[AR] Re: shuttle SRBs (was Re: Re: Phenolic regression rate)
- From: "John Stoffel" <john@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 16:56:33 -0500
"Henry" == Henry Spencer <hspencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Henry> On Sun, 4 Feb 2018, John Stoffel wrote:
Henry> One of the changes made after Challenger was the addition of an
Henry> auxiliary third O-ring... *both* primary
Henry> O-rings would end up pushed outward, seated in their desired
Henry> flight positions. And the putty was eliminated entirely, in
Henry> favor of a flap of solid insulation glued in place.
So how well did this all work afterwards? Were the SRBs now considered
safe again, and that burn throughs were acceptably unlikely to happen in
the future?
Henry> It worked pretty well although not 100% perfectly. Once or twice later,
Henry> there were minor indications of problems, although much milder ones that
Henry> weren't hazardous in themselves (but did provoke investigations).
Henry> Reports from astronauts say that the SRBs were never fully trusted -- on
Henry> each flight, right to the end of the program, everyone breathed a sigh
of
Henry> relief at SRB jettison.
I could imagine that for sure! I was always amazed watching them at
liftoff and thinking about how hard it would be to stop them before
they finished burning and trying to eject or abort with them still
producing thrust.
As you've said before, even when you stop a solid by blowing (!) out
panels to drop the pressure, they still tend to produce thrust for a
while, etc.
LOX/Kero boosters I'm pretty sure we're thought of, but did they have
the thrust/weight ratio to really work well? I see so many current
and even new designs using SRBs in varying counts that they must just
be considered the best solution to a tough problem, even with the
risks.
Do you think they'll ever man-rate a system with solid boosters again?
I just can't see it happening, even if they're smaller ones that
produce much less of the total thrust at liftoff.
Other related posts: