A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

OSP: reliability and survivability



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old September 9th 03, 09:00 AM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default reliability and survivability



Derek Lyons wrote:

That's not an open and shut case. Both losses, while certainly
chargeable to design, could have been avoided by reasonable
operational procedures.

in Challenger's case, yes- although the SRB design was flawed in regard
to O-ring sealing, the avoidance of cold weather launches would probably
have meant that no vehicle loss would have resulted from that design
limitation; but the insulation shedding due to "popcorning" of the ET's
insulation, and the shedding of the bipod rampsunder aerodynamic stress,
as well as the flaw in the bolt catchers that were cited in the CAIB's
report were basic design flaws that were waiting to claim an orbiter
sooner or later- the bolt catchers should be an easy fix...but the
insulation shedding is a basic and fundamental problem with the design
strategy underlying the ET's construction, and might require
considerable rethinking of its design and construction if the
"zero-shedding" original requirement is to be met. Even small pieces of
the insulation falling off were damaging the TPS on almost every flight.



Anyone who believes that we can engineer a vehicle of air, ground,
sea, or space that will never suffer a LOC/LOV accident is living in a
fantasy world.


It's not a matter of "never"... it's a matter of "how often".

Pat

  #12  
Old September 9th 03, 09:00 AM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default reliability and survivability



HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa wrote:

Remember that Ariane V is supposed to be Man-rated ( triple redundancy ).
Would you take a flight on it at this time?




Not if they pop the champagne at lift-off....as opposed to orbital
entry- I wouldn't...there is such a thing as "Asking For It".

Pat

  #13  
Old September 9th 03, 09:15 AM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default OSP: reliability and survivability



Earl Colby Pottinger wrote:

What that means that you don't do what NASA does just because they did. As
you already pointed out, if the ROTON used drop tanks then you drop them when
you have to abort. If you use booster rockets make then hybrids or liquid
fuel. But why assume that ROTON will use solids just because NASA does.




As soon as you get away from the solid booster idea, the cost of design
starts going way up, you have just moved into unknown (at least for the
U.S.) territory.

Pat

  #14  
Old September 9th 03, 03:20 PM
Earl Colby Pottinger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default OSP: reliability and survivability

Pat Flannery :

Earl Colby Pottinger wrote:

What that means that you don't do what NASA does just because they did.

As
you already pointed out, if the ROTON used drop tanks then you drop them

when
you have to abort. If you use booster rockets make then hybrids or liquid
fuel. But why assume that ROTON will use solids just because NASA does.


As soon as you get away from the solid booster idea, the cost of design
starts going way up, you have just moved into unknown (at least for the
U.S.) territory.


I find that hard to believe, first the ROTON was already a large move away
from standard US designs even after they oved to the Fastrac engine. Second,
we don't need NASA-type super expensive junk as boosters, just something that
develops lots of thrust. While I admit large hybrids may have hidden
got-yous, what about pressure feeded peroxide rockets. Remember I mean
boosters only! The ROTON people already had access to a working peroxide
engine, they already made composite tanks. No regulator, fill the tanks two
thirds and pressurize them, simple valves to turn them on, the ROTON does the
steering and the boosters may or may not have a recovery system, your choice
based on costs.

Earl Colby Pottinger

--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp

  #15  
Old September 9th 03, 04:10 PM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default OSP: reliability and survivability



Earl Colby Pottinger wrote:

I find that hard to believe, first the ROTON was already a large move away
from standard US designs even after they oved to the Fastrac engine. Second,
we don't need NASA-type super expensive junk as boosters, just something that
develops lots of thrust. While I admit large hybrids may have hidden
got-yous, what about pressure feeded peroxide rockets. Remember I mean
boosters only! The ROTON people already had access to a working peroxide
engine, they already made composite tanks. No regulator, fill the tanks two
thirds and pressurize them, simple valves to turn them on, the ROTON does the
steering and the boosters may or may not have a recovery system, your choice
based on costs.



