Quote from: Downix on 08/13/2011 12:31 amQuote from: Jim on 08/12/2011 11:37 pmQuote from: beb on 08/12/2011 09:29 pmI think in the end it would have been cheaper and quicker to develop "Stumpy" than Ares I. The two side-by-side SRB would have evened out the thrust oscillation problem, and the upper stage could have been lit on the ground, thus allowing use of SSME. Stumpy was not "real" design. It was "developed" by ground ops people.It has no redeeming value. EELVs could do the job, since there is no re.ation to Ares VThat depended on the particulars of the Ares V. The stumpy design, upon studying it, would have mirrored one of the EDS configurations which were developed for Ares V. Switch out the EDS interstage with the original shuttle interstage, and you now have relation, in fact you'd have a lot more relation than you did with Ares I and Ares V.Still think this is the short term answer. http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2006/07/nasa-has-5-seg-clv-alternatives/The J2-X engine would have to go however.
Quote from: Jim on 08/12/2011 11:37 pmQuote from: beb on 08/12/2011 09:29 pmI think in the end it would have been cheaper and quicker to develop "Stumpy" than Ares I. The two side-by-side SRB would have evened out the thrust oscillation problem, and the upper stage could have been lit on the ground, thus allowing use of SSME. Stumpy was not "real" design. It was "developed" by ground ops people.It has no redeeming value. EELVs could do the job, since there is no re.ation to Ares VThat depended on the particulars of the Ares V. The stumpy design, upon studying it, would have mirrored one of the EDS configurations which were developed for Ares V. Switch out the EDS interstage with the original shuttle interstage, and you now have relation, in fact you'd have a lot more relation than you did with Ares I and Ares V.
Quote from: beb on 08/12/2011 09:29 pmI think in the end it would have been cheaper and quicker to develop "Stumpy" than Ares I. The two side-by-side SRB would have evened out the thrust oscillation problem, and the upper stage could have been lit on the ground, thus allowing use of SSME. Stumpy was not "real" design. It was "developed" by ground ops people.It has no redeeming value. EELVs could do the job, since there is no re.ation to Ares V
I think in the end it would have been cheaper and quicker to develop "Stumpy" than Ares I. The two side-by-side SRB would have evened out the thrust oscillation problem, and the upper stage could have been lit on the ground, thus allowing use of SSME.
Still think this is the short term answer. http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2006/07/nasa-has-5-seg-clv-alternatives/The J2-X engine would have to go however.
Ed.... Say something.... Robert
Quote from: Prober on 08/13/2011 07:22 pmStill think this is the short term answer. http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2006/07/nasa-has-5-seg-clv-alternatives/The J2-X engine would have to go however.Stumpy!!
Quote from: Rocket Science on 08/13/2011 04:14 pmEd.... Say something.... Robert O.K. Consider this alternative. We have to go back in time for this. Back to 2005. Have NASA develop the ESAS Crew Launch Vehicle with the RS-25 upper stage engine and the four segment booster. Then use it. Don't spend billions more for Ares V. Fly lots of Ares I rockets, using the unparalleled scoot and shoot capability of LC 39 - the purpose for which it was originally designed, and go to the Moon using LEO rendezvous as Von Braun intended. Use the Ares I upper stage as the basis for propellant depot and TLI stage. After the program is underway, if deemed helpful, NASA could go ahead and develop five-segment booster or liquid RP booster. Either would push payload up to 35 or more tonnes to LEO. - Ed Kyle
Can a SRB be airlit?
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 08/17/2011 02:29 amCan a SRB be airlit?Definitely. But why?
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 08/17/2011 02:29 amCan a SRB be airlit?A solid rocket motor with class 1.3 propellant was "successfully ignited, terminated the burn, and then re-ignited " in 2003 - though not in flight but in static firing test.Start - Stop - Start.
Quote from: renclod on 08/17/2011 05:42 pmQuote from: A_M_Swallow on 08/17/2011 02:29 amCan a SRB be airlit?A solid rocket motor with class 1.3 propellant was "successfully ignited, terminated the burn, and then re-ignited " in 2003 - though not in flight but in static firing test.Start - Stop - Start.I always thought SRB's couldn't be stopped without destroying them once they were lit ? How did they do it ?
How did they do it ?
Quote from: racshot65 on 08/17/2011 07:20 pmHow did they do it ?http://www.thefreelibrary.com/ATK+Successfully+Conducts+Its+First-Ever+Start-Stop-Start+Solid...-a0131555528
Quote from: renclod on 08/17/2011 08:17 pmQuote from: racshot65 on 08/17/2011 07:20 pmHow did they do it ?http://www.thefreelibrary.com/ATK+Successfully+Conducts+Its+First-Ever+Start-Stop-Start+Solid...-a0131555528Ok, so it's a pre-designed shutoff, not whereby you can shut off something already underway in case of emergency.