-
#60
by
spacecane
on 04 May, 2013 10:40
-
Does anybody know how many lumens the Shuttle SRB plumes put out? Obviously it was a lot but I'm curious if somebody knows the actual number.
-
#61
by
Calphor
on 04 May, 2013 14:12
-
I don't know if that number has ever been calculated or measured. I do know that the last night static test of an RSRM was easily visible in Salt Lake City which is over 80 miles away. It is also very uncomfortable to look at the plume from a mile away with sunglasses on.
-
#62
by
spacecane
on 29 Jan, 2014 13:11
-
What is (was) used to measure the chamber pressure and where was it located?
-
#63
by
Jim
on 29 Jan, 2014 13:25
-
What is (was) used to measure the chamber pressure and where was it located?
Pressure transducers and they were located at the forward closure
-
#64
by
AnalogMan
on 29 Jan, 2014 16:36
-
-
#65
by
brad2007a
on 18 Feb, 2015 17:53
-
I have Filament Wound Case (FWC) SRB (the ones for Vandenburgh that were cancelled after Challenger) questions:
1. Was the cancellation of the FWC boosters an overreaction? If so, why? Didn't they have the field joint capture feature (among other elements) of the post-Challenger steel SRB design?
2. Could they have been used for KSC launches? Could they have replaced the heavier steel SRBs altogether?
3. If the answer to the first part of question 2 is "yes", would the weight savings inherent in the FWC SRB design have been enough to allow the use of Columbia for ISS construction missions (she was considered too heavy for these missions, otherwise)?
Thanks.
-
#66
by
Jim
on 18 Feb, 2015 19:09
-
I have Filament Wound Case (FWC) SRB (the ones for Vandenburgh that were cancelled after Challenger) questions:
1. Was the cancellation of the FWC boosters an overreaction? If so, why? Didn't they have the field joint capture feature (among other elements) of the post-Challenger steel SRB design?
2. Could they have been used for KSC launches? Could they have replaced the heavier steel SRBs altogether?
3. If the answer to the first part of question 2 is "yes", would the weight savings inherent in the FWC SRB design have been enough to allow the use of Columbia for ISS construction missions (she was considered too heavy for these missions, otherwise)?
Thanks.
1. No, there were other concerns
2. There were issues with the flexibility of the motors and the MLP's
3. The SLWT took care of the weight issue.
-
#67
by
brad2007a
on 19 Mar, 2015 21:23
-
I have Filament Wound Case (FWC) SRB (the ones for Vandenburgh that were cancelled after Challenger) questions:
1. Was the cancellation of the FWC boosters an overreaction? If so, why? Didn't they have the field joint capture feature (among other elements) of the post-Challenger steel SRB design?
2. Could they have been used for KSC launches? Could they have replaced the heavier steel SRBs altogether?
3. If the answer to the first part of question 2 is "yes", would the weight savings inherent in the FWC SRB design have been enough to allow the use of Columbia for ISS construction missions (she was considered too heavy for these missions, otherwise)?
Thanks.
1. No, there were other concerns
2. There were issues with the flexibility of the motors and the MLP's
3. The SLWT took care of the weight issue.
Thanks for the reply, Jim (sorry it took so long, but it has been a very rough, trying month...).
Anyway, I was wondering if you (or anyone else) could expand on a couple of your points:
1. You pointed out that there were other concerns. What were they (other than the KSC MLP issues)?
2. I understand that the SLWT ET took care of some of the weight issues, but I also thought that Columbia was still too heavy for ISS construction missions (her next flight after 107 was to have been an ISS resupply mission, not a construction one if I remember correctly). Am I wrong?
Thanks again.
-
#68
by
Decius_Caecilius_Metellus
on 03 May, 2015 08:42
-
I have been wondering if the Al2O3 produced in SRB combustion is gaseous in the nozzle and therefore contributes to expansion, because Al2O3 makes up such a large part of the exhaust that this would have a big impact on efficiency.
I hope that this is the right thread for this
-
#69
by
R7
on 06 May, 2015 09:30
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_oxideMelting point 2,072 °C (3,762 °F; 2,345 K)
Boiling point 2,977 °C (5,391 °F; 3,250 K)
The temperature at throat is somewhere near melting point but well below boiling point. Temperature at nozzle exit is below melting point. The Al2O3 particles are rejecting heat to the gaseous species, it depends on the particle size whether it happens quickly enough for the liquid particle to solidify while still inside the nozzle.
