Two STS what iffs

[pmn1]

Two STS what ifs.<br /><br />1.What if there had been a catastrophic failure during one of the SRB static tests caused by a segment join failure?<br /><br />2.What if there had been an earlier catastrophic failure of a STS launch caused by SRB segment join failure – end 1982, 1983 at the latest?<br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

They might have developed the political pressure to go with a monolithic design instead, either forcing Thiokol do do so, or going with a better contractor, like Aerojet, which had monolithic SRB construction facilities in Florida, rather than Utah.<br /><br />A problem was that the 80's were the Reagan years, and with Utah being one of the solidly republican states, its congressional delegation had incumbency and seniority to command leadership seats on space-related committees. Thiokol had a lock on the contract even if they delivered dog crap.

 

[qso1]

On question 1, if that had occured before Challenger, NASA would probably have grounded the shuttle until the problem was fixed. The grounding would have been far shorter than the post 51-L grounding because NASA would have been able to pinpoint the failure to an SRB joint.<br /><br />2.....I personally think the shuttle would have been cancelled at that point because that period was one of our weakest for human spaceflight support. In addition, the shuttle scheduling problems were already pretty serious by 1982s end.<br /><br />But thats my opinion because I also thought a second disaster would shut shuttle down. It very nearly did but ISS has given us the reason to continue. Not so much ISS itself but the politics of international agreements, specifically that we cannot backout of shuttle because it would give ISS to Russia essentially and if we cancel our role in ISS. Our allie's will question future agreements with us. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[hopenpj]

You don't think given our current administration that other governments are not already questioning the sanity of agreeing with us on anything let alone space? <br /><br />

 

[qso1]

I'm sure some are but Governments move slowly most of the time and one day we might be faced with an ally balking at some future agreement. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

Monolithic designs may have had another problem at the time they were studied. There was no crane in the VAB with the capacity to lift them. As I recall, the highest capacity crane in the VAB was 250 tons. The segmented SRBs weigh in at over 500 tons a piece stacked. This probably could have been solved but would have been expensive. Especially if the VAB structure itself was not designed to handle a 500 plus ton crane.<br /><br />As for the VAB crane capacity, shuttle-guy probably knows if the 250 ton figure is accurate. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

Its all a matter of reinforcement. The Saturn V first stage was almost a 260 inch diameter solid rocket, which would have been significantly more than 500 tons. They would not have built the VAB with less capacity than what they may have needed if the design for the Saturn had turned out differently.<br /><br />500 ton plus capacity cranes are not rare:<br /><br />http://www.cranerent.com/equip_500crane.shtml<br />http://www.machinerytrader.com/listings/forsale/detail.asp?OHID=4434388&guid=A613F5293ED74DCDBF272648DAB874BE<br />http://www.machinerytrader.com/listings/forsale/detail.asp?OHID=5322748&guid=A613F5293ED74DCDBF272648DAB874BE<br /><br />

 

[qso1]

The following data are Saturv-V empty and gross weights:<br />http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/saturnva.htm<br />Gross Mass: 2,286,217 kg. Empty Mass: 135,218 kg<br /><br />When the Saturn-S1C was lifted, it was always empty as the stage used LOX and RP-1 liquid propellants which were pumped at the pad. I realize 500 ton cranes are not rare but does the VAB have one? When the VAB was built, was it stressed for 500 ton plus loads?<br /><br />I brought it up because I recall studies of monolithic booster designs and non that I can recall ever addressed the crane issue. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[pmn1]

<font color="yellow">You don't think given our current administration that other governments are not already questioning the sanity of agreeing with us on anything let alone space?</font><br /><br />The F35 JSF springs to mind... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

Try researching the Aerojet projects to develop a solid fuelled Saturn first stage.<br /><br />http://www.astronautix.com/lvfam/saturnv.htm<br />http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/satv4260.htm<br /><br />"Stage Number: 0. 4 x 260 inch solid FL Gross Mass: 1,648,355 kg. Empty Mass: 156,126 kg. Thrust (vac): 3,608,918 kgf. Isp: 263 sec. Burn time: 114 sec. Isp(sl): 238 sec. Diameter: 6.60 m. Span: 6.60 m. Length: 30.48 m. Propellants: Solid No Engines: 1. AJ-260X Status: Study 1968. Comments: 260 inch solid booster - full length. These would have been the flight configuration motors, replacing the Saturn V first stage or being used as booster motors in various Uprated Saturn and Nova configurations."<br /><br />http://www.astronautix.com/engines/aj260x.htm<br />"Manufacturer Name: AJ-260X. Designer: Aerojet. Gross Mass: 1,648,355 kg. Empty Mass: 156,126 kg. Propellants: Solid Thrust(vac): 3,608,918 kgf. Thrust(vac): 35,390.70 kN. Isp: 263 sec. Isp (sea level): 238 sec. Burn time: 114 sec. Diameter: 6.60 m. Length: 30.48 m. Chambers: 1. Country: USA. Status: Developed to 1966. Comments: Proposed for use in various Saturn and Nova configurations. Full length version of 260 inch motor tested in 1960's. "<br /><br />1.6+ million kg. They would have needed 1,600 ton cranes to hoist those mothers. Aerojet built facilities in Florida to produce these full length monolithic 260 inch rocket motors, and built a few to test.<br /><br />and especially:<br />http://www.astronautix.com/stages/260lidhl.htm<br />"Gross Mass: 831,345 kg. Empty Mass: 85,321 kg. Thrust (vac): 1,804,460 kgf. Isp: 263 sec. Burn time: 114 sec. Propellants: Solid Isp(sl): 238 sec. Diameter: 6.60 m. Span: 6.60 m. Length: 18.29 m. Country

