Ridin' "The Stick": Dangerous, Complex, Cancelled?

[vogon13]

<img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Was told to never ever talk about the orbiter 1 APU scenario.<br /><br />Company has had enough PR problems without speculation getting out and wreaking more havoc.<br /><br />Forgot about all the valves, did do some work on the liguid hydrogen recirculation pump (loved the handle we had for it, "lurp"). Good old LHRP keeps engines cool before the big zorch at ignition.<br /><br /><br />Can't remember, does APU supply hydraulics to landing gear? RSB and BF in on the APU action too.<br /><br />Love watching the IR camera of the landings and watching the APU exhaust belching out.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[trailrider]

S-G,<br />Aren't those nozzles flexible joint type, with alternating steel and "rubber" rings?<br /><br />Re: bending on the SRB joints. A source "who should know" was asked that very question at the recent Mars Society Convention, during a presentation of a concept that has turned out to be "it". Said the bending would be LESS than on current "Navajo stack" (MY terminology) configuration with the orbiter hanging on the side. BTW, "samesource" is no longer holding a job where he was, but now has a different boss further east! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Re: recovery of the SRB. Samesource said larger main chutes may be considered. Those would have to be SOME chutes, as the current mains are 136 ft dia. (3 each booster). Not sure where they'd put them as the chute packs fit in pretty snug in the frustum of each SRB. Of course, they'd now be in the interstage. Not sure how they'd have to be packed as the SRM dia. will remain the same as on the Shuttle boosters.<br /><br />Re: allowing fins to "break off at water impact". You don't do it that way. You probably need to separate them before drogue deployment, which is necessary to orient the booster tail-first so the mains won't foul on deployment.<br /><br />Re: staging. Samesource was asked if Thrust Termination (TT) was being considered, and answered they would probably use current separation motors, but oriented nozzle-up to back the SRB (SRM? Stage I? whatever) away from the rest of the vehicle. TT would require redesign and TT ports require ordnance and software in control circuits and that opens up a whole other bucket of worms.<br /><br />Re: roll control for the "Stick" stack. Didn't have specifics, but "samesource" thought they might do something on the interstage or higher up. (Hmmm! How about carbon vanes in the exhaust stream? They'd have to be h--l for stout, but if they worked for "Uncle" Werner.... <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> )<br /><br />On another topic: How about that LO

 

[bwhite]

shuttle_guy answers<br /><br />"Might ATK move to composites or other 21st century material for at least part of the stick and go disposable?"<br /><br /><i>The name of the game for the Exploration plan is no new technology development to same time and money.<br />If the program costs too much there will not be a program. Save the enhancements for a later time.</i><br /><br />= = =<br /><br />Fair enough, for now. <br /><br />But for a cargo-only stick based supply rocket, removing steel from a 5 segment RSRM and adding composites should drive down the cost per lb to LEO, perhaps rapidly.

 

[davp99]

I don't know about anyone else, but i could read this stuff all day long, You Guys and Gal are a Wealth Of Knowledge, You Answer so many questions i usually have , thanx for Sharing ...<img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="4">Dave..</font> </div>