|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
"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_ 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 |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
"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- |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers | Cris Fitch | Technology | 40 | March 24th 04 04:28 PM |
High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers | Cris Fitch | Policy | 82 | March 24th 04 04:28 PM |
Heavy Lift launcher is allready here | serge | Policy | 27 | February 13th 04 06:03 PM |
Twin ET-derived heavy lift vehicule? | Remy Villeneuve | Technology | 0 | January 10th 04 09:56 PM |
"Off the shelf" heavy lift??? | Phil Paisley | Technology | 3 | November 23rd 03 06:49 AM |