#31
|
|||
|
|||
Falcon 9 +SRB
Pat Flannery wrote:
On 6/8/2010 6:25 AM, Jeff Findley wrote: The scary thing about those Aerojet SRB's is the amount of vibration they produced. I'm not sure you'd ever be able to safely put people on top of such a beast. These SRB's make the shuttle SRB's look like toys. Wasn't this the test where the exhaust products took all the paint off of the cars they settled on? Pat Don't know about that, but I recall something like that happening after a shuttle launch to cars in the VAB parking lot. -- Greg Moore Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Falcon 9 +SRB
On Jun 9, 3:24�pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
On 6/9/2010 2:23 AM, Alan Erskine wrote: However, look at all the vibration-absorbing systems needed by Orion. That was because of the SRB problems. They should have spotted that problem right at the time the booster was first suggested; it wasn't like they didn't have any vibration data on the SRBs after all those Shuttle flights. Pat In a big rush tm payoff existing contractors maybe they didnt care? Or a conspiracy theory Pick solids knowing its a bad idea, in the hopes when the vibration cant be fixed, the shuttle program will continue, either long or short term. either way it may have been a upper level nasa attempt to retain jobs |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Falcon 9 +SRB
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Falcon 9 +SRB
On 6/9/2010 2:23 AM, Alan Erskine wrote:
However, look at all the vibration-absorbing systems needed by Orion. That was because of the SRB problems. They should have spotted that problem right at the time the booster was first suggested; it wasn't like they didn't have any vibration data on the SRBs after all those Shuttle flights. Pat |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Falcon 9 +SRB
Jeff Findley wrote: True. As the SRB's get bigger, the vibrations get bigger in amplitude and the frequencies get lower. Both of these are a bad thing, especially when the frequencies get low enough to approach a natural frequency of the launch vehicle structure. But as the SRB's get bigger, one can expect the launch vehicle to also get bigger and the natural frequencies of the launch vehicle to get lower. So, I agree with you that as the SRB's get bigger the bigger amplitude of their vibrations make the problem grow, but the lower frequencies are not necessarily more problematic. This is not to say that I think large SRB's are a good thing, far from it. Just that it is good to know the real reasons why they are a bad thing. Alain Fournier |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Falcon 9 +SRB
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 10:25:39 GMT, Alan Erskine
wrote: On 9/06/2010 12:38 AM, Jeff Findley wrote: It would be interesting to find out if Alan's assertion has any truth behind it. How about it Alan, care to back up your assertion with a cite? There's a more practical reason for not using the SRB - it's 40-year-old technology. Uh, how old are YOU, Jeff? She we all have not listened to von Braun because he was over 40 ? Old technology doesn't mean bad technology. There are lots of good reasons why solids are a bad idea (vibe, abrupt and violent failure modes, etc), and the were just as bad an idea when tbey were new as they are now. -- Done By Droid. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Falcon 9 +SRB
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Falcon 9 On Pad | Damon Hill[_4_] | History | 12 | February 28th 10 04:13 AM |
New Falcon 1 now on pad | Pat Flannery | Policy | 10 | September 23rd 08 08:32 PM |
New Falcon 1 now on pad | Pat Flannery | History | 10 | September 23rd 08 08:32 PM |
Falcon 9 questions | Iain McClatchie | Technology | 3 | September 15th 05 09:36 AM |
Falcon 1 to Pad | [email protected] | Policy | 14 | October 23rd 04 02:10 AM |