 |
 | 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 / Space Station / August 2008This solid booster vibration/resonance problem.
May sound very silly, but I was wondering if this problem could be mineralised by making several auxiliary 'vernier' nozzles on the side of the solid segments, so the vibration is disrupted. Brian  SignatureBrian Gaff - briang1@blueyonder.co.uk Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff' in the display name may be lost. Blind user, so no pictures please! > May sound very silly, but I was wondering if this problem could be > mineralised by making several auxiliary 'vernier' nozzles on the side of > the solid segments, so the vibration is disrupted. Not really; the frequency isn't constant or from one location, so you can't program individual thrusters to fire at the right time. It could even make the problem worse if they _don't_ fire at the right time. >> May sound very silly, but I was wondering if this problem could be >> mineralised by making several auxiliary 'vernier' nozzles on the side of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > can't program individual thrusters to fire at the right time. It could > even make the problem worse if they _don't_ fire at the right time. Actually, one of the current mitigation efforts involves shuttle OMS sized engines (four of them) facing fore and aft with a computer pulsing the engines to dampen the vibrations. It's a research effort as there aren't suitably sized valves which can pulse at the high rate needed. Plus you need sensors, computers (redundancy), and software to make this all work. Plus, if the system fails, the vibrations come back quickly, so it's likely that a failure of this system would trigger Orion's LES. One of the obvious downsides to the above, even if it works, is that the entire system is dead weight. The fore and aft thrusters provide a net delta V of zero to the first stage. :-( Jeff SignatureA clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein > Actually, one of the current mitigation efforts involves shuttle OMS sized > engines (four of them) facing fore and aft with a computer pulsing the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > entire system is dead weight. The fore and aft thrusters provide a net > delta V of zero to the first stage. :-( Another obvious downside is the added cost - to an already-expensive monstrosity. Delta IV Heavy is the clear solution to all these problems. Also, isn't it interesting that there isn't an Atlas V Heavy, with the two (promised) solids? You'd think, if there were to be true competition in the EELV market, Atlas would have a competitor to the D-IV-H. > Another obvious downside is the added cost - to an already-expensive > monstrosity. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > (promised) solids? You'd think, if there were to be true competition in > the EELV market, Atlas would have a competitor to the D-IV-H. As far as I know, Atlas V Heavy would use two liquid strap-ons, similar to the way Delta IV heavy is configured. Atlas V Heavy would be a relatively straightforward development project. It's just not been funded yet. At this point, I'd bet that Atlas V Heavy would be a lot cheaper, easier, and safer to develop than Ares I. Jeff SignatureA clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein |
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.