Can the disaster be avoided if.........

[nacnud]

Fire in VAB?

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"Fire in VAB?"</font><br /><br />Yeah, that would be bad. Bye-bye VAB <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" />.<br /><br />But what I'm looking for here is an inflight failure scenario that is unique to a solid propellant motor. Or rather a failure scenario that makes solid motors inherently more dangerous than liquid engines. Both types have catastrophic failure modes, and maybe I'm beating a dead horse here, but why would there be any more concern over using solids versus liquids in a CLV? Just because Dr. Von Braun didn't like them?<br /><br />On second thought, maybe the possibility of a fire in the VAB <b><i>is</i></b> a good reason to go with liquids. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[drwayne]

The main difference many see is the fact that it is possible to actively throttle a liquid back in flight, if needed *possibly* making some abort scenarios easier to survive.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[ascan1984]

What would have been the consequences of a liquid fueled SRB to the space Shuttle program. Am i right in saying it would be more expencive and heavier to launch?

 

[henryhallam]

I think a Liquid Fueled Solid Rocket Booster would be quite an accomplishment <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />As for using liquid boosters <i>instead of</i> SRBs for Shuttle, in principle they are more complicated machines so I would expect them to be more expensive. Certainly more difficult or impossible to recover & reuse. However due to better Isp they might improve performance, and would make certain abort modes easier. For the same thrust and burn time I think I would expect LRBs to be a bit lighter than SRBs.

 

[ascan1984]

Thankyou for the information. Wasthe only reason we did not go for liquid the development times and costs were greater?

 

[ascan1984]

Allot of the heartbreaking interviews of the challenger disaster launch team and people viewing the launch say that they watched for quite a time to see if Challenger would fly out of the cloud for RTLS abort. WHat if it did that day?

 

[ascan1984]

Everyone was just hanging onto a glimmer of hope that sadly never came true.

 

[scottb50]

In the Challenger case I have heard repeatedly that the crew survived the explosion and died either from the loss of atmosphere in the cabin or even impact with the water. I would think if this was the case they would probably have seen indications of a problem and possibly could have manually escaped if they had had the capability. True it would have been different with Columbia, but if they had passed through the maximum heating before the airframe failed an escape vehicle might have worked in that case also. There were indications manual control was taken in the last seconds. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Swampcat]

Thanks to SG and newsartist for their answers to my questions. I pretty much knew most of the points you guys brought up, but it just seems to me that catastrophic failure is not unique to a solid motor and a lot of people have expressed, what appeared to me at least, rather irrational dismay at NASA's choice for the CLV. The fact that there have been no STS SRB failures that would likely result in a LOC with the CLV perhaps gave me a false sense of confidence in the system.<br /><br />I'm beginning to think that NASA's decision to go this route, though a very interesting and workable approach, is rather shortsighted and more politically motivated than I at first perceived.<br /><br />Of course there's the cost concerns, so maybe it's still a good decision for the near term, but it seems to me that it would be wise for NASA to give serious consideration to liquid propellant alternatives for the long run. I'm not saying NASA isn't doing this. I'm sure they are. Just thinking out loud <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[barf9]

and the voice at mission control was so calm... it seemed like it was just a regular part of the launch.

 

[slidelock]

Umm, Shuttle Guy, I thought the French had solved the problem of solid fuel booster shutdown after lightoff. I believe they blow off the nose cone which allows the hollow booster to vent in both directions, effectively cancelling boost. After that, ejection of the booster is possible. Dont know how well thats worked for the Ariane, dont follow the Ariane program much.

 

[slidelock]

Thanks Shuttle guy<br />I suppose I was asking whether you think that technology shoud have been incorporated into the Shuttle? Also have you ever read the novel "Shuttle Down"? I understand the Author is no longer on NASA Managements' christmas card list. although there were changes made as a result of the book, Easter Island for instance.

 

[tzero]

"Easter Island has never been a Shuttle Orbiter contingency landing site."<br /><br />Actually Easter Island was a contingency site in support of Vandenberg Launches. Post Challenger that was obviously not an issue anymore...

 

[drwayne]

And in general, thrust terminating a still very much thrusting large solid rocket is not a gentle process, pretty much regardless of how you do it.<br /><br />I have been associated with some other missiles that thrust terminated late in their profile, which was easier to do.<br /><br />Wayne<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

I have seen some references that refer to it as an "Emergency Site", but I am not sure how tight they are being with their use of the words.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

It looks like the military extended the runway for it, thats about all I saw...<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[tzero]

"Ok, thanks I was not aware of that. I guess the Air Force had no other choice, I can not think of any where else that was even a possibility. <br /><br />Was it a contingency site or an emergency site? "<br /><br /><br />I believe Easter Island would have been a TAL site for the Vandy launches. I have seen little documentation and It was so long ago. I do recall that the letters TAL were changed to "Trans-Oceanic Abort Landing" from "Trans-Atlantic Landing" to try and reduce confusion.

 

[john_316]

Does anyone consider the Delta IV Heavy Outer 2 Stages used in the Delta Heavy as Liquid Fueled Rocket Boosters now? <br /><br />Just a question....<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />