|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle cross-range Q.
On Dec 13, 7:55*pm, "Fevric J. Glandules"
wrote: Brian Thorn wrote: Other than that philosophical reason against inland launch sites, the Shuttle's SRBs could not be recovered from a land landing, they'd be junk afterwards. There might also be issues with where the remains of the ET would come down. Thanks (and to other respondees). *A lot clearer now. *JOOI can anyone remember how far down-range the SRBs landed? 150 nmi |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle cross-range Q.
In sci.space.history message OvWdnV-bXakbt1TNnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d@earthlink
..com, Wed, 12 Dec 2012 20:08:21, "Greg (Strider) Moore" mooregr@ignore thisgreenms.com posted: "Dr J R Stockton" wrote in message .demon.merlyn.invalid... In sci.space.history message McGdnSkVV8Rm51rNnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@earthlink .com, Tue, 11 Dec 2012 13:27:07, "Greg (Strider) Moore" mooregr@ignore thisgreenms.com posted: White Sands didn't have the launch complex and there was a real desire to not launch over land (in this case Mexico). Then launch to the North. There's plenty of distance before Canada is reached. Yes, but you're still launching over land. (and now you're almost certainly going to drop SRBs over Canada.) Who cares where they are dropped over? It is where they reach ground that matters. STS SRBs would not nearly reach Canada from the WSMR area - and all but the East of Canada is fairly unpopulated anyway - read "Sick Heart River". -- (c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. Mail via homepage. Turnpike v6.05 MIME. Web http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms and links; Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc. No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle cross-range Q.
On Dec 14, 7:20*pm, Dr J R Stockton
wrote: In sci.space.history message OvWdnV-bXakbt1TNnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d@earthlink .com, Wed, 12 Dec 2012 20:08:21, "Greg (Strider) Moore" mooregr@ignore thisgreenms.com posted: "Dr J R Stockton" *wrote in .demon.merlyn.invalid... In sci.space.history message McGdnSkVV8Rm51rNnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@earthlink .com, Tue, 11 Dec 2012 13:27:07, "Greg (Strider) Moore" mooregr@ignore thisgreenms.com posted: White Sands didn't have the launch complex and there was a real desire to not launch over land (in this case Mexico). Then launch to the North. *There's plenty of distance before Canada is reached. Yes, but you're still launching over land. *(and now you're almost certainly going to drop SRBs over Canada.) Who cares where they are dropped over? *It is where they reach ground that matters. STS SRBs would not nearly reach Canada from the WSMR area - and all but the East of Canada is fairly unpopulated anyway - read "Sick Heart River". -- *(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. *Mail via homepage. *Turnpike v6..05 *MIME. * Web *http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms and links; * Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc. *No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News. in a launch accident the solids could come down at any time from launch to its normal 150 mile location. solids are nasty with hazaardous chemicals to say nothing of big orbiter parts coming down. thats why everything launches over water |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle cross-range Q.
On Dec 15, 3:04*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote: in a launch accident the solids could come down at any time from launch to its normal 150 mile location. solids are nasty with hazaardous chemicals to say nothing of big orbiter parts coming down. What 'hazardous chemicals'? *Solid rocket motors are mostly butadiene rubber. thats why everything launches over water But 'everything' doesn't. -- "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 gee during the challenger loss they sent the self destruct signals to the solids, they were still flying .. nasa said it was done because of the hazards of solids...... |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle cross-range Q.
On Dec 15, 3:04*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote: in a launch accident the solids could come down at any time from launch to its normal 150 mile location. solids are nasty with hazaardous chemicals to say nothing of big orbiter parts coming down. What 'hazardous chemicals'? *Solid rocket motors are mostly butadiene rubber. thats why everything launches over water But 'everything' doesn't. -- "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 All launches were moved so they would depart over water. the waters off florida have lots of debris, including what was not recovered of challenger and the first stages of the apollo flights..... theres a plan to recover the engine bells from apollo 11 but its made harder by the littered ocean in that area. russia launches over land with malfunctions bringing down stages in villages and towns |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle cross-range Q.
