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

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.

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

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......

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

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

'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

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

"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

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