[AR] Re: shuttle SRBs (was Re: Re: Phenolic regression rate)
- From: "Anthony Cesaroni" <acesaroni@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 15:05:34 -0500
It's called "fratricide".
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2009/fratricide.report.pdf
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
-----Original Message-----
From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On ;
Behalf Of Henry Vanderbilt
Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2018 2:31 PM
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AR] Re: shuttle SRBs (was Re: Re: Phenolic regression rate)
On 2/7/2018 11:59 AM, Norman Yarvin wrote:
On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 05:47:21PM +0000, William Claybaugh wrote:
We spent many thousands of hours during ESAS looking for any solid
rocket failure mode that would create a more difficult escape
environment than a liquid rocket; that team identified one only which
applies only when the solid rocket is in line with and below the crew
capsule. Despite much hand waving by an Air Force employee, there
were no identified failure modes that created a more difficult escape
environment when the solids were side mounted.
That makes it sound as if the failure mode in question is one that
shoots debris straight up, like a cannon, and in no other direction.
Or no?
I might guess it's more a matter of where a solid may go if it breaks loose
largely intact.
Given that the whole point of strapons is adding thrust to a stack, on their
own they'll tend to accelerate quite briskly. No reasonable capsule is likely
to stand up to direct ramming by a loose solid.
For that matter, a near miss by a still-burning solid wouldn't likely do
deployed parachutes much good.
Which reminds me of another solid failure mode affecting the escape
environment: The spreading cloud of burning chunks of solid fuel you get after
a solid explodes (or is exploded for range safety reasons.)
I recall mention of the need to reliably clear this cloud before deploying
chutes as a significant constraint on the Ares 1 escape system. It seemed to
me a plausible concern at the time.
Could this be what Bill refers to by "much hand waving by an Air Force
employee"? Either way, I'd be interested to hear reasons why it wouldn't be a
significant factor in the escape environment from a booster with side-mounted
solids.
Ah. I think I broke the code. Could the idea have been NOT to range-safety
detonate the solids till after they had cleared the escaping capsule by a wide
margin?
If so, the word "sporty" occurs to me. It presumes both that the problem being
escaped in the first place isn't a disintegrating solid, and that the solids
can be reliably separated from a stack with other fatal problems without either
unpredictably disturbing their flight axis or damaging them such that they
either explode or veer off-axis.
Sporty does seem to be the proper word.
Henry
Other related posts: