F
frodo1008
Guest
First of all I would like to go over some points that I consider pertinent to my own ideas on what the boosters of the CEV (or CXV) should be like. <br /><br />One of these points is the argument over the relative safety of liquid vs. solid booster engines. Now let me state right off that the solid booster industry (mainly in the form of Morton Thiokol Corporation) has done a truly remarkable and magnificent job of supplying the very large boosters for the STS system. This is in particular after the Challenger accident, which was NOT entirely their fault (at least the engineers at any rate). However, it will NEVER be possible to make such large solid boosters as safe as liquid engines! No less a great rocket scientist as Wherner Von Braun knew this and insisted that the great Saturn series of rockets be powered by only liquid engines. Well, this is not totally correct, as the Saturn escape tower rocket engine was indeed a solid rocket motor, but it was certainly hoped it would NEVER have to work!! <br /><br />So why would it be safer to use the far more complex liquid engines? Especially as in order to give enough thrust in the booster phase there is usually more than one, thus increasing the complexity even more? <br /><br />One of the reasons for this post (and possible thread) is that the answer to the above question is not known to many on these boards, and I felt it needed clearing up before I go on to my own possible proposal. It is the type of testing of such engines that gives the answer here. The liquids used in liquid engines are homogeneous, that is the same liquids can be used for the testing of the engines that is eventually used for the actual launches by such engines. On the other hand solids are not inherently this homogeneous, and the same solid that is used for a solid engine test is not going to be the same solid used in the actual launch. Once you have tested a solid rocket motor, that motor is history (oh, you might be able to reuse the