On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 05:11:08 -0800 (PST), bob haller
wrote: gee during the challenger loss they sent the self destruct signals to the solids, they were still flying .. nasa said it was done because of the hazards of solids...... True, but a different hazard. Would you want an out of control SRB landing in a population center? It wouldn't matter if it had 'hazaradous chemicals' or not, you don't want a multi-ton rocket aiming at the Cocoa Beach Holiday Inn. Of a Shuttle SRB or a fully fueled Titan IV second stage landing in Cocoa Beach, the Titan would be enormously more deadly. Brian |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle cross-range Q.
'Self destruct' doesn't vapourize the things, you ignorant ****. *It merely stops them from delivering thrust. *The 'hazard' is that if you let them continue to thrust unguided they may come back and land like a big brick on something you care about. I'd like a cite to your claim as to NASA saying they activated thrust termination (there is no 'self destruct') on the solids because they were concerned about fuel toxicity. *I'm betting you're either lying or confused again. go read the challenger report, the solids continued burning and controls even recovered by they endangered the nearby communities.... so thust was terminated. by opening zipper like on the sides of each solid booster |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle cross-range Q.
On Dec 14, 7:20*pm, Dr J R Stockton
wrote: In sci.space.history message OvWdnV-bXakbt1TNnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d@earthlink Who cares where they are dropped over? *It is where they reach ground that matters. Wrong. Range safety is concerned over flight because of debris from an incident that could land in between |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle cross-range Q.
"bob haller" wrote in message ... 'Self destruct' doesn't vapourize the things, you ignorant ****. It merely stops them from delivering thrust. The 'hazard' is that if you let them continue to thrust unguided they may come back and land like a big brick on something you care about. I'd like a cite to your claim as to NASA saying they activated thrust termination (there is no 'self destruct') on the solids because they were concerned about fuel toxicity. I'm betting you're either lying or confused again. go read the challenger report, the solids continued burning and controls even recovered by they endangered the nearby communities.... so thust was terminated. by opening zipper like on the sides of each solid booster Which is basically what Fred said. They activated the thrust termination because of the hazards of dropping a big flaming object on a liability lawyer's convention (that's a joke). Of course I can't parse your "and controls even recovered by" part. If you're saying NASA regained flight control over the SRBs, that's simply wrong. Their guidance was controlled by the orbiter. That said, as I recall, the exhaust itself was fairly acidic and I believe at least one case of a bunch of cars in the VAB parking lot basically getting "paint stripped" after a launch. But that's the exhaust, not the fuel. -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle cross-range Q.
On Dec 16, 5:07*pm, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
wrote: "bob haller" *wrote in message .... 'Self destruct' doesn't vapourize the things, you ignorant ****. *It merely stops them from delivering thrust. *The 'hazard' is that if you let them continue to thrust unguided they may come back and land like a big brick on something you care about. I'd like a cite to your claim as to NASA saying they activated thrust termination (there is no 'self destruct') on the solids because they were concerned about fuel toxicity. *I'm betting you're either lying or confused again. go read the challenger report, the solids continued burning and controls even recovered by they endangered the nearby communities.... so thust was terminated. by opening zipper like on the sides of each solid booster Which is basically what Fred said. *They activated the thrust termination because of the hazards of dropping a big flaming object on a liability lawyer's convention (that's a joke). Of course I can't parse your "and controls even recovered by" part. *If you're saying NASA regained flight control over the SRBs, that's simply wrong. *Their guidance was controlled by the orbiter. That said, as I recall, the exhaust itself was fairly acidic and I believe at least one case of a bunch of cars in the VAB parking lot basically getting "paint stripped" after a launch. *But that's the exhaust, not the fuel. -- Greg D. Moore * * * * * * * * *http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses.http://www.quicr.net 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....... 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.... solid exhaust is supposedly bad for the environment |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
radio range calculator | Eric[_29_] | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | February 3rd 08 12:10 AM |
Range of STA (747) ? | John Doe | Space Shuttle | 17 | January 4th 07 06:21 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 10:17 AM |