I've had the impression that they actually meant blowing the entire nozzle off (including the throat, of course), which would do a much better job of uncorking the beastie ...
I suspect that would make matters worse, to be honest. The SRM nozzle is a partially submerged design. I would wager that, unless you're planning on severing the case, you'd have a good chance of plugging the whole thing...until it ruptured that is.
To add to Lobo's question, is the core strength the same whether it's just a 130 payload or a 24x 2nd stage and payload? Does it have to be reinforced?
Quote from: kch on 07/31/2009 09:10 pmI've had the impression that they actually meant blowing the entire nozzle off (including the throat, of course), which would do a much better job of uncorking the beastie ... I suspect that would make matters worse, to be honest. The SRM nozzle is a partially submerged design. I would wager that, unless you're planning on severing the case, you'd have a good chance of plugging the whole thing...until it ruptured that is.
Ross,NASA are currently working on Altair, and they seem to be continuing with their projects whilst Augustine deliberates. Presumably they may then do the same until (if) WH/congress issue new orders.Are they still working on Altair? How much will things be delayed if NASA keeps to the current (since Augustine was announced) course?
I had a thought.Direct I think is suggesting using the D4H to fly Orion on ISS or LEo only missions, correct? And then J-130 for LEO missions when you want a payload as well?I'm just wondering if going with the Falcon 9 Heavy woudn't be better. The reasons being:1) Likely be less expensive than a D4H.2) Will already be human rated, as the F9 will be carrying a crewed Dragon. 3) SpaceX Launch Complex 40 will already be set up for loading crews into capsules.Yea, I know The F9 much less the F9H has yet to fly. But since Orion won't be developed for some time, seems like they would likely have one up before Orion's even ready.I mean, they'll already be sending crews to the ISS on the Dragon via COTS, so why not keep all the human flight in the same system?What say you?
This is not a new idea. I had the impression that it had been either done before or at least looked at... What's wrong with severing the case?Besides, even if you have to blow it at or below the throat, it would still reduce thrust significantly. The point here is not so much to make the destruct more benign as to make it happen farther away from the Orion.
ON the topic of blowing the SRB nozzle...I thought this was SOP during recovery? The nozzle is blown before impact with the ocean, is it not? That means the hardware and procedures are already in place.
The forces will certainly rip the SRB off the ET, but that is OK.Danny Deger
Thanks, RossI am primarily interested in acquiring a general understanding of the problem at a technical level suitable for a Congressional staffer. And to acquire a low level understanding as to whether this could be a total "show stopper" for SDLV as a crew launch vehicle, in anticipation that the EELV-only guys will trot out this argument. My understanding is that the current Ares 1 LAS is insufficient to allow the Orion capsule escape the debris cloud "column" prior to opening the parachutes and there is no margin to upgrade to a larger motor. Failure to escape the debris column will result in melted parachutes.This leads to a question about whether the Jupiter 130 has sufficient margin to enhance the LAS motors sufficiently to allow the Orion capsule to escape the debris cloud column before parachutes are opened. If I understand correctly, a steerable LAS sustainer motor could help fly Orion out of that debris column before opening the parachutes but would the mass penalties and technical challenges of that be prohibitive?