Oddly, the hydrogen peroxide option occurred to me also after I wrote
the last post; there would be at least three ways of going about it;
each with their pluses and minuses:
Simple catalytic decomposition of hydrogen peroxide into superheated
steam and oxygen- this would be very easy to accomplish, and very
reliable...but the ISP would suck, and the weight of the pressurized
peroxide tank would make for a pretty inefficient design in regards to
weight versus performance.
but the weight of the tankage would still be quite high...although if
ocean recovery of the spent boosters was intended, pressure fed hydrogen
peroxide and a fuel- such as kerosene- which burns with the oxygen freed
in the catalytic reactions the hydrogen peroxide decomposes; this would
also be very simple and reliable, you would get a better ISP than the
first option, their inherent toughness might be an advantage.
A hydrogen peroxide/fuel driven engine using the hydrogen peroxide both
as an oxidizer; and via its decomposition as a method of driving a
turbopump for propellant feed- this is a more involved process, but has
the advantage of a better ISP and lower booster weight in regards to its
thrust- the technology was already proven by both the Germans during
W.W. II with the Walter motor for the ME-163 Komet rocket fighter:
http://www.walter-rockets.i12.com/hw/sitemap.htm and the British Gamma
motor as used on the Black Arrow satellite launcher:
http://members.aol.com/nicholashl/ukspace/htp/htp.htm
the technology is fairly basic, and the high density of hydrogen
peroxide in comparison to LOX makes for more compact tankage.
It well be interesting to see how well the simple hybrid motor for
Rutan's Spaceship One performs in actual operations, if it is reliable,
such motors may combine the simplicity of solids with both a (somewhat
inefficient) throttlable aspect- as well as safe in-flight shutdown via
stopping the oxidizer flow.

Pat

  #16  
Old September 9th 03, 06:20 PM
Earl Colby Pottinger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cheap boosters for reliability and survivability

Pat Flannery :

Earl Colby Pottinger wrote:


I find that hard to believe, first the ROTON was already a large move
away from standard US designs even after they moved to the Fastrac engine.


Second, we don't need NASA-type super expensive junk as boosters, just
something that develops lots of thrust. While I admit large hybrids
may have hidden got-yous, what about pressure feeded peroxide rockets.


Remember I mean boosters only! The ROTON people already had access to
a working peroxide engine, they already made composite tanks. No
regulator, just fill the tanks two thirds and pressurize them, simple
valves to turn them on, the ROTON does the steering and the boosters
may or may not have a recovery system, your choice based on costs.


Oddly, the hydrogen peroxide option occurred to me also after I wrote
the last post; there would be at least three ways of going about it;
each with their pluses and minuses:


Simple catalytic decomposition of hydrogen peroxide into superheated
steam and oxygen - this would be very easy to accomplish, and very
reliable...but the ISP would suck, and the weight of the pressurized
peroxide tank would make for a pretty inefficient design in regards to
weight versus performance.


Remember John Carmack's work in boosting peroxide ISP. You can still keep it
a simple mono-propellant that helps a lot.

But the weight of the tankage would still be quite high...although if
ocean recovery of the spent boosters was intended, pressure fed hydrogen
peroxide and a fuel- such as kerosene- which burns with the oxygen freed
in the catalytic reactions the hydrogen peroxide decomposes; this would
also be very simple and reliable, you would get a better ISP than the
first option, their inherent toughness might be an advantage.


For ease of handling and cleanup, I prefer alcohol as the fuel.

A hydrogen peroxide/fuel driven engine using the hydrogen peroxide both
as an oxidizer; and via its decomposition as a method of driving a
turbopump for propellant feed- this is a more involved process, but has
the advantage of a better ISP and lower booster weight in regards to its
thrust- the technology was already proven by both the Germans during
W.W. II with the Walter motor for the ME-163 Komet rocket fighter:
http://www.walter-rockets.i12.com/hw/sitemap.htm and the British Gamma
motor as used on the Black Arrow satellite launcher:
http://members.aol.com/nicholashl/ukspace/htp/htp.htm
the technology is fairly basic, and the high density of hydrogen
peroxide in comparison to LOX makes for more compact tankage.


