SRB stick launch vehicles

[pmn1]

When was this idea first looked at at NASA and why has it apparently taken so long for NASA to publically announce such a possibility as I have a May/June 1999 Journal of the British Interplanetary Society article that describes such a launcher (with some additions for re-use) by Carl A Carrouche (Phoenix USA).<br /><br /><font color="yellow">'A recoverable Orbital Launch Vehicle is proposed configured along the lines of a commercially successful, expendible launch vehicle. The reusable lower stage is composed of a single, Space Shuttle SRB. The upper stage is propelled by a single SSME and attains orbit with a 50,000lb payload. The upper stage is further developed in such a way so it can easily be configured into a reentry vehicle whilst in orbit. Having survived reentry but while still high in the atmosphere, the vehcle then divides into two serparte components. Taking full advantage of serendipity, it is discovered that both components are naturally shaped in such a way so that each part is capable of surviving the impact of landing uopn the ocean's surface, thus solving the paramount problem of eusability.</font>/safety_wrapper> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

Simple -- because it takes time for a concept to move from a concept to a plan. NASA did not make the decision now in a vacuum; it's something that's been pondered for quite a long time. There were lots other concepts touted as well, but of course they aren't going ahead like this one is. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[pmn1]

<font color="yellow">because it takes time for a concept to move from a concept to a plan. NASA did not make the decision now in a vacuum; it's something that's been pondered for quite a long time. There were lots other concepts touted as well, but of course they aren't going ahead like this one is.</font><br /><br />If Challenger had made it to orbit in 1986 but had been brought down on re-entry for the same reason as Columbia would something like the current proposals have been around to propose and would we see parts of it in use today? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[pmn1]

Am I right in assuming the current plans would still be possible if LRB's were used instead of SRB's in the original STS - the LRB's have got to produce at least equal performance to the SRB's they replace... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[lampblack]

<font color="yellow">Am I right in assuming the current plans would still be possible if LRB's were used instead of SRB's in the original STS - the LRB's have got to produce at least equal performance to the SRB's they replace... </font><br /><br />Theoretically it would be possible -- but developing them would add extra billions of dollars to the cost.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Maybe my memory is faulty on all this. What was your impression, Calli? I seem to recall that you could get flamed if you suggested using solids as part of any future launch vehicle, let alone a main part.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />That's my recollection too. Even now, there's a reluctance for many members to bless this plan because of its reliance on solids. Of course, the community here isn't neccesarily reflective of the larger aerospace community. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> There evidently was more support for solids within the aerospace community than there ever was here. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[najab]

><i>I seem to recall that you could get flamed if you suggested using solids as part of any future launch vehicle, let alone a main part.</i><p>Pretty much. It has been pretty much verboten to talk about using solids to launch humans since the early days of Von Braun. But once you accept that that is exactly what we have been doing for the last 20+ years with the Shuttle, why not continue to do it?</p>

 

[drwayne]

I think I caught the solid-phobia in kidhood from my father. Maybe it is genetic. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[spacester]

I've resisted til now, but I’ll give in to the temptation . . . <br />[ego trip]<br />The truth is there have been a number of former 'accepted truisms' here that found their way to the trashcan.<br /><br />There was a time here when I was the only one supporting the X-prize against those seeing it as a scam or foolish or meaningless or whatever. I was the only one saying that Soyuz would fly til 2010. I was one of the very few insisting that ISS would go beyond ‘Core Complete’. I was the sole crusader for space tourism until Tito showed up. I recently predicted SpaceX will never blow up a rocket.<br /><br />There have been a number of reversals in accepted wisdom here that went uncommented on. Not just my unconventional thinking by a long shot of course, and I've made some incorrect predictions as well (‘CRV is not dead’ being the worst failure <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> ). It would be fun to go back in the archives (even if too narcissistic) . . .<br /><br />I almost never come back to do the old "I told you so" thing, but hey, here’s one now. Sorry, at least now I've gotten it out my system for at least a few months. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br />[/ego trip]<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

The solid rocket industry has indeed done a fabulous job of making the SRB's for the shuttle as safe as they are, and I am indeed willing to see them used for the VSE. But Von Braun DID have very good reasons for picking liquid rocket motors over solid motors.<br /><br />At the time of the late 1950's and 1960's there was relatively little knowledge of statistical process control (SPC) and total quality management (TQM) methods. This was at that time a very large problem in large solid rocket motors, and Von Braun knew this!<br /><br />The problem was that if you tested a solid rocket motor you lost the very motor you were testing, it was gone! Now then, this meant (and still means) that you had to totally depend on the ability of your manufacturing methods to keep the many factors involved in building such motors exactly the same as a successfully tested rocket motor. This is a very, very difficult thing to do, even with the use of advanced quality control methods! However, using these methods the solid motor people manufacturing the SRB’s for the STS system have truly done a commendable job!<br /><br />However, solid motors will NEVER be as safe as liquids, and back thirty years ago were absolutely not as safe. I can take a liquid engine, run a total test for that engine of the entire time for a launch, AND THEN USE THAT VERY SAME ENGINE FOR THE ACTUAL LAUNCH VEHICLE! I say this with great passion, as it is the heart of the matter, and once again Von Braun, being the great rocket scientist that he was, knew it!<br /><br />Even for ELV liquid rocket engines Rocketdyne (and I would imagine this to be a practice of Pratt & Whitney and Aerojet, in the past at least the other two main liquid rocket engine manufacturers in America) manufactures, there is a "Green Run" made of about 60 seconds at full thrust (and believe me if something is going to go wrong with such an engine it is 99.9% sure to happen in this time frame). If this test is successful that very engine

 

[drwayne]

I understood and understand.<br /><br />The process for assembling a solid rocket depends of getting the grain right each and every time - so process repeatability is next to godliness.<br /><br />In the early days, there were a very finite number of failures in air force program with case burn throughs and the like, and those were in solids significantly smaller than the SRB's.<br /><br />The other thing though, the main thing actually that bothered me was of course the fact that, once you light a solid, your a pretty much along for the ride, you can't (gracefully) shut the thing down.<br /><br />Now, the failure modes in which one would be called upon to do that - I don't know - but it certainly seemed to give you less flexibility.<br /><br />At least, that is what the old man taught this whippper snapper.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[pmn1]

Presumably the boosters on this<br /><br />http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/shulelrb.htm<br /><br />would have been just as capable of being used as the first stage of a launch vehicle (and without the comments on an apparent top-heavyness).<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>There have been a number of reversals in accepted wisdom here that went uncommented on. Not just my unconventional thinking by a long shot of course, and I've made some incorrect predictions as well (‘CRV is not dead’ being the worst failure ). It would be fun to go back in the archives (even if too narcissistic) . . . <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Well, unfortunately (or fortunately, as the case may be <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> ), many of our bigger blunders were destroyed in the Great Crash.<br /><br />I think my biggest was insisting that RTF would occur by autumn of 2003.... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>