Quote from: envy887 on 01/09/2017 03:19 pmAre there other examples of a human-rated LV failing during ascent?The point is that Challenger is not a relevant example for abort reaction time requirements.AMOS-6 is basely a design point.
Are there other examples of a human-rated LV failing during ascent?
Quote from: Patchouli on 01/09/2017 05:13 pmSeems like the best option would be to launch ITS uncrewed and bring up the crew and passengers on a different vehicle after it's been refueled.Safest option but it makes each seat more expensive. They need to address LAS, which may require detachable lifeboat section with multiple Super Dracos or SRBs.
Seems like the best option would be to launch ITS uncrewed and bring up the crew and passengers on a different vehicle after it's been refueled.
Quote from: WBY1984 on 09/28/2016 08:21 amThe maximum yeild of a Saturn V pad explosion was estimated to be around half a kiloton, with the greatest destructive potential centered in the SII stages large tanks of hydrogen and oxygen. It would have completely destroyed the pad.This is comparing apples to oranges. An 0.5 kiloton tactical nuke would release almost all of its energy in nanoseconds. A chemical rocket, OTOH, requires much more time for molecules of fuel and oxidizer to find each other and burn. The shock wave from the nuke would be very high pressure. The exploding chemical rocket will release its energy over a time span that is thousands or even millions of times longer. Comparing these two events is not very revealing.
The maximum yeild of a Saturn V pad explosion was estimated to be around half a kiloton, with the greatest destructive potential centered in the SII stages large tanks of hydrogen and oxygen. It would have completely destroyed the pad.
I am a space fan, for anyone getting anything space related done and achieved. That being said, I think ITS is too large a leap currently. The explorers and settlers who came to America, came in small sailing ships. We didn't have ocean liners and container cargo ships then. I was hoping the BFR or ITS rocket would be around 12 million lbs thrust so it could be launched from the cape and/or other areas practically. The river and inter-coastal waterway system can handle a maximum of 12m in diameter rockets (old NOVA size from the 60's). Pads 39a and 39b were designed to handle about 12 million lbs thrust Saturn and Nova sized rockets. No new massive infrastructure would have to be built. So you only get 50 tons to Mars instead of 100 tons, or 50 colonists per flight vs 100. This might be the Mini BFR range that other threads talked about or slightly larger. Think of the size of the ships coming to America. They carried only about 50 passengers each voyage. They also depended on the mother countries for tools and equipment early on, even some food, until America became self sufficient. Seems to me ITS will have to have a complete new infrasture built, possibly off shore because of its shear size and danger. Just MHO.
Using Raptors to escape rapidly developing failures is a terrible idea anyway. 3 seconds (or even 1 second) is an eternity if the vehicle is breaking up around you at supersonic speeds. Even deflagrating on the launch pad, like AMOS-6, happens at faster time scales.
Quote from: envy887 on 01/09/2017 06:03 pmUsing Raptors to escape rapidly developing failures is a terrible idea anyway. 3 seconds (or even 1 second) is an eternity if the vehicle is breaking up around you at supersonic speeds. Even deflagrating on the launch pad, like AMOS-6, happens at faster time scales.Would Raptors be usable for abort if they were pressure-fed (during aborts) instead of using turbo-pumps?