SRB booster for CEV

publiusr · 2005-09-01 14:33:03

You have to at least promise that--and see what happens down the road. We need to keep Michold to keep the space support. Shut it down and move things to Decatur and the LA residents will howl and not support NASA anymore.

They may want it scrapped to pay for relief as it stands---no need to alienate them more.

Griffin needs to remind folks there that--without a vibrant space program (the Goes weather sats did not develop in a vacuum) the death toll would have been much higher--and it is their obligation to support NASA over rebuilding casinos and such nonsense. The 'aints are already talking about coming to Birmingham's Legion Field, and poor displaced folks are about to be run off by sports fans hogging our hotels.

Leave NASA alone.

Ban football.

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-01 17:19:24

At this point, I think we ought to question if Michoud is worth saving...

In order to operate the Michoud facility, you have got to have engineers, right? Although their jobs may remain, the jobs of their families and their homes are very likly destroyed. Even if the Michoud plant would be a quick fix to get back online, rebuilding these peoples' lives will not be. This is probobly going to take two, three, or maybe more years.

This is time that NASA doesn't have to spare right now, and the question should be asked is the political penalty for abandoning Lousiana too large a price to pay?

publiusr · 2005-09-08 15:21:06

It's suicide either way. Spend on NASA-rebuilding and they howl--but don't rebuild MAF and they howl worse.

As I see it Michold has to be rebuilt and here is the political reasons why. Florida will have to launch HLLV. But you still play hardball with them

You tell KSC "If you create a big stink we will just shut down NASA in total--you still want those mission control jobs, right? You still have your homes right? So suck it up--and kill orbiter." So KSC learns its place. Michold (not that bad) is rebuilt and you have LA support from the gov't. While they rebuild Marshall designs HLLV, Utah Thiokol has the stick--and you tell the folks in Johnson we will have one last Hubble flight in 2009.(Not really :twisted: )

So you keep support--gut JPL and you still have your launch architecture.

The other NASA centers will feel selfish--and feel bad if they were to criticize a new Michold-centered LV stable using engine-equipped ETs as CEV launchers. That might not sit well with Utah--but ATK still gets their five seg SRBs--so everyone is still happy--and you guilt everyone into building a Michold centered HLLV stable.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums … mentid=860

Korolov knew how to manipulate people. We must emulate his brilliant social engineering (Mitnik style) to succeed.

Anyone have a better plan?

Either that or we will be flying orbiter until Sol goes Red Giant--which is what will happen otherwise.

There are some rumblings about Saturn again though :shock:

Pics of the stick:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums … 4&posts=22

SpaceNut · 2005-09-20 08:55:48

With the recent news release of info concerning the moon plans and the creation of not one but two ships from the shuttle parts. I recall that the capsule landing using a disposeable shield and air bags was worked on within the last year and was successful by I think lockheed.

It appears that the monstrosity of osp rehash by lockheed is out andLockheed Martin engineers were forced back to the drawing board Monday after NASA endorsed the type of next-generation spacecraft championed by the Jefferson County company's rival.

SpaceNut · 2005-09-20 10:26:05

Here is a question for how does one ignite a solid rocket booster motor (SRB), is it part of the motor or a seperate piece.

Key tests for Vega igniters While this is not a shuttle SRB igniter, they must all be simular one would think...

ftlwright · 2005-09-20 14:12:11

So you keep support--gut JPL and you still have your launch architecture.

Hehe, you won't be able to gut JPL, but you will be able to put them in check. Force those fellows to come up with unified flight architecture that 80% of there future mission will be able to fly on. I'm so sick and tired of JPL developing and entirely new vehicle each and every time they design a mission (and someone please teach them how to write a report while your in their "backside"). Other than that, good plan.

RobertDyck · 2005-09-20 14:19:47

This NASA web page describes SRB ignition sequence.
Here is a description from KSC.
I looked for an image of the igniter initiator, but didn't find one.

Ad Astra · 2005-09-20 18:43:27

It's not realistic to think we can just end the shuttle program now and work on the new rockets. To get appreciable cost savings, you'd have to lay off the shuttle workers--the same workers you need back on the job when the CEV, Stick, and "Magnum" are ready. A smooth transition from shuttle flights to the stick in 2011-2012 will ensure that the cape's workforce stays on the job and stays sharp.

As much as I'd love to give ISS to the Russians and the other partners, I don't think they'd take it in its current state. They want it completed with the modules that can only be delivered by the fragile shuttle. Of course, we could sell them the shuttle and tell them to finish ISS by themselves. Kill two birds with one stone.

publiusr · 2005-09-23 15:24:18

So you keep support--gut JPL and you still have your launch architecture.
Hehe, you won't be able to gut JPL, but you will be able to put them in check. Force those fellows to come up with unified flight architecture that 80% of there future mission will be able to fly on. I'm so sick and tired of JPL developing and entirely new vehicle each and every time they design a mission (and someone please teach them how to write a report while your in their "backside"). Other than that, good plan.

Somebody needs to tell those prima donna's what for.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2006-03-17 06:42:45

Just out of couriosity has any given serious thought to a clean sheet design?

