Re: Does a solid-fuel Ares 1 make sense?
- From: simberg.interglobal@xxxxxxxxx (Rand Simberg)
- Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 12:29:31 GMT
On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 23:29:38 -0400, in a place far, far away, Alan
Anderson <aranders@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
simberg.interglobal@xxxxxxxxx (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Fri, 8 Sep 2006 22:22:22 GMT, in a place far, far away,
henry@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Henry Spencer) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
SRBs were chosen for the shuttle on the assumption that thrust termination
*was* feasible in an emergency. Unfortunately, the decision was not
revisited when it became clear that the orbiter and ET were too fragile to
survive SRB thrust termination. (One of several times in the shuttle
program when it was deemed politically infeasible to rethink the design
despite changes in underlying assumptions.)
A feature that disconcertingly seems to be repeated in the current
Ares program...
I don't think that's necessarily the case. Ares has a capsule with
escape tower at the top of the stack; STS has an orbiter and fuel tank
sitting between a pair of SRBs. A top-sitting Orion capsule wouldn't be
quite as susceptible as a Shuttle orbiter is to the nasty side effects
of a solid-fueled booster being ripped open.
I was speaking much more generally.
.
- References:
- Does a solid-fuel Ares 1 make sense?
- From: Stephen Horgan
- Re: Does a solid-fuel Ares 1 make sense?
- From: Jeff Findley
- Re: Does a solid-fuel Ares 1 make sense?
- From: Henry Spencer
- Re: Does a solid-fuel Ares 1 make sense?
- From: Rand Simberg
- Re: Does a solid-fuel Ares 1 make sense?
- From: Alan Anderson
- Does a solid-fuel Ares 1 make sense?
- Prev by Date: Re: Economics of Spaceflight
- Next by Date: Re: Economics of Spaceflight
- Previous by thread: Re: Does a solid-fuel Ares 1 make sense?
- Next by thread: Re: Does a solid-fuel Ares 1 make sense?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading