CEV and Stick

David Ball wrote:

Now I'm confused. I thought the SRB leak burned through the external
tank and the ET was what blew up.

The SRB leak burned through the *structure* of the tank. The external
tank *broke* up. Nothing "blew up" -- while the term "explosive burn"
is occasionally applied, the fireball was not an explosion.

See
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/...rs-commission/
Chapter-3.txt for a comprehensive description of what happened.

David Ball wrote:
On 15 Sep 2005 08:47:00 -0700, "
wrote:

Ray wrote:

The initial explosion of Challenger came from gas entering into the SSMEs,
but the SRBs did not cause the explosion. The SRBs did not explode first,
right?

You're partly correct, Ray. The SRBs did not explode prior to RSD, nor
did they cartwheel. However, it's incorrect to exclude the SRBs as a
cause of the explosion.

The SSMEs effectively destroyed themselves, from operating with an
oxygen-rich propellant mixture; but that was more a case of
insufficient hydrogen (the fuel) "entering into the SSMEs."

Now I'm confused.

No confusion was intended, at least on my part.

I thought the SRB leak burned through the external tank

That was the conclusion of the Rogers Commission, not mine. I blame a
tank-damaging SRB thrust imbalance at lift-off, followed by a worse
imbalance for the tank explosion (neither caused by a leaking SRB).

and the ET was what blew up.

It did, of course, but I've concluded that it was not the first thing
to do so. I believe an explosion of the right OMS pod barely preceded
it. (See, for example, www.mission51l.com.)

Challenger's Ghost

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 23:32:40 GMT, Alan Anderson
wrote:

David Ball wrote:

Now I'm confused. I thought the SRB leak burned through the external
tank and the ET was what blew up.

The SRB leak burned through the *structure* of the tank. The external
tank *broke* up. Nothing "blew up" -- while the term "explosive burn"
is occasionally applied, the fireball was not an explosion.

See
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/...rs-commission/
Chapter-3.txt for a comprehensive description of what happened.


I can see what you mean.

--------------------- Pasted Text --------------------------
Within milliseconds there was massive, almost explosive, burning of
the hydrogen streaming from the failed tank bottom and liquid oxygen
breach in the area of the intertank.

At this point in its trajectory, while traveling at a Mach number of
1.92 at an altitude of 46,000 feet, the Challenger was totally
enveloped in the explosive burn. The Challenger's reaction control
system ruptured and a hypergolic burn of its propellants occurred as
it exited the oxygen-hydrogen flames. The reddish brown colors of the
hypergolic fuel burn are visible on the edge of the main fireball.
The Orbiter, under severe aerodynamic loads, broke into several large
sections which emerged from the fireball. Separate sections that can
be identified on film include the main engine/tail section with the
engines still burning, one wing of the Orbiter, and the forward
fuselage trailing a mass of umbilical lines pulled loose from the
payload bay.
--------------------- Pasted Text --------------------------

But that first paragraph sure reminds me of the description of an FAE
like a MOAB or BLU-82 except for having it's own oxidizer.

http://www.answers.com/topic/thermobaric-weapon
http://www.redrat.net/BUSH_WAR/moab.htm

-- David

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 03:22:43 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

Nothing "blew up."

....No, but if his car would, with him in it, we'd all be a lot
happier.

OM

--

"Try Andre Dead Duck Canadian Champagne! | http://www.io.com/~o_m
Rated the lamest of the cheapest deported | Sergeant-At-Arms
brands by the Condemned in Killfile Hell!" | Human O-Ring Society

On 15 Sep 2005 07:10:32 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Early hints are that the plan is to develop an
SRB-based CEV launcher quickly to replace shuttle.
A Saturn V class shuttle derived launcher might
follow in a decade or so.

If that's the case, then it will never happen, since it will be quite
clear by then that it's unneeded.

Has anyone commented on the changes required for the SRB fuel burn? The
shuttle SRB burns 3 mil pounds of thrust for a couple minutes. Will the
Stick run a little less hot for a longer period of time? If not, what are
the g-forces associated with the Stick? 5 or 6 G's would end the era of the
citizen astronaut...


"Ray" wrote in message
news:u0eWe.11191$c27.7895@trndny01...

Has the final CEV design been chosen and what will it look like,
the
Lockheed design with small winglets or will it be a complete modular
design
like the Apollo spacecraft? As far as I know the launcher for the CEV
will
be a 2 stage launcher rocket composed of one solid rocket boster and one
J2S/SSME upper stage. I believe this configuration can send the CEV to
the
moon using the upper stage? Would it be possible to just use the SRB to
put
the CEV in orbit only?
I heard something about make two types of CEVs? I think they should just
make one CEV design.
I have read many posts in the past from people who dont like using the
shuttle parts, SRBs, SSME, in the new spacecraft but rather use
EELVs.(delta, titan, atlas) I dissagree, I believe the SRBs are safe.
The
initial explosion of Challenger came from gas entering into the SSMEs, but
the SRBs did not cause the explosion. The SRBs did not explode first,
right? ATK Thoikol said that SRBs donot explode. They burn at a
"perscribed
rate". Thats what it says somewhere on this website, which I like.

http://www.safesimplesoon.com/default.htm

Basically, I believe the SRBs are safer, cheaper and more powerfull than
a lot of hydrogen/oxygen engines.

" wrote in message
oups.com...
Ray wrote:

The initial explosion of Challenger came from gas entering into the
SSMEs,
but the SRBs did not cause the explosion. The SRBs did not explode
first,
right?

You're partly correct, Ray. The SRBs did not explode prior to RSD, nor
did they cartwheel. However, it's incorrect to exclude the SRBs as a
cause of the explosion.

The SSMEs effectively destroyed themselves, from operating with an
oxygen-rich propellant mixture; but that was more a case of
insufficient hydrogen (the fuel) "entering into the SSMEs."

Challenger's Ghost

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 17:49:20 -0500, in a place far, far away, David
Ball made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

The initial explosion of Challenger came from gas entering into the SSMEs,
but the SRBs did not cause the explosion. The SRBs did not explode first,
right?

You're partly correct, Ray. The SRBs did not explode prior to RSD, nor
did they cartwheel. However, it's incorrect to exclude the SRBs as a
cause of the explosion.

The SSMEs effectively destroyed themselves, from operating with an
oxygen-rich propellant mixture; but that was more a case of
insufficient hydrogen (the fuel) "entering into the SSMEs."

Challenger's Ghost

Now I'm confused. I thought the SRB leak burned through the external
tank and the ET was what blew up.\

Nothing "blew up."

The Shuttle was lost due to aerodynamic forces that destroyed the
structural integrity of the Orbiter, as a result of its separation
from the ET after it was destroyed by an impinging SRB.

David Ball wrote:


But that first paragraph sure reminds me of the description of an FAE
like a MOAB or BLU-82 except for having it's own oxidizer.





There are very high quality photos of the launch and break-up he
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...ns/q0122.shtml
It's really surprising just how intact the crew compartment stayed
during the break-up.

Pat

Rand Simberg wrote:

Nothing "blew up."

The Shuttle was lost due to aerodynamic forces that destroyed the
structural integrity of the Orbiter, as a result of its separation
from the ET after it was destroyed by an impinging SRB.

In a repeat of the Challenger accident, what would the crew survival
probability be, if they're in an inline mounted CEV (on top of an EDS
on top of the ET) with escape system.