|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle cross-range Q.
On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 16:26:03 -0800 (PST), bob haller
wrote: look at challengers videos, after the vehicle disengrated, the solids were burning at odd angles, a announcer said guidance came back, Cite, please. No such comment was ever made. Listen to Greg: the SRBs were controlled BY THE ORBITER. They had no guidance computers of their own. All they had was systems to carry out the instructions (i.e., gimballing) sent to them by the Orbiter. When Challenger broke up, control was lost. the solids straightened up the contrails showed the control change, No, they didn't, Bob. They were spinning around out of control until thrust termination. I was there. I remember it clearly. after that range safety ordered the solids destroyed, Because as they were spinning around, they looked like they might start spinning back toward land. Consider this: if they had control over the SRBs, why would they destruct them? That just made the investigation much more difficult. If they really had control, they would have just directed them out to sea until natural burnout. i believe its a zipper like opening on the side. No, it was blowing the top off, reducing chamber pressure to zero and therefore ending powered flight. ....... apparently the solids were endangering the area....... Which by no means equals "toxic fuel endangering the area." there was a non manned vehicle which failed on launch 10 seconds after launch. The 1997 Delta II explosion. dropping parts of burning solds on cars in the parking lot, it said this was very dangerous.... Flaming debris falling from the sky is dangerous, Bob. It doesn't matter what the material is (plain old rubber or toxic chemicals.) solid exhaust is supposedly bad for the environment In large quantities, but KSC doesn't seem to be an environmental dead zone after 30 years of Shuttle launches. Quite the opposite. Brian |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle cross-range Q.
solid exhaust is supposedly bad for the environment In large quantities, but KSC doesn't seem to be an environmental dead zone after 30 years of Shuttle launches. Quite the opposite. Brian the solids noxious chemicals werent just at KSC, they were released as long as the boosters fired. and probably some got dispersed into the ocean |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle cross-range Q.
Brian Thorn wrote:
after that range safety ordered the solids destroyed, i believe its a zipper like opening on the side. No, it was blowing the top off, reducing chamber pressure to zero and therefore ending powered flight. No. That is an accurate description of thrust termination in a solid rocket, but that's not what the range safety system in the shuttle SRB's does; it actually does split the rocket motor along its length and fragment it into many pieces. "The Command Destruct System (Fig. 4-1) ... consists of a dual linear- shaped charge (LSC) running longitudinally along the outboard side of the cylindrical case from the intersection with the forward dome (XB 531) to the ET attach ring (XB 1491)." "Upon severing the solid rocket motor (SRM) skin along 70 percent of its length, the internal pressure created by the burning propellant is sufficient to open the SRB case and propellant grain in a clamshell-like fashion. This now weakened SRB structure breaks along seven major segment joints. The six cylindrical segments of the motor case cut by the LSC break into twelve pieces, each segment breaking in half at the clamshell hinge. The forward frustum and skirt and the aft case and nozzle separate as individual large pieces: The equipment tunnel and its contents also contribute to fragment production." From NSWC TR 80-417 SPACE SHUTTLE RANGE SAFETY COMMAND DESTRUCT SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND VERIFICATION PHASE III - BREAKUP OF SPACE SHUTTLE CLUSTER VIA RANGE SAFETY COMMAND DESTRUCT SYSTEM http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA103530 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle cross-range Q.
Fred J. McCall wrote:
I'd like a cite to your claim as to NASA saying they activated thrust termination (there is no 'self destruct') on the solids ... Actually, they don't use thrust termination; there really is a self destruct in the SRB's. See my response to Brian for the cite. (Of course, there's no cite for the other nonsense you were responding to...) |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle cross-range Q.
On Dec 17, 2:56*am, Philip Lantz wrote:
Fred J. McCall wrote: I'd like a cite to your claim as to NASA saying they activated thrust termination (there is no 'self destruct') on the solids ... Actually, they don't use thrust termination; there really is a self destruct in the SRB's. See my response to Brian for the cite. (Of course, there's no cite for the other nonsense you were responding to...) well I beleve everyone agrees they did the self destruct to prevent the solids from endangering nearby residents. and watch the videos of the challenger loss.olids go in all directions but then do start flying up. the contrails show what occured |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle cross-range Q.
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle cross-range Q.
"bob haller" wrote in message
... 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....... Even if the announcer said that, it doesn't mean a thing. The announcer also initially said, "we have apparently have a major malfunction." The announcer is not an accident expert and anything they said at the time should be taken with a grain of salt. -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle cross-range Q.
On Monday, December 17, 2012 9:11:01 AM UTC-5, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote: 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,... Utter bull****. ... 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....... IMPACT danger, not danger from toxic solid fuel, as you've maintained. Why not just admit you were wrong rather than trying to weasel word your way out of it? 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.... Yes, chunks of burning ANYTHING falling on your head can be dangerous. solid exhaust is supposedly bad for the environment Well, it's burning rubber and aluminum, isn't it? However, the FUEL is just pretty non-toxic and stable. It's something like 98% butadiene rubber. Once again, your claims that solid fuel is toxic are utter and absolute bull****. -- "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 A mild correction is due he The propellant used was 69.6% ammonium perchlorate, 16% aluminum, 0.4% iron oxide, 12.04% rubber binder, and 1.96% epoxy. The perchlorate was the oxidizer while the aluminum was primary fuel witht he rubber being secondary fuel. The iron oxide was a catalyst and the epoxy was a cross linker to stabilize the solid mass. The exhaust was no doubt a wild mix of chemicals for a bit but upon cooling would be largely aluminum oxides and aluminum chlorohydrate. The latter stuff is the same stuff you rub under your arms to keep from sweating heavily. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
radio range calculator | Eric[_29_] | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | February 3rd 08 12:10 AM |
Range of STA (747) ? | John Doe | Space Shuttle | 17 | January 4th 07 06:21 AM |
Range violation | JoKudabada | Space Shuttle | 2 | July 2nd 06 02:40 AM |
Down range thunderstorm | Craig Fink | Space Shuttle | 2 | July 1st 06 09:24 PM |
Why is Einstein's Cross a cross? | Robin Leadbeater | UK Astronomy | 1 | November 4th 03 10:17 AM |