 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / April 2008Another reason why the SRB's shouldn't be used on Ares 1
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=4556582430279254650 Watch the vid. PEPCON disaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PEPCON_disaster >http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=4556582430279254650 Watch the vid. > >PEPCON disaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PEPCON_disaster *yawn*. D.  SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL > http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=4556582430279254650 Watch the vid. > > PEPCON disaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PEPCON_disaster Because 20 years ago; 1) Someone forgot to tell PEPCON stop making ammonium perchlorate while the shuttle fleet was grounded, 2) Someone at PEPCON said "hey, lets just store all this stuff in the parking lot since NASA isn't taking delivery of it, and 3) Some idiot threw a lit cigarette into a drum of AP.. Sure, sounds like a good reason to me! > http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=4556582430279254650 Watch > the vid. > > PEPCON disaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PEPCON_disaster Bogus. --Damon > > http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=4556582430279254650 Watch > > the vid. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > --Damon Bogus? As in "Didn't happen"? >> > http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=4556582430279254650 Watch >> > the vid. >> > >> > PEPCON disaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PEPCON_disaster >> >> Bogus. > Bogus? As in "Didn't happen"? As in, irrelevant. Yeah, a kero/LOX first stage is what I'd rather fly with too; safety isn't the only reason. Besides, a solid rocket motor won't detonate like a big pile of raw oxidizer can (under certain circumstances). There are other and much more probable failure modes to worry about. Any propulsion technology has its failure modes; the SRB-based Ares is what we're stuck with until President/Congress/NASA change their collective minds. The real issue is political and economic, not technology. --Damon > Yeah, a kero/LOX first stage is what I'd rather fly with too; safety isn't > the only reason. Besides, a solid rocket motor won't detonate like a big > pile of raw oxidizer can (under certain circumstances). There are other > and much more probable failure modes to worry about. Can pure LOX can detonate? Under what circumstances? I'd personally stick to LOX instead of H2O2 or nitrus oxide. > Any propulsion technology has its failure modes; the SRB-based Ares is > what > we're stuck with until President/Congress/NASA change their collective > minds. The real issue is political and economic, not technology. Change is coming, but it's not yet clear who will be in the White House and how they'll run NASA (or possibly just ignore NASA). Jeff SignatureA clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein >> Yeah, a kero/LOX first stage is what I'd rather fly with too; safety >> isn't the only reason. Besides, a solid rocket motor won't detonate [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Can pure LOX can detonate? Under what circumstances? I'd personally > stick to LOX instead of H2O2 or nitrus oxide. To the best of my limited knowledge, no. I'm not sure about the others though the recent nitrous oxide accident at Scaled Composites hasn't really been explained. When I say detonate, I'm assuming the material decomposes _very_ rapidly by itself when subjected to extreme shock or sudden heating; very high concentration (high 90s) H2O2 will decompose very rapidly but the definition of "detonate" seems to vary. Standard solid fuel grain shouldn't detonate; that's practically a given considering how it is burned. The difference between "detonate" and "deflagrate" can be fuzzy. In high-energy propulsion, nothing is truly "safe", it's just that some choices are less hazardous in most contexts. I'm less concerned with the SRB's safety than I am with Ares lift performance and the entire booster configuration, which is getting terribly awkward. Direct 2.0 has quite a few advantages, but EELV technology is just as workable. >> Any propulsion technology has its failure modes; the SRB-based Ares >> is what [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Change is coming, but it's not yet clear who will be in the White > House and how they'll run NASA (or possibly just ignore NASA). Pretty much a crap shoot, eh? I'm not thrilled with any of the candidates and I doubt we'll be any happier with the change that does come. We'll know more by this time next year, I suppose. --Damon >The difference between "detonate" and "deflagrate" can be fuzzy. Not only that - but once the deflagration becomes energetic enough, or includes a large enough mass, the difference becomes academic. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.