ATK/NASA investigating void issue in SLS test motor segment

ATK/NASA investigating void issue in SLS test motor segment
September 5, 2013 by Chris Bergin
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/...ssue-sls-test-
motor-segment/

Not fully baked. This is especially troubling since last I read, SLS
SRB's will not be fitted with parachutes for recovery. It's going to be
awfully hard to inspect them when they're at the bottom of the Atlantic.
This means any future changes will have to be validated only by static
test firings and telemetry.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...



ATK/NASA investigating void issue in SLS test motor segment
September 5, 2013 by Chris Bergin
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/...ssue-sls-test-
motor-segment/

Not fully baked. This is especially troubling since last I read, SLS
SRB's will not be fitted with parachutes for recovery. It's going to be
awfully hard to inspect them when they're at the bottom of the Atlantic.
This means any future changes will have to be validated only by static
test firings and telemetry.

I think this is one of the big things people overlook with the SRB recovery.
Yeah, economically it arguably wasn't worth it. BUT, from a
testing/validation POV it was hugely worth it. I've got to believe it
greatly helped with Challenger, especially since they knew there was a
problem to look for.

Sometimes you just need the good old Mark I eyeball directly on the
hardware.



Jeff

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

On 12/09/2013 1:28 AM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...



ATK/NASA investigating void issue in SLS test motor segment
September 5, 2013 by Chris Bergin
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/...ssue-sls-test-
motor-segment/

Not fully baked. This is especially troubling since last I read, SLS
SRB's will not be fitted with parachutes for recovery. It's going to be
awfully hard to inspect them when they're at the bottom of the Atlantic.
This means any future changes will have to be validated only by static
test firings and telemetry.

I think this is one of the big things people overlook with the SRB
recovery. Yeah, economically it arguably wasn't worth it. BUT, from a
testing/validation POV it was hugely worth it. I've got to believe it
greatly helped with Challenger, especially since they knew there was a
problem to look for.

Shame they hadn't learnt from what they could see of the o-ring erosion
before that process destroyed Challenger.

Sylvia.

In article ,
Sylvia Else wrote:

On 12/09/2013 1:28 AM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...



ATK/NASA investigating void issue in SLS test motor segment
September 5, 2013 by Chris Bergin
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/...ssue-sls-test-
motor-segment/

Not fully baked. This is especially troubling since last I read, SLS
SRB's will not be fitted with parachutes for recovery. It's going to be
awfully hard to inspect them when they're at the bottom of the Atlantic.
This means any future changes will have to be validated only by static
test firings and telemetry.

I think this is one of the big things people overlook with the SRB
recovery. Yeah, economically it arguably wasn't worth it. BUT, from a
testing/validation POV it was hugely worth it. I've got to believe it
greatly helped with Challenger, especially since they knew there was a
problem to look for.

Shame they hadn't learnt from what they could see of the o-ring erosion
before that process destroyed Challenger.

Sylvia.

Having worked 20+ years with solid rocket missiles, I have seen a
multitude of glitches that can crop up with them. I thought the NASA
decision to go with them was a huge mistake.

On 9/12/2013 1:28 PM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

Having worked 20+ years with solid rocket missiles, I have seen a
multitude of glitches that can crop up with them. I thought the NASA
decision to go with them was a huge mistake.


What's you opinion on hybrid motors?

Dave

In article ,
David Spain wrote:

On 9/12/2013 1:28 PM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

Having worked 20+ years with solid rocket missiles, I have seen a
multitude of glitches that can crop up with them. I thought the NASA
decision to go with them was a huge mistake.


What's you opinion on hybrid motors?

Dave

Similar game. The problem is with consistency of the mix -- except that
you now have control of the oxidizer.

With hybrids you still have problems with grain cracks, insulation and
large pressure vessels.