PMN1 - 19/11/2005 11:26 AMThere is an article by Stephen S Pietrobon (Small World Communications) in the May/June 1999 Journal of the British Interplanetary Society about replacing the SRB’s with LRB’s‘The use of high-density hydrogen peroxide/kerosene liquid rocket boosters for the Space Shuttle is investigated as a replacement for the existing SRB’s. It is shown that H2O2/Kerosine outperforms solids, LOX/Kerosene and LOX/LH2 as a general booster propellant due to its high density and moderate exhaust speed. With the same propellant mass and size as that of the current SRB’s, computer simulations indicate payload mass can be increased by a third from 24,950kg to 33,140kg for a 28.45°, 203.7km circular orbit.'
AndyMc - 19/11/2005 11:55 AMHi,Just googled, and found the article you mention is availabe as a pdf: http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/pub/lrb.pdfHis site may also have some more things of interest: http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/
I personally would favour replacing the SRB's with a LOX/LH2 system because that's what is currently in use at the Pads today and thus the infrastructure at the Pads is already in place to handle it. I liked the old USAF concept of six SSME's on each booster, flyback design. That allowed for a very straight-forward development program from the current STS systems into the new ones.