Please read "optimistic" instead of "conservative". :-)
On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 7:01 PM, Florin Mingireanu <
florin.mingireanu82@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Nels,
No matter what happens with the booster, as you correctly assumed, in the
most conservative assumption it would continue to travel along the same
direction with a decreasing velocity.
I would say that the best "extraction" system would be the one that pushes
the "valuable" payload to the side...
One could even think of an active system that "tracks" the remainder of
the rocket and modulates the extraction accordingly. If it seems SF... it
is SF until someone actually does it :-)
ESA/NASA thought reusable boosters are SF... somebody did it; multiple
times :-)
Florin
On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 5:21 PM, <Nels.Anderson@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 08. Februar 2018 um 05:09 Uhrfrom a liquid booster?
Von: "Florin Mingireanu" <florin.mingireanu82@xxxxxxxxx>
Can you iterate on what you mean that the escape is more difficult than
The first thing I would want to do escaping a malfunctioning booster
would be to shut it down so it doesn't chase me. That's easy with a liquid
but tricky with a solid. If shutdown is not feasible, then, other things
being equal, I'll need an extra powerful escape system to outrun the
still-accelerating booster.
An Apollo-era escape analysis I've seen assumes that the failing Saturn
would continue on at constant velocity, describing this as a conservative
assumption. I presume that means it was assumed the engines had been shut
down but no assumptions were being made as to how fast the Saturn would
decelerate. Apollo aborts, according to this analysis, required 2-3
seconds' warning, depending on which stage was exploding, if the escaping
CM was to outrun the over-pressure wave until it had dispersed sufficiently
as to be non-hazardous.