|
Science Forum Index » Space - Shuttle Forum » Another reason why the SRB's shouldn't be used on Ares 1
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Alan Erskine |
 Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:43 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Derek Lyons |
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 11:10 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Alan Erskine" <alan.erskine@bigpond.com> wrote:
*yawn*.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Who Needs Fenders? |
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 11:39 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Alan Erskine wrote:
Because 20 years ago;
1) Someone forgot to tell PEPCON stop making ammonium perchlorate while
the shuttle fleet was grounded,
2) Someone at PEPCON said "hey, lets just store all this stuff in the
parking lot since NASA isn't taking delivery of it, and
3) Some idiot threw a lit cigarette into a drum of AP..
Sure, sounds like a good reason to me! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Damon Hill |
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 1:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Alan Erskine" <alan.erskine@bigpond.com> wrote in
news:26%Oj.3678$ko5.1603@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
Bogus.
--Damon |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Alan Erskine |
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 1:49 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Damon Hill" <damon1SIX1@comcast.netnet> wrote in message
news:Xns9A8775003E7FFdamon161attbicom@127.0.0.1...
Bogus? As in "Didn't happen"? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Damon Hill |
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:00 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Alan Erskine" <alan.erskine@bigpond.com> wrote in
news:_k5Pj.3721$ko5.1492@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
As in, irrelevant.
Yeah, a kero/LOX first stage is what I'd rather fly with too; safety isn't
the only reason. Besides, a solid rocket motor won't detonate like a big
pile of raw oxidizer can (under certain circumstances). There are other
and much more probable failure modes to worry about.
Any propulsion technology has its failure modes; the SRB-based Ares is what
we're stuck with until President/Congress/NASA change their collective
minds. The real issue is political and economic, not technology.
--Damon |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Jeff Findley |
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:48 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Damon Hill" <damon1SIX1@comcast.netnet> wrote in message
news:Xns9A87844C96810damon161attbicom@127.0.0.1...
Quote:
Yeah, a kero/LOX first stage is what I'd rather fly with too; safety isn't
the only reason. Besides, a solid rocket motor won't detonate like a big
pile of raw oxidizer can (under certain circumstances). There are other
and much more probable failure modes to worry about.
Can pure LOX can detonate? Under what circumstances? I'd personally stick
to LOX instead of H2O2 or nitrus oxide.
Quote: Any propulsion technology has its failure modes; the SRB-based Ares is
what
we're stuck with until President/Congress/NASA change their collective
minds. The real issue is political and economic, not technology.
Change is coming, but it's not yet clear who will be in the White House and
how they'll run NASA (or possibly just ignore NASA).
Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Damon Hill |
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Jeff Findley" <jeff.findley@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote in
news:6735b$480cfd83$927a2cda$25945@FUSE.NET:
Quote:
"Damon Hill" <damon1SIX1@comcast.netnet> wrote in message
news:Xns9A87844C96810damon161attbicom@127.0.0.1...
Yeah, a kero/LOX first stage is what I'd rather fly with too; safety
isn't the only reason. Besides, a solid rocket motor won't detonate
like a big pile of raw oxidizer can (under certain circumstances).
There are other and much more probable failure modes to worry about.
Can pure LOX can detonate? Under what circumstances? I'd personally
stick to LOX instead of H2O2 or nitrus oxide.
To the best of my limited knowledge, no. I'm not sure about the others
though the recent nitrous oxide accident at Scaled Composites hasn't
really been explained. When I say detonate, I'm assuming the material
decomposes _very_ rapidly by itself when subjected to extreme shock or
sudden heating; very high concentration (high 90s) H2O2 will decompose
very rapidly but the definition of "detonate" seems to vary. Standard
solid fuel grain shouldn't detonate; that's practically a given
considering how it is burned. The difference between "detonate" and
"deflagrate" can be fuzzy.
In high-energy propulsion, nothing is truly "safe", it's just that some
choices are less hazardous in most contexts. I'm less concerned with
the SRB's safety than I am with Ares lift performance and the entire
booster configuration, which is getting terribly awkward. Direct 2.0
has quite a few advantages, but EELV technology is just as workable.
Quote: Any propulsion technology has its failure modes; the SRB-based Ares
is what
we're stuck with until President/Congress/NASA change their
collective minds. The real issue is political and economic, not
technology.
Change is coming, but it's not yet clear who will be in the White
House and how they'll run NASA (or possibly just ignore NASA).
Pretty much a crap shoot, eh? I'm not thrilled with any of the
candidates and I doubt we'll be any happier with the change that does
come. We'll know more by this time next year, I suppose.
--Damon |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Derek Lyons |
| Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 4:26 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Damon Hill <damon1SIX1@comcast.netnet> wrote:
Quote: The difference between "detonate" and "deflagrate" can be fuzzy.
Not only that - but once the deflagration becomes energetic enough, or
includes a large enough mass, the difference becomes academic.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
