Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!eru!luth!sunic!mcsun!ukc!reading!cf-cm!cybaswan!iiitsh
From: iiitsh@cybaswan.UUCP (Steve Hosgood)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: SRB solutions
Message-ID: <838@cybaswan.UUCP>
Date: 23 Oct 89 14:26:36 GMT
References: <5474@umd5.umd.edu> <5149@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> <12973@s.ms.uky.edu> <1989Oct18.172311.22863@utzoo.uucp>
Reply-To: iiitsh@cybaswan.UUCP (Steve Hosgood)
Organization: Institute for Industrial Information Technology
Lines: 30

In article <1989Oct18.172311.22863@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Can't be done.  There is no way to "kick off" the SRBs until they burn out.

I've been wondering about this recently. Wouldn't it be possible to design
the SRB casing to have a venturi nozzle at both ends, but with the top one
usually plugged by the igniter? If the igniter could be blown off the top
in case of emergency, you'd be left with an SRB thrusting at both ends. The
result *ought* to be that you could separate from the boosters.

However, what the consequence of doing this with air rushing by at Mach N
would be I have no idea. Maybe the booster would end up looking more like
a ram-jet.

Also, of course, if you blow the igniter off the top, you'll have to arrange
for it not to hit the orbiter..

Any comments?


>It's perhaps not theoretically impossible, but it would require considerable
>redesign.  (For one thing, the SRBs would have to stay under some sort of
>control for at least a few seconds to avoid problems like having their
>exhaust hit the external tank, and they rely on the orbiter for control
>at present.)

Couldn't they have fins fitted to give them some degree of independant
steering?

Steve
iiitsh@pyr.swan.ac.uk