But gaseous, no, only trace amounts if any.
-
#70
by
ClaytonBirchenough
on 06 Jul, 2015 19:28
-
Does anyone have any detailed cost analysis's of the SRB propellant?
I guess I'm really just looking to see if anyone has any price estimates for producing solid rocket propellant. Maybe $/kg?
In addition, any info on the selection process of PBAN-APCP as propellant would be greatly appreciated. Were there any other propellants that were considered?
Also, any detailed information regarding the whole propellant making process (I think there's a better name for "propellant making process" but can't remember it ATM haha) of the SRB's propellant and all SRBs in general. TIA!
-
#71
by
turbopumpfeedback2
on 25 Dec, 2019 21:30
-
How do the SRBs contain the pressure?
Liquid fuel pressure fed engines are not good as then the tanks become heavy. Are the SRBs any better than pressure fed liquid fuel engines, since then the thank has to contain the pressure?
The solid rocket fuel does provide some tensile strength, but as the fuel is depleted the SRB hull must be able to withstand the pressure.
TLDR Are SRBs better than pressure fed liquid fuel rockets?
-
#72
by
Damon Hill
on 25 Dec, 2019 22:03
-
SRBs are >heavy< because they're very high pressure and major structural elements of the Shuttle stack. They're mostly made of maraging steel for its very high strength and somewhat for temperature tolerance.
Pressure fed liquid propellant tanks are almost lightweight by comparison, but hardly balloon tanks like Atlas was and Centaur is.
-
#73
by
turbopumpfeedback2
on 25 Dec, 2019 22:15
-
SRBs are >heavy< because they're very high pressure and major structural elements of the Shuttle stack. They're mostly made of maraging steel for its very high strength and somewhat for temperature tolerance.
Pressure fed liquid propellant tanks are almost lightweight by comparison, but hardly balloon tanks like Atlas was and Centaur is.
SRBs still have a very good dv, around 4.5 km/s (total mass 590 tons, fuel 500 tons, wikipedia). So a three stage rocket with SRB mass fraction would reach orbit. That's pretty good.
-
#74
by
TrevorMonty
on 26 Dec, 2019 15:28
-
SRBs are >heavy< because they're very high pressure and major structural elements of the Shuttle stack. They're mostly made of maraging steel for its very high strength and somewhat for temperature tolerance.
Pressure fed liquid propellant tanks are almost lightweight by comparison, but hardly balloon tanks like Atlas was and Centaur is.
SRBs still have a very good dv, around 4.5 km/s (total mass 590 tons, fuel 500 tons, wikipedia). So a three stage rocket with SRB mass fraction would reach orbit. That's pretty good.
The dry mass should be less on new composite case SRBs being used on Omega.
-
#75
by
DaveS
on 09 Nov, 2022 20:24
-
Since the question keeps coming up in relation to the SLS SRBs, what is the longest any SRM has been stacked be it shuttle or Titan which also used segmented SRMs? Those Titans, especially the IV-A and IV-B were notorious pad sitters, so they got have racked up some serious stack clock time and AFAIK, none of the SRM caused failures were ever traced to the "shelf life".
-
#76
by
JAFO
on 15 May, 2024 18:06
-
Reading Challenger by Adam Higginbotham, learning about the putty.
-This never occurred to me, but when the segments were assembled was there putty put between the solid fuel in each segment (like frosting between cake layers) so there was no room between the fueled segments? It seems like it would have to be, or there would be a gap where flame could reach the casing.
-If not, was there any gap between the fueled segments?
TIA
-
#77
by
Jim
on 15 May, 2024 21:15
-
Reading Challenger by Adam Higginbotham, learning about the putty.
-This never occurred to me, but when the segments were assembled was there putty put between the solid fuel in each segment (like frosting between cake layers) so there was no room between the fueled segments? It seems like it would have to be, or there would be a gap where flame could reach the casing.
-If not, was there any gap between the fueled segments?
TIA
After Challenger, it was insulation and there was the "J" slit in the insulation.
