Another reason why the SRB's shouldn't be used on Ares 1

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Alan Erskine - 21 Apr 2008 12:43 GMT

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=4556582430279254650 Watch the vid.

PEPCON disaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PEPCON_disaster

Reply to this Message

Derek Lyons - 21 Apr 2008 17:10 GMT

>http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=4556582430279254650 Watch the vid.
>
>PEPCON disaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PEPCON_disaster

*yawn*.

D.

Signature

Touch-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

Who Needs Fenders? - 21 Apr 2008 17:39 GMT

> 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!

Reply to this Message

Damon Hill - 21 Apr 2008 19:29 GMT

> http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=4556582430279254650 Watch
> the vid.
>
> PEPCON disaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PEPCON_disaster

Bogus.

--Damon

Reply to this Message

Alan Erskine - 21 Apr 2008 19:49 GMT

> > http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=4556582430279254650 Watch
> > the vid.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> --Damon

Bogus? As in "Didn't happen"?

Reply to this Message

Damon Hill - 21 Apr 2008 21:00 GMT

>> > 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

Reply to this Message

Jeff Findley - 21 Apr 2008 21:48 GMT

> 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

Signature

A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein

Reply to this Message

Damon Hill - 22 Apr 2008 01:53 GMT

>> 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

Reply to this Message

Derek Lyons - 22 Apr 2008 22:26 GMT

>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.

Signature

Touch-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

Space Forum / Shuttle / April 2008

Another reason why the SRB's shouldn't be used on Ares 1