simonbp - 12/7/2006 6:30 PMNot recoverable, so potentially higher operational costs (though that's rather nebulous either way)
hop - 12/7/2006 10:14 PMThe other factor is that according to the ESAS study, a single stick SRM is vastly safer than any of the alternatives.
zinfab - 12/7/2006 7:56 PMNot if you listen to anyone on this forum. I'm given to understand that the shuttle SRM's lack of emergency cut-out makes it more dangerous than a liquid engine. Does everyone still agree?
Not if you listen to anyone on this forum. I'm given to understand that the shuttle SRM's lack of emergency cut-out makes it more dangerous than a liquid engine. Does everyone still agree?
bad_astra - 13/7/2006 9:22 AMQuoteNot if you listen to anyone on this forum. I'm given to understand that the shuttle SRM's lack of emergency cut-out makes it more dangerous than a liquid engine. Does everyone still agree?I don't know anyone who watches a Shuttle launch that doesn't breathe a huge sigh of release at SRB sep.
yinzer - 12/7/2006 11:03 PMIn any case, according to NASA Watch, MSFC is considering going to the RD-180 for the CaLV core stage. And as long as they're doing that, they might as well go to a 2 RD-180 core stage for the CLV. If they call it Atlas Phase 2 there's already a bunch of paperwork and promotional material available. NASA Watch also says that there's consideration of dumping the CLV for an EELV because the CLV is having trouble lifting the CEV and is costing way more than was expected.
edkyle99 - 13/7/2006 10:04 AMFair to mention, by the way, that liquid boosters fail more often than solids.
edkyle99 - 13/7/2006 11:04 AMI don't breath until wheels stop on the runway. Fair to mention, by the way, that liquid boosters fail more often than solids. Just look at the recent GSLV failure from India, for one example. GSLV has a powerful solid booster core with four strap-on liquid boosters. The solid worked fine. One of the liquids failed. There have been three launch failures this year so far, in 31 attempts. All of the failures involved liquid propulsion systems. Last year there were three failures in 55 attempts. All of the failures were liquids. Three of the four failures in 2004 were liquids. The solid rocket failure (Shavit) involved a failed stage separation. Etc. - Ed Kyle
rumble - 13/7/2006 10:11 AMQuoteedkyle99 - 13/7/2006 10:04 AMFair to mention, by the way, that liquid boosters fail more often than solids....but AFAIK the only failure of a manned launch in the U.S. was due to a solid failure (Challenger).
edkyle99 - 13/7/2006 10:30 AMThe Challenger failure could have been survivable on a launcher with an escape system.
The other manned U.S. failure (Columbia) was due to a problem with insulation on the *liquid* propulsion system tank during the launch phase. No escape system for that one. - Ed Kyle
edkyle99 - 13/7/2006 11:30 AMQuoterumble - 13/7/2006 10:11 AMQuoteedkyle99 - 13/7/2006 10:04 AMFair to mention, by the way, that liquid boosters fail more often than solids....but AFAIK the only failure of a manned launch in the U.S. was due to a solid failure (Challenger).The Challenger failure could have been survivable on a launcher with an escape system. The other manned U.S. failure (Columbia) was due to a problem with insulation on the *liquid* propulsion system tank during the launch phase. No escape system for that one. - Ed Kyle
Jim - 13/7/2006 10:28 AMQuoteedkyle99 - 13/7/2006 11:04 AMI don't breath until wheels stop on the runway. Fair to mention, by the way, that liquid boosters fail more often than solids. Just look at the recent GSLV failure from India, for one example. GSLV has a powerful solid booster core with four strap-on liquid boosters. The solid worked fine. One of the liquids failed. There have been three launch failures this year so far, in 31 attempts. All of the failures involved liquid propulsion systems. Last year there were three failures in 55 attempts. All of the failures were liquids. Three of the four failures in 2004 were liquids. The solid rocket failure (Shavit) involved a failed stage separation. Etc. - Ed Kylethe liquied failures are surivable. The rest of the world is not a good database. Spacex and India are not in the same population as the US and Russia wrt spacelaunch
Jim - 13/7/2006 11:39 AMColumbia is not a launch failure. No where near one. It is a entry failure. It doesn't matte what caused the damage
rumble - 13/7/2006 11:10 AMAnd, as for the Challenger disaster, I think it would have required a launch escape system AND having the crew above the launch vehicle for that to have been survivable.