NASA begins testing CLV concept
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0602/14clvtests/

NASA officials are expected to pick a prime contractor for the CEV job this summer. The winner is likely to garner hefty bragging rights.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/a … 85,00.html
"Whoever wins this is going to be known as the major player for putting Americans into space for the next 25 years," said J.P. Stevens, vice president of space systems at the Aerospace Industries Association, an industry trade group in Washington.

publiusr · 2006-03-23 15:20:06

CLV in a nutshell.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums … 22&start=1

RedStreak · 2006-05-19 13:21:58

BWhite wrote:

In response to BWhite:
If the Bush vision is to let a few NASA types collect rocks and thats all for the next 50 years then we don't hardly need anything.
Next, if you read the Congessional committee comments, the shuttle infrastructure types do not seem willing to let the oribter die an early death.

The funny thing with 'political' types in general is...give them 4 years and they get voted out.

...now assuming lets say either Discover, Atlantis, or Endeavor go the route of poor Columbia and Challenger those politicians will instantly change their position to save their faces and Congress and the public combined will instantly put the shuttle under the guilitene. Three times will not be the shuttle's charm.

I'm not a shuttle-dismantalement-advocate however - personally I just want the damned ISS modules installed and perhaps a farewell visit to Hubble and be done with it, and only the shuttle has the capability.

SpaceNut · 2006-05-26 20:18:08

Just now thought does the team of Boeing have an unfair advantage to the builder of the CLV or CaLV especially since Boeing has the RS-68 engines over whatever Lockheed would choose or has for its latest proposal.
I know that usually Lockheeds proposals come in just a bit lower but if Nasa requires this engine this could be a problem for Lockheed.

GCNRevenger · 2006-05-26 20:41:16

Whos fault is it that they invested in cut-in-two Russian RD-180 that burn kerosene versus large low-pressure hydrogen engines?

On the other side of the coin, it seems pretty clear that the Lockheed EELV is superior to the Delta for all but the heaviest payloads, in which case the Detla-IV Heavy is much more expensive for only a half a dozen more tonnes.

publiusr · 2006-06-09 10:59:18

Good point. BTW Boeing no longer has RS-68--that's P&W now--so they have both engines IIRC.

In the far future, I hope to see the SRBs replaced by liquids with RD-180s or RD-170s at some point.

Here is a thought: Perhaps the CaLV could be called "Delta V" ("Del-ta vee").

What with five RS-68s and all, it looks like a big Delta. This way, Boeing can look at it as a family member and have less hostility towards it.

SpaceNut · 2017-02-08 22:33:42

Just finished fixing this old topic of shifting and other artifacts that would keep it from being read.

It is a good summary of constellation

SpaceNut · 2021-07-27 19:41:02

the older solid booster topic

SpaceNut · 2022-01-02 10:15:21

The reason for why the old srb design was altered.

F4%2B330px-STS-51-L_grey_smoke_on_SRB.jpg

The Seal Failure in the SRB that Doomed Challenger

GW Johnson · 2022-01-02 12:00:10

If you read the article that the picture came from, you find out the revised design made the problem worse. The only reason another shuttle wasn't lost to a leaking SRB joint was they never again flew soaked out that cold (+29 F). Tactical motor builders routinely soak out their motors and fire them anywhere between -65 F and +145 F, and we use only a single seal.

GW

SpaceNut · 2022-01-02 12:02:00

Yes the 3 oring seal to which they removed this when we began to make the sls. But then again it was the ice and foam which did the next one in....

GW Johnson · 2022-01-02 15:36:05

True enough about the ice and foam for the loss of Columbia.

The sad part is that NASA promised to fly a repair kit for holes and lost tiles a few years before Columbia was lost. But they never really did fly such a kit. Even though it had been defined.

No one, not the managers nor even some of the engineers at NASA, could bring themselves to believe that a piece of foam could put a hole in Columbia's wing. And yet the foam chunk at 500 mph relative velocity is quite damaging, even as a lightweight low-density item.

With ice in its pores, it resembles more a bowling ball, which is dangerous to carbon-carbon composite at 5 mph, much less 500 mph. Carbon-carbon composite has some strength and stiffness, but almost no elongation to failure. It is brittle as a piece of glass.

Ain't 20-20 hindsight marvelous?

Yet, there were a few who foresaw this.

GW

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2005-09-01 14:33:03

Re: SRB booster for CEV

#52 2005-09-01 17:19:24

Re: SRB booster for CEV

#53 2005-09-08 15:21:06

Re: SRB booster for CEV

#54 2005-09-20 08:55:48

Re: SRB booster for CEV

#55 2005-09-20 10:26:05

Re: SRB booster for CEV

#56 2005-09-20 14:12:11

Re: SRB booster for CEV

#57 2005-09-20 14:19:47

Re: SRB booster for CEV

#58 2005-09-20 18:43:27

Re: SRB booster for CEV

#59 2005-09-23 15:24:18

Re: SRB booster for CEV

#60 2006-03-17 06:42:45

Re: SRB booster for CEV

#61 2006-03-23 15:20:06

Re: SRB booster for CEV

#62 2006-05-19 13:21:58

Re: SRB booster for CEV

#63 2006-05-26 20:18:08

Re: SRB booster for CEV

#64 2006-05-26 20:41:16

Re: SRB booster for CEV

#65 2006-06-09 10:59:18

Re: SRB booster for CEV

#66 2017-02-08 22:33:42

Re: SRB booster for CEV

#67 2021-07-27 19:41:02

Re: SRB booster for CEV

#68 2022-01-02 10:15:21

Re: SRB booster for CEV

#69 2022-01-02 12:00:10

Re: SRB booster for CEV

#70 2022-01-02 12:02:00

Re: SRB booster for CEV

#71 2022-01-02 15:36:05

Re: SRB booster for CEV

Board footer