Using Shuttle SRB technology

With the demise of the shuttle program, there may be a large capacity
to make shuttle SRB going to waste. Why not make non-re-usable SRB
for commercial purposes? Non-re-usable would greatly reduce the cost.

On Feb 5, 1:25�pm, Frogwatch wrote:
With the demise of the shuttle program, there may be a large capacity
to make shuttle SRB going to waste. �Why not make non-re-usable SRB
for commercial purposes? �Non-re-usable would greatly reduce the cost.

I doubt it would save much Reusing today costs about the same as new
every time. Considering costs of recovery etc

If non reusable had great saving NASA would of proposed it as a
shuttle upgrade

"Frogwatch" wrote in message
...
With the demise of the shuttle program, there may be a large capacity
to make shuttle SRB going to waste. Why not make non-re-usable SRB
for commercial purposes? Non-re-usable would greatly reduce the cost.

Ask yourself, if it's such a great idea, why hasn't anyone done it before?


--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

On Feb 5, 1:25*pm, Frogwatch wrote:
With the demise of the shuttle program, there may be a large capacity
to make shuttle SRB going to waste. *Why not make non-re-usable SRB
for commercial purposes? *Non-re-usable would greatly reduce the cost.



There is a limited supply of the casings.

They aren't cheap

Me wrote:
On Feb 5, 1:25 pm, Frogwatch wrote:
With the demise of the shuttle program, there may be a large capacity
to make shuttle SRB going to waste. Why not make non-re-usable SRB
for commercial purposes? Non-re-usable would greatly reduce the cost.



There is a limited supply of the casings.

They aren't cheap

Didn't they propose a non-reusable lightweight casing made out of
composites for the Shuttle at one point?

Pat

On Feb 6, 12:58*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
Me wrote:
On Feb 5, 1:25 pm, Frogwatch wrote:
With the demise of the shuttle program, there may be a large capacity
to make shuttle SRB going to waste. *Why not make non-re-usable SRB
for commercial purposes? *Non-re-usable would greatly reduce the cost.

Me wrote:
Didn't they propose a non-reusable lightweight casing made out of
composites for the Shuttle at one point?

Pat

Yes, for VAFB and Constellation was looking at them.

I did some reading up on that after my posting.
The field joints on the filament-wound booster became the basis of the
design used on the current SRBs when they were redesigned after
Challenger was lost.

Pat

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...
Me wrote:
On Feb 5, 1:25 pm, Frogwatch wrote:
With the demise of the shuttle program, there may be a large capacity
to make shuttle SRB going to waste. Why not make non-re-usable SRB
for commercial purposes? Non-re-usable would greatly reduce the cost.



There is a limited supply of the casings.

They aren't cheap

Didn't they propose a non-reusable lightweight casing made out of
composites for the Shuttle at one point?

Yes, from dim memory:

The ASRM program used a different supplier for the composite wound casings.
I'm not certain how far the rogram actually got before it was cancelled.
The casings promised to be lighter, and would therefore increase the payload
capacity of the shuttle stack, particularly to high inclination orbits (e.g.
polar orbits launched from Vandenburg). With the demise of Vandenburg as a
launch site, the motivation for the project quickly evaporated.

From the web:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/...s/sts-asrm.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/stages/shueasrm.htm

The NASA technical documents server has at least 7 papers on the ASRM:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?Ns=HarvestDate|1&N=4294888953+280&Ntk=a ll&Ntx=mode%20matchall&Ntt=asrm
There are a total of 7 record(s) matching your query.
Sorted by: Date Added To NTRS in Descending order

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon

On Feb 9, 10:58*am, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message

dakotatelephone...

Me wrote:
On Feb 5, 1:25 pm, Frogwatch wrote:
With the demise of the shuttle program, there may be a large capacity
to make shuttle SRB going to waste. *Why not make non-re-usable SRB
for commercial purposes? *Non-re-usable would greatly reduce the cost.

There is a limited supply of the casings.

They aren't cheap

Didn't they propose a non-reusable lightweight casing made out of
composites for the Shuttle at one point?

Yes, from dim memory:

The ASRM program used a different supplier for the composite wound casings.
I'm not certain how far the rogram actually got before it was cancelled.
The casings promised to be lighter, and would therefore increase the payload
capacity of the shuttle stack, particularly to high inclination orbits (e..g.
polar orbits launched from Vandenburg). *With the demise of Vandenburg as a
launch site, the motivation for the project quickly evaporated.


Hercules (ATK) was the supplier for the FWC SRM
Aerojet was the supplier for the ASRM

On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 10:58:20 -0500, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:

composites for the Shuttle at one point?

Yes, from dim memory:

The ASRM program used a different supplier for the composite wound casings.
I'm not certain how far the rogram actually got before it was cancelled.
The casings promised to be lighter, and would therefore increase the payload
capacity of the shuttle stack, particularly to high inclination orbits (e.g.
polar orbits launched from Vandenburg). With the demise of Vandenburg as a
launch site, the motivation for the project quickly evaporated.

I think you're confusing Filament-wound Solid Rocket Booster with the
Advanced Solid Rocket Motor. FWSRB was a composite casing version of
the standard SRB intended to improve Vandenberg performance and
vanished without a trace after 51L. ASRM was a later program intended
to increase payload for Space Station missions using a slightly
greater diameter steel casing made up of three segments (one fewer
field joint.)

Brian