Will this Launch FAIL ?

[samo]

... Unlikely, on Friday, to fail by SRB Combustion Instability anyway, though Ernesto passed through (but it was a weak storm & left only 3 inches of rain).<br /><br />I believe the SRB fuel instability:<br />Caused BOTH Shuttle Losses,<br />the 22 hang-ups on Galileo's antenna,<br />the early overthrusts & short orbits for Columbia, STS#4 (the "Drought" flight), & the 3rd of 3 straight uprated Delta failures a few years ago<br />... and the explosion of the first Titan IV SRMU test (whose explosion I had given a 40% chance & after which the Air Force & NASA were forbidden to instrument the insides of Solid rockets ever again -- because the data proved my point?)<br />Plus a lot of minor shorts & failures to fit or unfold.<br /><br /> ... anyway, I give the Launch a "C" if launched Friday (only a trace of rain Thursday, and no Drought, even though I'd still throw out any SRB that went through a Tropical Storm. The EXTREME weather seems to make a Permanent effect where just rain, disappears if left alone for 24 hours).<br /><br />Combustion Instability, I believe, comes from Humidity Variations, especially Gross & Rapid ones (e.g. Challenger had half the humidity of ANY other flight to go with water in its joints); Wind-driven Rain also seems to get in the joint & go in & out of the vehicle, which fuel reacts, when it dries out, by forming small shrunken chunks of fuel, whose ignition forms high-pressure transients. Plus leaving a chunk: which may exit the vehicle only part burnt, explaining the Low orbits, despite apparent early "better than normal" thrust.<br /><br />This would Characterize BOTH disasters, without resorting to word tricks or phony tests (Columbia's accellerometer confirmed the Boeing estimates that ruled out the foam as a danger, but the Commission buried that in the Appendix, and used word tricks to DOUBLE the impact ('we only are changing the weight, angle & speed, none of which were measured' -- yeah, but the product

 

[JonClarke]

You have any evidence to back up these assertions (not capitals please, shouting is not necessary)?<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[lysol]

Good opinion,<br /><br />by all means prove it. cite some references you used to form your hypothesis.

 

[qso1]

samo:<br />I believe the SRB fuel instability: <br />Caused BOTH Shuttle Losses,<br /><br />Me:<br />You do realize Columbia was lost upon re-entry, not launch.<br /><br />samo:<br />the 3rd of 3 straight uprated Delta failures a few years ago <br />... and the explosion of the first Titan IV...<br /><br />Me:<br />I do recall a Titan IV and Delta failure that were clearly the result of SRB problems. But solid boosted rockets are not the only rockets to explode.<br /><br />samo:<br />The EXTREME weather seems to make a Permanent effect where just rain...<br /><br />Me:<br />Ernesto produced no extreme weather in Florida so if your hypothesis is correct, the launch should be fine.<br /><br />samo:<br />Combustion Instability, I believe, comes from Humidity Variations, especially Gross & Rapid ones...<br /><br />Me:<br />These are situations which would have been taken into account during design of the SRBs and experience with previous SRB ops (Titan-III, Delta's) would provide some data to support design considerations.<br /><br />samo:<br />Frankly, the reason People are unsupportive of Space is they remember both Shuttle DISSTERS as --- SLOPPY work by SCIENCE. <br /><br />Me:<br />You forget Apollo. The peoples interest in human spaceflight began to wane when the cost of sending people into space was questioned. Your comments of "Sloppy work by science" make it difficult to put credibility into your assertions. Rockets are inherantly dangerous and yet almost all U.S. rocket launches have a 98% success rate. Thats not sloppy science.<br /><br />Furthermore, many folks simply don't care about spaceflight one way or the other.<br /><br />samo:<br />Before even the Design was set, the ENTIRE SRB Project office at NASA Walked off the job (1968) rather than build it with something whose failure-mode they did not understand.<br /><br />Me:<br />What SRB project are you referring to? The shuttle SRB design had yet to exist in 1968. That year the shuttle was into phase "A" study and a fully reusable liquid <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>

 

[rfoshaug]

Good answer, qso1, as usual. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff9900">----------------------------------</font></p><p><font color="#ff9900">My minds have many opinions</font></p> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

Easier to catch an astrologer.

 

[JonClarke]

I am not the one stating an opinion, the original poster is. Therefore he/she is the one on whom the onus of proof rests.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[qso1]

Thanks. <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>