For a simple booster, I would prefer to stay away from turbopumps and stick
to pressure feeded systems.

It well be interesting to see how well the simple hybrid motor for
Rutan's Spaceship One performs in actual operations, if it is reliable,
such motors may combine the simplicity of solids with both a (somewhat
inefficient) throttlable aspect- as well as safe in-flight shutdown via
stopping the oxidizer flow.

Pat


Scaling up may be a problem, but yes, hybrids are also a good choice as you
can turn them off easyly and fast.

Earl Colby Pottinger

--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp

  #17  
Old September 9th 03, 09:05 PM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default OSP: reliability and survivability



Pat Flannery wrote:



Whoops something went missing here... the mail program was acting
flukey...it should have read:

The second alternative would be to use the oxygen generated by the
decomposition of the hydrogen peroxide but the weight of the tankage
would still be quite high...although if ocean recovery of the spent
boosters was intended, pressure fed hydrogen peroxide and a fuel- such
as kerosene- which burns with the oxygen freed in the catalytic
reactions of the hydrogen peroxide as it decomposes would also be very
simple and reliable- you would get a better ISP than the first option,
and the pressurized tankage's inherent toughness might be an advantage.
A hydrogen peroxide/fuel driven engine using the hydrogen peroxide
both as an oxidizer; and via its decomposition as a method of driving
a turbopump for propellant feed- this is a more involved process, but
has the advantage of a better ISP and lower booster weight in regards
to its thrust- the technology was already proven by both the Germans
during W.W. II with the Walter motor for the ME-163 Komet rocket
fighter: http://www.walter-rockets.i12.com/hw/sitemap.htm and the
British Gamma motor as used on the Black Arrow satellite launcher:
http://members.aol.com/nicholashl/ukspace/htp/htp.htm
the technology is fairly basic, and the high density of hydrogen
peroxide in comparison to LOX makes for more compact tankage.
It well be interesting to see how well the simple hybrid motor for
Rutan's Spaceship One performs in actual operations, if it is
reliable, such motors may combine the simplicity of solids with both a
(somewhat inefficient) throttlable aspect- as well as safe in-flight
shutdown via stopping the oxidizer flow.

Pat



  #18  
Old September 9th 03, 11:40 PM
Joann Evans
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default reliability and survivability

LooseChanj wrote:

On or about 8 Sep 2003 22:10:01 GMT, Derek Lyons
made the sensational claim that:
Anyone who believes that we can engineer a vehicle of air, ground,
sea, or space that will never suffer a LOC/LOV accident is living in a
fantasy world.


Engineering a vehicle that can't experience an LOC is easy. Just don't put
people on it!


That's fine, until you come to those times when people *are* the
payload....

And if the vehicle (not to mention many inanimate payloads like
satcoms, big space telescopes, or nuclear powered probes) is sufficently
expensive and valuable, you want just about as much certainty of its
ssuccessful flight and return, as if it *were* manned. Unmanned doesn't
always equal expendable.

  #19  
Old September 10th 03, 01:20 AM
Ian Woollard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default reliability and survivability

Andrew Case wrote:
The flat failure of any *economic* analysis to support the shuttle is the
problem.


Actually the original analysis supported the shuttle of course. Probably
you meant *accurate* economic analysis :-)

Gotta thank Tricky Dicky Nixon for this one. Check it out:

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/shuttle-03p1.html

Very, very rough summary: 'oh yeah, we lied to congress big time, there
was no way we could or would launch 52 times per year which is what is
needed to make the Shuttle cost-effective, but Nixon knew that and
knowingly signed off on it anyway. p.s. didn't we mention how fragile
the leading edges are? Oops, I'm sure we must have.'

Lovely.

......Andrew


  #20  
Old September 11th 03, 01:40 AM
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default reliability and survivability

Ian Woollard wrote:

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/shuttle-03p1.html

Very, very rough summary:


Rougher summary; There is no evidence to cite this individuals
claims.

Rough, but true, statement: The journalistic and editorial standards
of Space Daily are low at best.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

 




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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:51 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.