Is a 5m SRB practical?

[dwightlooi]

<b>NASA seems set on using SRBs to fly humans into space.</b> This is not really that radical since Shuttles have flown every single mission with two SRBs strapped onto the tank anyway.<br /><br />The question is, IF this is to be the next generation system which we are going to fly for the next 30 years and shuttle derived or not, it is going to need radically revamped launch infrastructures if not totally new towers, <b>why not develop a the best vehicle for the job rather than trying to piece together something in a mickey mouse fashion using the existing parts bin and 1960s antiques?</b><br /><br /><b>If the idea is to fly men on SRBs, then lets build a proper SRB. The CEV will most likely be a 5m vehicle, so lets build a 5m SRB. In fact lets make the upper stage a solid engine as well!</b><br /><br /><b>An all solid launch vehicle has unique advantages. Launch readiness will be exceptional</b> In fact it will make a Soyuz look like a steam automobile. [Basically you manufacture them and store them ready to go. You can launch in 10 minutes if you want to.<br /><br />Solids have lousy IpSecs. But that is irrelevant since SRBs are very dense. You can make them very heavy without them being very big -- hence difficult to handle. You can have a 70m tall vehicle that is 5m in diameter. Yes, it'll weigh 5 times as much as a Delta IV. So what? The point is it will deliver a 20 ton payload into LEO, it will do it without turbo pumps, cooling, fragile insulation, fueling complexitiesm, etc. It will burn much more fuel by weight, but fuel is the cheapest thing in space flight. What costs an arm and a leg is the support services.