Largest ever solid rocket booster test fire.

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by MacNut, Mar 11, 2015.

  1. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #1
    As testing continues on NASA's new Space Launch System to send astronauts into deep space, today market the first test fire of the biggest solid rocket booster ever.

    http://www.space.com/28795-giant-solid-rocket-booster-nasa-test.html
     
  2. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #2
    I'm more interested in what boosters will replace the SRB's for the 130t version. I hate solid fuel for manned vehicles. I hope NASA selects the Pyros booster which will revive the F-1 engine.
     
  3. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
  4. vkd macrumors 6502a

    vkd

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2012
    #4
    We never hear about excessive increases in fuel charges for NASA do we? I am sure that if they were charged at a rate comparative to the general consumer, generated income could allow the consumer a massive discount.
     
  5. hallux macrumors 68020

    hallux

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2012
    #5
    Except this isn't exactly a petroleum-based fuel so it'll have minimal impact on our gas prices.
     
  6. rhett7660 macrumors G4

    rhett7660

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Location:
    Sunny, Southern California
    #6
    I feel for the porcelain thrones after a day/evening of eating four burritos. :eek::eek::eek::eek: The sights, the sounds, and last but not least the stench. HAHA Poor thing will never be the same.
     
  7. APlotdevice macrumors 68040

    APlotdevice

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    #7
    The general consumer doesn't use Hydrogen or Aluminum as fuel.
     
  8. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #8
    You do know that this "fuel" is a mixture of rubber and aluminum power.

    What would that have to do with consumers?
     
  9. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #9
    Check out this aerial photo of the test:
     

    Attached Files:

  10. Huntn, Mar 19, 2015
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2015

    Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #10
    Does the new system include liquid fuel? I assume it does. I found this interesting: Liquid vs solid fuel rockets.


    Solid-fuel- Very stable, durable. Can't be turned off- once the burn starts, it goes until fuel is used up. More thrust for a similar size rocket. Fuel decomposes, must be replaced.

    Liquid fuel- Variable thrust- the amount of fuel and rate of burn can be changed in flight. Fragile, many complex parts. Liquid-fuel boosters are more easily re-usable. Oxidizer (liquid oxygen) must be kept extremely cold.

    Researched it. :) For anyone who wants to know more about NASA's SLS: http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/SLS-Fact-Sheet_aug2014-finalv3.pdf
     
  11. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #11
    The SLS will be using the RS-25's from the Space Shuttle as apart of the core stage and aided by the 5 segment SRB. Both will be ditched in the ocean. NASA has 16 remaining RS-25D's from the Shuttle program. Granted if SLS survives beyond 4 launches, they will switch to the RS-25E's which would be more economical to be expendable( the RS-25D's being more complex due to being reusable).

    The upper stage will be based off the Delta IV's upper stage using the RL10 engine. Though it is planned to eventually switch over to the J-2X( a revival of the Saturn V's second and third stage engine), but there is already talk of scrapping the J-2X already and sticking with the RL10.

    That is just for the 70t version( pretty much think Saturn 1B). There will be an 130t version( Saturn V) which will need a new booster to replace the SRB's. One of the proposals is to revive the F-1 engine( Saturn V first stage engine) for use in a booster( each booster containing two F-1B's). Orbital ATK I think has a proposal in for a next-gen SRB( this one being more than a Shuttle SRB with one extra segment) and Aerojet proposing a booster based on the NK-33 engine. Though after the Antares explosion, think that one is out of the window.....

    I am in favor of the F-1B based booster. One liquid in my eyes is much safer than solids for manned vehicles. Once lit, they are lit. As proved by a Delta II explosion, any defect in the SRB will result in it going boom. And if NASA detected the leak from Challenger's SRB, there was nothing they could do anyway beside hope things hold up until SRB sep. And the F-1B booster would boost the capacity of the 130t SLS to 150t. Orbital ATK has also stated with the core stage going from 5 RS-25's down to 4 RS-25's, their new booster would only be able to get ~115t into LEO.
     
  12. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #12
    Thanks for the info! I've never liked large solid fueled boosters because once lit you are committed. No off switch. That seems primitive and dangerous. Is there a capsule ejection mechanism? I'd assume no. :confused:
     
  13. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #13
    Yeah unlike Shuttle, Orion will have an abort system much like Apollo.
     
  14. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #14
    And a re-entry like Apollo and a capsule like Apollo.
     
  15. APlotdevice, Mar 19, 2015
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2015

    APlotdevice macrumors 68040

    APlotdevice

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    #15
    Yeah, but considerably larger.

    [​IMG]
     
  16. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #16
    No doubt much higher-tech as well. Still, I was slightly disappointed when NASA eschewed a glide-back system. Landing under parachutes is so 1960s.
     
  17. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #17
    Lunar reentry speeds are much higher than LEO reentry speeds. A winged aircraft would not be able to survive such a reentry. Capsules are still the best for beyond LEO missions.
     
  18. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #18
    That makes sense.
     
  19. vkd macrumors 6502a

    vkd

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2012
    #19
    What nonsense are you spouting here? Obviously yet another psychonaut.
     
  20. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #20
    The SRB's are solid fuel and do not use any fossil fuels. The propellent is called ammonium perchlorate.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonium_perchlorate_composite_propellant

    The liquid engines the SLS will use( the RS-25's and RL10) use liquid oxygen and hydrogen.

    These fuels bear no impact on oil prices( and thus gas prices).

    But given your response to Chris, you're more concerned about getting a reaction than a serious discussion.
     

Share This Page