"Heavy lift: examining the requirements"

"Jon S. Berndt" wrote:

:Has an STS SRB ever failed (in flight or in test) "catastrophically"?
:For the STS SRB, human rating _was_ designed in.

And precisely what has been done to prevent the sort of
near-instantaneous failure modes to which solids are given?

Just because it HASN'T happened yet doesn't mean it CAN'T or WON'T
happen.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

"Jon S. Berndt" wrote:

:Regarding "Human Rating ..."
:
:Here is a more applicable document. It even deals with thrust
:termination issues.
:
:"Human-Rating Requirements and Guidelines for Space Flight Systems"
:http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~cdhall/course...8705_0002_.pdf

Not there.

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message

:"Human-Rating Requirements and Guidelines for Space Flight Systems"

:http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~cdhall/course..._PG_8705_0002_
..pdf

Not there.

Sorry. Looks like that whole user's account was made private or removed. Try
this:

http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayD...ge_na me=main

It leads to an MS Word doc.

Jon

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message

"Jon S. Berndt" wrote:

:Has an STS SRB ever failed (in flight or in test) "catastrophically"?
:For the STS SRB, human rating _was_ designed in.

And precisely what has been done to prevent the sort of
near-instantaneous failure modes to which solids are given?

Just because it HASN'T happened yet doesn't mean it CAN'T or WON'T
happen.

That goes without saying. I would assume that the SRBs underwent more
testing, and were designed with greater safety margins than other solid
boosters not meant for use in manned vehicle. Perhaps this is why the STS
SRBs have not (to date) failed near-instantaneously.

On a related note, I was wondering about catastrophic failures of both
liquid and solid rockets, and the relative likelihood of a successful abort
for each.

Jon

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
It would also need a new thrust termination system, since I believe
the current one is to blow the nose off. Not what you want to do if
there's something sitting up there.

Linear shaped charges split the casing lengthwise.

-Kim-

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 12:26:17 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Kim
Keller" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Linear shaped charges split the casing lengthwise.

That's not thrust termination--it's booster destruction.

No kidding. What do the simulations say that this would do to the ET and
orbiter?

My guess would be that the ET would fail structurally and the orbiter would
break up due to aerodynamic forces (if the flying bits of SRB and ET didn't
mortally wound it first).

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

"Jon S. Berndt" jsb.at.hal-pc-dot.org wrote:

:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
:
: "Jon S. Berndt" wrote:
:
: :Has an STS SRB ever failed (in flight or in test) "catastrophically"?
: :For the STS SRB, human rating _was_ designed in.
:
: And precisely what has been done to prevent the sort of
: near-instantaneous failure modes to which solids are given?
:
: Just because it HASN'T happened yet doesn't mean it CAN'T or WON'T
: happen.
:
:That goes without saying. I would assume that the SRBs underwent more
:testing, and were designed with greater safety margins than other solid
:boosters not meant for use in manned vehicle. Perhaps this is why the STS
:SRBs have not (to date) failed near-instantaneously.

So you are ASSUMING it was designed in. It wasn't. You are ASSUMING
they underwent a lot more testing. I don't think that's true, either.

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

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message

"Jon S. Berndt" jsb.at.hal-pc-dot.org wrote:

:That goes without saying. I would assume that the SRBs underwent more
:testing, and were designed with greater safety margins than other solid
:boosters not meant for use in manned vehicle. Perhaps this is why the STS
:SRBs have not (to date) failed near-instantaneously.

So you are ASSUMING it was designed in. It wasn't.

Yes, I was assuming. Your informative statement, "It wasn't." doesn't tell
me anything, other than you are maybe assuming it wasn't. I don't
necessarily disagree with you, but I'd be surprised. Do you have any
references?

You are ASSUMING
they underwent a lot more testing. I don't think that's true, either.

So, now, who's assuming? Perhaps not "more testing", but more testing aimed
specifically at the fact that the rockets would be used in human
spaceflight.

Jon

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message

It would also need a new thrust termination system, since I believe
the current one is to blow the nose off.

There is no such system.

Jon

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 12:26:17 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Kim
Keller" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
It would also need a new thrust termination system, since I believe
the current one is to blow the nose off. Not what you want to do if
there's something sitting up there.

Linear shaped charges split the casing lengthwise.

That's not thrust termination--it's booster destruction.