 

[hopenpj]

Nice aircraft ...

 

[qso1]

mlorrey:<br />I believe the case is closed, point to mlorrey. Game, set, match.<br /><br />Me:<br />Its not over till the fat lady sings LOL.<br /><br />I looked today in a book series I have about Apollo that was published in the early 1970s and found the VAB had 2 cranes of 250 ton capacity. The 2 cranes together could not lift a monolithic booster.<br /><br />I've been aware of the solid motor S-1C studies but didn't have them handy to reference earlier. I also figured the studies were intended to result in operational vehicles after probably 1970. The studies were conducted in 1965-67 period, after the VAB was built with the 2 cranes mentioned above installed for Apollo.<br /><br />mlorrey:<br />1.6+ million kg. They would have needed 1,600 ton cranes to hoist those mothers. Aerojet built facilities in Florida to produce these full length monolithic 260 inch rocket motors, and built a few to test.<br /><br />Me:<br />Your forgetting that the 1.6 million kg figure is about 730,000 lbs or 365 tons. I actually got to see that facility in the late 1970s but by then it was abandoned. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

There were four such SRBs on that model of Saturn V. The point is that NASA had to build the VAB structure and foundation to handle such loads. That they don't have cranes now is immaterial: they expected loads such as these, and would have built the structure to handle them, allowing for a replacement of larger cranes.<br /><br />Your kg to lbs calculation is off. 1 kg is 2.2 lbs. Ergo 1600000 kg is 3.52 million lbs, or 1,760 tons.<br /><br />Also, according to this source:<br />http://www.insideksc.cjb.net:8081/historical_timeline.htm<br />The VAB is 525 feet tall, indicating significant height capacity above the height of the Saturn V. Its foundation is 5 feet thick, in addition to "Piling: 4,225 open-end steel pipe piles, 0.4 meters (16 inchs) in diameter were driven 49 meters (160 ft) into bedrock. "<br />

 

[mlorrey]

Okay, so 60 plus 50 is 110, subtracted from 525 is 415 feet.<br /><br />BTW: How wide are those doors? I'm wondering if my cluster ET launcher concept could be assembled in the VAB without mods to the building. It would require the doors to be 81-85 feet wide at most, perhaps no more than 75, for the largest seven tank cluster, depending on the orientation of the vehicle coming out.

 

[qso1]

I always get my math backwards if I don't have my conversion software since I am basically a stupid idiot.<br /><br />I hate when that happens.<br /><br />Anyhow, I agree with the VAB stressed to handle the loads. I just never saw any data that indicated it actually was built to handle the loads required to lift monolithic boosters.<br /><br />I also have yet to see any data anywhere indicating that the VAB actually has a crane with a capacity beyond 250 tons. Thats not to say if the studies had lead to operational hardware that a 500 ton crane could not be installed. I simply didn't see any indication one had been installed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[mcs_seattle]

So, the vertical stabilizer is the stabilizer that is vertical, which stables the shuttle horizontially.

 

[qso1]

Wings...more specifically, elevons on the wing trailing edges. Elevons serve as both aileron and elevator. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

Well, given each STS SRB is 1.3 million lbs it all depends on how they are assembled at the VAB. Are they assembled from the sections and then lifted, or the reverse?<br /><br />The only reason the SRBs are segmented is for rail transportation purposes.

 

[qso1]

The SRB segments are stacked one atop the other on the MLP inside the VAB so essentially, they are assembled in pieces in the VAB rather than as one peice. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

On the vertical stab...the movable surfaces are known as a split rudder speed brake and you see them open upon landing. They provide additional braking drag on the runway and before landing. They also provide the directional control you mentioned by acting in unison as a rudder, hence the term split rudder speed brake. There are also slotted doors on the OPF but I do not recall slotted doors on the VAB simply because the VAB was built to process Saturn vehicles originally and the doors large enough for orbiters to pass through. Even the lowbay door leading to the VAB transfer aisle is large enough for the orbiter to pass through.<br /><br />In rocket mode, the shuttle is an airplane attached to a rocket. Its in descent and landing within the atmosphere that one can avoid confusion and refer to shuttle as an airplane. The wings have moveable surfaces known as elevons which act as ailerons or elevators. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>