![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The solid rocket boosters do not produce maximum thrust at all times.
In part this is to avoid excess aerodynamic forces, and in part this is to avoid excess G forces. I understand these things. What I don't understand is the following: At times the SRBs could produce more thrust yet don't, and at the same time the main engines are at less than minimum throttle. In other words, the designers could have had the SRBs produce XXX pounds more thrust, and the main engines produce the same XXX less thrust, and have chosen not to do so. Shifting the thrust from the main engines to the SRBs would result in an increase in payload since it increases the staging effect. The only limits I can think of being the throttleability of the main engines and the maximum thrust capacity of the SRBs. Obviously, the designers have already thought of this, and chose not to do so. I assume there must be some practical reason. What is it? -Thanks |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
Charles Talleyrand wrote: The solid rocket boosters do not produce maximum thrust at all times. In part this is to avoid excess aerodynamic forces, and in part this is to avoid excess G forces. I understand these things. [...] Shifting the thrust from the main engines to the SRBs would result in an increase in payload since it increases the staging effect. The only limits I can think of being the throttleability of the main engines and the maximum thrust capacity of the SRBs. As fuel is burned, the total weight of the stack is reduced, so if you keep the thrust constant you will get ever increasing accelation. The construction of the SRBs is such that at launch you get max thrust and as the fuel is consumed your thrust is reduced. Essentially with SRBs, the exposed surface area of the fuel determines the rate with which it is burned and hence the thrust (I am ignoring fuel mix issues here, although the composition of the fuel is also varied to control thrust). By shaping the fuel as spikes facing towards the the vertical axis of the booster you initially have large surface area (and high thrust). As fuel is consumed the spikes flatten, reducing surface area, hence rate of burn, hence thrust. The problem with the SRBs is that the thrust profile is determined when they are manufactured (using the shape and composition of the fuel). So their behaviour cannot be altered once they are fired (apart from limited vectoring). The SMEs are used to adapt the thrust profile to the prevailing circustances. Of course the wide difference in thrust between the SRBs and the SMEs, limits this margin. **vp |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New Launch Schedule | Mark Lopa | Space Shuttle | 4 | October 15th 03 06:29 PM |
SRB Thrust Profile | Charles Talleyrand | Space Shuttle | 7 | October 15th 03 01:01 PM |
51-L: Relative Thrust at RSD | John Maxson | Space Shuttle | 26 | August 22nd 03 03:43 PM |
Return to flight schedule | Doug... | Space Science Misc | 0 | August 15th 03 02:15 AM |
Woo hoo! New patent ... | Scott Lowther | Space Shuttle | 4 | July 3rd 03 06:09 PM |