:

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

http://www.businessinsider.com/aeroj...facility-2012-
10

Anyone have more details?


This is well known by space history buffs who are interested in solids
in particular. There is quite a bit of info about this on the Internet.
As usual, astronautix.com has a good summary:

AJ-260-2
http://www.astronautix.com/engines/aj2602.htm


Hmm, I guess I wasn't aware they had actually done any testing. I know they
had talked a lot about monsters this big.

I just can't imagine a SRB 21' in diameter!

The acoustics on that at lift-off would have been... incredible.


NASA Technical server has a very good report:

FINAL REPORT
DETERMINATION OF PROCESSING AND TEST FACILITY
REQUIREMENTS FOR LARGE SOLID ROCKET MOTORS VOLUME I: TASKJ -FACILITY
MODIFICATION FOR FULL-LENGTH 260-IN.-DIA MOTOR PROCESSING AND TEST
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...v/19700027475_
1970027475.pdf
Also, there are several websites showing pictures of the site taken by
"urban explorers" (or whatever they like to call themselves these days).

Abandoned Florida - Aerojet-Dade Rocket Facility
http://www.abandonedfl.com/?p=627

Jeff


Having spent a number of years reviewing test results on much smaller
SRBs, I can think of a rather large number of ways that a 21 ft diameter
SRB can go wrong and really bite you.

Just mixing and pouring the propellants is an art form, while handling
and storing are yet another. We had a number of SLBM FS motors barf
their nozzles, develop unstable burn patterns -- to name a couple of
situations that caused failure.

My conclusion is that solids are questionable for manned missions.
  #15  
Old November 14th 12, 11:13 PM posted to sci.space.history
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default Large SRB test site in Florida

adding flyash to concrete is said to help make it water proof.

even titan military silos had troubles with water getting in.

on a associated note I think some florida silos should be used to keep
emergency rockets to ISS available at all tmes. occasionally one could
be used tom launch a regular supply module to keep the vehicles fresh.

some day ISS is going to desperately need some key cargo on short
noitice. having a few boosters ready to go could help prevent a
disaster
  #16  
Old November 15th 12, 02:34 PM posted to sci.space.history
Jeff Findley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,388
Default Large SRB test site in Florida

In article 6be6c300-9524-4255-ab83-b19121ccff27
@h15g2000yqe.googlegroups.com, says...

on a associated note I think some florida silos should be used to keep
emergency rockets to ISS available at all tmes. occasionally one could
be used tom launch a regular supply module to keep the vehicles fresh.


This is dumb. What silos in Florida are still active? Why do this when
ISS has the following resupply options:

1. Progress on Soyuz launcher (Russian)
2. ATV on Ariane 5 (Europe)
3. HTV on H-IIB (Japan)
4. Dragon on Falcon 9 (US, from Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Air
Force Station)
5. Cygnus on Antares, renamed from Taurus II (US, from Wallops Flight
Facility, in Virginia)

That's five *completely different* resupply options. None of these
share spacecraft, launch vehicles, or even launch location. Why in the
world would NASA pay to keep "missiles" in a launch silo in Florida?

some day ISS is going to desperately need some key cargo on short
noitice. having a few boosters ready to go could help prevent a
disaster


There will always be a resupply mission "in the pipeline" that could
launch on relatively short notice. Besides, anything that crops up
that's too dangerous and the crew can abandon ISS. Remember that there
are always enough Soyuz spacecraft docked to ISS to evacuate it
completely.

Your "missiles in silos" suggestion makes no sense in today's world.

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
  #17  
Old November 15th 12, 08:50 PM posted to sci.space.history
Rick Jones
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 685
Default Large SRB test site in Florida

Jeff Findley wrote:
This is dumb. What silos in Florida are still active? Why do this
when ISS has the following resupply options:


1. Progress on Soyuz launcher (Russian)
2. ATV on Ariane 5 (Europe)
3. HTV on H-IIB (Japan)
4. Dragon on Falcon 9 (US, from Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Air
Force Station)
5. Cygnus on Antares, renamed from Taurus II (US, from Wallops Flight
Facility, in Virginia)


I'm going to to ahead and pick the nit on the fifth one there and say
you are counting an as-yet un-hatched chicken there.

