Quote from: spacenut on 10/01/2022 07:55 pmIs there anyway to send a camera inside of the solid boosters to check the condition of the solid material? This would tell if they need to restack and repair or replace the solid material.No. Segment delamination since initial stacking that is sufficient to damage the propellant cohesion is not visible to the naked eye.
Is there anyway to send a camera inside of the solid boosters to check the condition of the solid material? This would tell if they need to restack and repair or replace the solid material.
Too much focus on analysis and process above building and getting things done. Also, the tech we had then with rocketry was close to the optimal already (for expendables). And they had more money and wages were lower.
Quote from: clongton on 10/02/2022 12:21 amQuote from: spacenut on 10/01/2022 07:55 pmIs there anyway to send a camera inside of the solid boosters to check the condition of the solid material? This would tell if they need to restack and repair or replace the solid material.No. Segment delamination since initial stacking that is sufficient to damage the propellant cohesion is not visible to the naked eye.X-ray, ultrasonic and other non-invasive, non-destructive methods should be able to detect invisible changes,
Quote from: laszlo on 10/03/2022 09:36 amQuote from: clongton on 10/02/2022 12:21 amQuote from: spacenut on 10/01/2022 07:55 pmIs there anyway to send a camera inside of the solid boosters to check the condition of the solid material? This would tell if they need to restack and repair or replace the solid material.No. Segment delamination since initial stacking that is sufficient to damage the propellant cohesion is not visible to the naked eye.X-ray, ultrasonic and other non-invasive, non-destructive methods should be able to detect invisible changes,I don't know the details of such techniques, but I suspect that determining whether or not the PSA is still sticky on all ten joints, each more than ten meters in circumference, would be an "interesting" exersize. This article has diagrams: https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2020/12/artemis-1-schedule-uncertainty-sls-booster-stacking/2/
Quote from: Zed_Noir on 10/03/2022 03:16 amQuote from: DanClemmensen on 10/02/2022 02:38 pmQuote from: clongton on 10/02/2022 12:21 amQuote from: spacenut on 10/01/2022 07:55 pmIs there anyway to send a camera inside of the solid boosters to check the condition of the solid material? This would tell if they need to restack and repair or replace the solid material.No. Segment delamination since initial stacking that is sufficient to damage the propellant cohesion is not visible to the naked eye.I thought the SRB age limit related to the segment joints, specifically the adhesion of the PSA and the flexibility of the J-legs. I would have thought that the bulk propellant would last a longer time, based on the lifetime of other solid rocket motors like those in SLBMs. Based solely on the diagrams, I speculate that your main point is still valid and that it is unlikely that anything is visible to show deterioration.Will point out that the solid rocket motors in strategic ballistic missiles are monolithic. AFAIK no strategic ballistic missile use segmented solid rocket motors.I am aware of this. I took clongton's comment as referring to the bulk propellant in each segment, which I thought was roughly equivalent to the propellant in an unsegmented solid booster. The J-legs and PSA are elements of the intersegment seals, and are the only parts of the SRBs that I have seen described when the age limit was being discussed.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 10/02/2022 02:38 pmQuote from: clongton on 10/02/2022 12:21 amQuote from: spacenut on 10/01/2022 07:55 pmIs there anyway to send a camera inside of the solid boosters to check the condition of the solid material? This would tell if they need to restack and repair or replace the solid material.No. Segment delamination since initial stacking that is sufficient to damage the propellant cohesion is not visible to the naked eye.I thought the SRB age limit related to the segment joints, specifically the adhesion of the PSA and the flexibility of the J-legs. I would have thought that the bulk propellant would last a longer time, based on the lifetime of other solid rocket motors like those in SLBMs. Based solely on the diagrams, I speculate that your main point is still valid and that it is unlikely that anything is visible to show deterioration.Will point out that the solid rocket motors in strategic ballistic missiles are monolithic. AFAIK no strategic ballistic missile use segmented solid rocket motors.
Quote from: clongton on 10/02/2022 12:21 amQuote from: spacenut on 10/01/2022 07:55 pmIs there anyway to send a camera inside of the solid boosters to check the condition of the solid material? This would tell if they need to restack and repair or replace the solid material.No. Segment delamination since initial stacking that is sufficient to damage the propellant cohesion is not visible to the naked eye.I thought the SRB age limit related to the segment joints, specifically the adhesion of the PSA and the flexibility of the J-legs. I would have thought that the bulk propellant would last a longer time, based on the lifetime of other solid rocket motors like those in SLBMs. Based solely on the diagrams, I speculate that your main point is still valid and that it is unlikely that anything is visible to show deterioration.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 10/03/2022 03:32 pmQuote from: laszlo on 10/03/2022 09:36 amQuote from: clongton on 10/02/2022 12:21 amQuote from: spacenut on 10/01/2022 07:55 pmIs there anyway to send a camera inside of the solid boosters to check the condition of the solid material? This would tell if they need to restack and repair or replace the solid material.No. Segment delamination since initial stacking that is sufficient to damage the propellant cohesion is not visible to the naked eye.X-ray, ultrasonic and other non-invasive, non-destructive methods should be able to detect invisible changes,I don't know the details of such techniques, but I suspect that determining whether or not the PSA is still sticky on all ten joints, each more than ten meters in circumference, would be an "interesting" exersize. This article has diagrams: https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2020/12/artemis-1-schedule-uncertainty-sls-booster-stacking/2/It certainly would be labor intensive, but what isn't on SLS?Note that the joints contain leak check ports so that visualization may be entirely unnecessary. They are visible in diagram 1 just to the right of the arrow labeled "Heater".
Yes as of now. But there are other blocks for SLS.
