Von Braun's logic was seemingly validated by the Challenger disaster, yet NASA keeps turning back to solids as it ponders its future in manned spaceflight.
SpaceCat - 26/7/2007 5:56 PMChallenger's trouble began with a breach of a segmented solid- which can't be compared to monolithic casings containing no o-rings. Undoubtedly, in the first seconds of that tragedy more than one NASA mind was thinking, 'those damned turbopumps....'
don't take Challenger as a single data point that establishes a rule. In fact, for a long time NASA considered the SSMEs to be a much greater risk than the solids. Lots of moving parts means lots of things that can go wrong.
CFE - 23/7/2007 10:06 PMAny idea of what von Braun thought about the "Stick 1966"? I've read that von Braun vehemently opposed solid rockets on manned launchers, so he probably would have put the kibosh on "Stick 1966" before it got too far along. Von Braun's logic was seemingly validated by the Challenger disaster, yet NASA keeps turning back to solids as it ponders its future in manned spaceflight. Whether the final choice is "Stick" or "Direct," we will end up flying solids regardless.
edkyle99 - 26/7/2007 9:26 PMBTW, according to the book, von Braun favored a small spaceplane shuttle for crew, augmented by continued use of Saturn V for heavy lift unmanned cargo. Sound familiar?
Rusty_Barton - 23/7/2007 10:08 AMHere is an illustration from the NASA document. It's a Saturn IB with a 21.6 ft diameter solid fuel first stage, S-IVB liquid fueled second stage and Apollo spacecraft payload. A design similar to the Stick proposed in 1966.
Rusty_Barton - 22/7/2007 12:08 AMHere is an illustration from the NASA document. It's a Saturn IB with a 21.6 ft diameter solid fuel first stage, S-IVB liquid fueled second stage and Apollo spacecraft payload. A design similar to the Stick proposed in 1966.
Graham2001 - 28/7/2007 6:37 PMThe launch methods that they considered for that particular design are interesting too, for example, McDonnell-Douglas proposed rebuilding LC37 with silos deep enough to hold the SRB so that they could use trapped exhaust gas to provide extra thrust on take-off. See the illustration.
simonbp - 28/7/2007 9:56 PMWow, it's like an Apollo ICBM!
simonbp - 28/7/2007 11:56 PMIt does raise a good point, though, do recessed launch pads make more sense? Obviously the technology is there from ICBM silos, but is it logistically easier to dig a big hole or build a big tower?Simon
Jim - 28/7/2007 7:33 PMQuotesimonbp - 28/7/2007 11:56 PMIt does raise a good point, though, do recessed launch pads make more sense? Obviously the technology is there from ICBM silos, but is it logistically easier to dig a big hole or build a big tower?Simon Depends where. Holes in florida fill with water
Jim - 29/7/2007 7:33 AMQuotesimonbp - 28/7/2007 11:56 PMIt does raise a good point, though, do recessed launch pads make more sense? Obviously the technology is there from ICBM silos, but is it logistically easier to dig a big hole or build a big tower?Simon Depends where. Holes in florida fill with water