Four! Four options for the resupplying mission!

It is perhaps even more of a nit, but option 2 ceases after the fifth
launch (per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_Transfer_Vehicle)

Three! Three options for the resupplying mission!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-II_Transfer_Vehicle isn't terribly
specific about continuing launches but I'll refrain from going down to
two

rick
--
firebug n, the idiot who tosses a lit cigarette out his car window
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...
  #18  
Old November 15th 12, 09:27 PM posted to sci.space.history
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 790
Default Large SRB test site in Florida

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article 6be6c300-9524-4255-ab83-b19121ccff27
, says...

on a associated note I think some florida silos should be used to keep
emergency rockets to ISS available at all tmes. occasionally one could
be used tom launch a regular supply module to keep the vehicles fresh.


This is dumb. What silos in Florida are still active? Why do this when
ISS has the following resupply options:

1. Progress on Soyuz launcher (Russian)
2. ATV on Ariane 5 (Europe)
3. HTV on H-IIB (Japan)
4. Dragon on Falcon 9 (US, from Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Air
Force Station)
5. Cygnus on Antares, renamed from Taurus II (US, from Wallops Flight
Facility, in Virginia)

That's five *completely different* resupply options. None of these
share spacecraft, launch vehicles, or even launch location. Why in the
world would NASA pay to keep "missiles" in a launch silo in Florida?

some day ISS is going to desperately need some key cargo on short
noitice. having a few boosters ready to go could help prevent a
disaster


There will always be a resupply mission "in the pipeline" that could
launch on relatively short notice. Besides, anything that crops up
that's too dangerous and the crew can abandon ISS. Remember that there
are always enough Soyuz spacecraft docked to ISS to evacuate it
completely.

Your "missiles in silos" suggestion makes no sense in today's world.


Much like most of Bob's suggestions.


Jeff


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

  #19  
Old November 15th 12, 09:27 PM posted to sci.space.history
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 790
Default Large SRB test site in Florida


"Rick Jones" wrote in message ...


I'm going to to ahead and pick the nit on the fifth one there and say
you are counting an as-yet un-hatched chicken there.

Four! Four options for the resupplying mission!

It is perhaps even more of a nit, but option 2 ceases after the fifth
launch (per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_Transfer_Vehicle)

Three! Three options for the resupplying mission!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-II_Transfer_Vehicle isn't terribly
specific about continuing launches but I'll refrain from going down to
two


What is this, the Spanish Inquisition?



rick


--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
  #20  
Old November 16th 12, 05:51 AM posted to sci.space.history
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default Large SRB test site in Florida

Theres more in orbit debris endangering ISS and no tracking for
smaller pieces. LEO is getting crowded.

now abandoning ISS might save a crew, although a debris impact could
damage a attached soyuz. so crew survival, isnt assured.

beyond which a damaged ISS without a crew can endager anyone under the
ground track..

so having a few emergency transit vehicles in silos, with cargo pods
ready to go is just smart thinking like planning for a shuttle stuck
at station.

if we can pay to keep ICBMs ready for instant launch then we should be
able to afford some emergency supplies to orbit launchers

now imagine the horror, a small piece of space debris too small to
track damage ISS and just one of the 2 soyuz lifeboats.

3 crew members get back safely the remaing 3 die waiting for some
crucial supplies, the stations control is lost and ISS breaks up
depositing debris that survive re entry all along the ground track
hitting some major citys

nasa is put out of business after some congressional hearings.

all preventable with just a few emergency cargo rockets had been built
 




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
Florida Weather+ Florida News bert Misc 15 June 22nd 10 06:05 PM
Site in Northern Chile Selected for Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (Forwarded) Andrew Yee News 0 May 18th 06 05:10 PM
Site in Northern Chile Selected for Large Synoptic Survey Telescope(Forwarded) Andrew Yee Astronomy Misc 0 May 18th 06 05:08 PM
Mars May Have Had Large Sea Near NASA Rover Landing Site (Forwarded) Andrew Yee Astronomy Misc 2 September 10th 04 03:11 AM
Mars May Have Had Large Sea Near NASA Rover Landing Site (Forwarded) Andrew Yee News 0 September 8th 04 08:09 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:52 PM.


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.