I’d love to see a concept of SRBs strapped onto a modified stretched out Starship.
Quote from: kdhilliard on 10/01/2022 08:19 pmQuote from: tea monster on 10/01/2022 09:19 amQuote from: Mr. Scott on 10/01/2022 04:04 am... Again hypothetically, what if Orion was on top of a Super Heavy Booster? 😱. That would likely be a pretty awful sight. Be very careful what you wish for!There is a guy on Twitter called 'The Cursed Rockets Guy'. He does what it says on the tin. [Orion and ICPS on Superheavy]Alternative rides for Orion was the subject of the most recent video from Apogee (Ken Kirtland): Are Rockets Like Legos?, with four Superheavy relate versions (Superheavy/ICPS; Superheavy/Centaur V; Superheavy/EUS; Superheavy/Simplified Expendable Starship) discussed starting at 17:12. (Starting at 09:03 he discussed 3 Stage New Glenn; New Glenn/Centaur V; Falcon Heavy/Centaur V.)I’d love to see a concept of SRBs strapped onto a modified stretched out Starship.On one side of a playing card, what you have ultimately is that this SLS/Orion flight is simply a test. They have minimal objectives to demonstrate what capabilities they think they have. On the other side of the playing card, you have every concept including somehow going to Mars.The first side only validates the test of very minimal set of objectives. The scope creep occurs with each ante. By flipping the card over and doing the test, you will see the face value on the card. The card value is currently unknown for SLS/Orion. So a poker bluff is likely being played. Currently all in with SLS/Orion. Starship/SH is just another card. Need to see if Starship is even being considered realistically for deep space missions. This is a high stakes stare down at this time. Nobody folds after going all in.Rockets are as old as steam locomotives. Mark Twain (and others) have said… every fool must be released of their money.
Quote from: tea monster on 10/01/2022 09:19 amQuote from: Mr. Scott on 10/01/2022 04:04 am... Again hypothetically, what if Orion was on top of a Super Heavy Booster? 😱. That would likely be a pretty awful sight. Be very careful what you wish for!There is a guy on Twitter called 'The Cursed Rockets Guy'. He does what it says on the tin. [Orion and ICPS on Superheavy]Alternative rides for Orion was the subject of the most recent video from Apogee (Ken Kirtland): Are Rockets Like Legos?, with four Superheavy relate versions (Superheavy/ICPS; Superheavy/Centaur V; Superheavy/EUS; Superheavy/Simplified Expendable Starship) discussed starting at 17:12. (Starting at 09:03 he discussed 3 Stage New Glenn; New Glenn/Centaur V; Falcon Heavy/Centaur V.)
Quote from: Mr. Scott on 10/01/2022 04:04 am... Again hypothetically, what if Orion was on top of a Super Heavy Booster? 😱. That would likely be a pretty awful sight. Be very careful what you wish for!There is a guy on Twitter called 'The Cursed Rockets Guy'. He does what it says on the tin. [Orion and ICPS on Superheavy]
... Again hypothetically, what if Orion was on top of a Super Heavy Booster? 😱. That would likely be a pretty awful sight.
Fully expendable Starship (including a jettisonable fairing) can do direct launch deep space missions just as well as SLS can, certainly Block I SLS. Let me repeat that:Fully expendable Starship (including a jettisonable fairing) can do direct launch deep space missions just as well as SLS can, certainly Block I SLS.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 10/04/2022 04:53 pmFully expendable Starship (including a jettisonable fairing) can do direct launch deep space missions just as well as SLS can, certainly Block I SLS. Let me repeat that:Fully expendable Starship (including a jettisonable fairing) can do direct launch deep space missions just as well as SLS can, certainly Block I SLS.Emphasis mineAnd at an order of magnitude less expensive, ESPECIALLY if it's a vehicle that has already flown several times.
I want to quickly jump in to share how in my thinking I place huge importance on distinguishing between SLS and Artemis. For emphasis I attach a graphic from a NASA document (admittedly years old) showing SLS used for a Mars mission that was being studied.https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20150001240/downloads/20150001240.pdfNASA leadership isn't talking much about humans to Mars right now. And the main corps of engineers and technicians are following that leadership. But there exists within NASA a cadre of talented people who haven't forgotten their favorite Mars mission concepts.
The reason that there should be a clear distinction between SLS and Artemis is that Artemis is a program to visit the Moon and the SLS is a rocket. There should be a distinction there. If for some reason SLS fails, we don't want to throw the entire lunar program out the window and start again from scratch (again).Going on to Mars is a notional goal of Artemis, but AFAIK, no funding has been allocated and no official plans exist at all. Without either of those two, it's just talk. As half a century of power point presentations have taught us, having detailed plans of how to get there isn't any good without the cash to pay for the hardware and support systems. It's tired, and it's cliche, but it's true: 'No bucks, no Buck Rogers.'
Quote from: tea monster on 10/06/2022 12:23 pmThe reason that there should be a clear distinction between SLS and Artemis is that Artemis is a program to visit the Moon and the SLS is a rocket. There should be a distinction there. If for some reason SLS fails, we don't want to throw the entire lunar program out the window and start again from scratch (again).Going on to Mars is a notional goal of Artemis, but AFAIK, no funding has been allocated and no official plans exist at all. Without either of those two, it's just talk. As half a century of power point presentations have taught us, having detailed plans of how to get there isn't any good without the cash to pay for the hardware and support systems. It's tired, and it's cliche, but it's true: 'No bucks, no Buck Rogers.'There are plans for Mars. See pages 37-44 of this document:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20210022080/downloads/HEOMD-007%20HEO%20SCOPE%20-%2009-28-2021%20NTRS.pdf