WOW, thanks for the tip!

__________________
Leo

My rocket fleet and more @ Leo's Leisure Site and on YouTube - My latest project: ALTDuino

Not that there was a perfect sync, but I just watched that link, turned off the U- tube sound and listened to the Ventures version of Wipeout.

Awesome, maybe I got lucky in places, but the music just seemed to emphasize the launches.

__________________
Bernard J. Herman Ohio RLS

Starport Sagitta Rockets
email bherman@sagittarockets.com

NAR # 97971 SR

What's your idea on the best way to change Washington D.C.?
Let us know at the Cantina
Sagitta Cantina

We're looking for a few good Catos, please tell us about any you may have had. Survey of Anecdotal Malfunctioning Engines or S.A.M.E.

You're welcome. When you finish there, you can go to the internet archive and watch more stuff. The only reason I didn't point you there first is that the titles and descriptions aren't as user friendly. Some of the videos on Youtube were 720p, but others only 480p. I noticed some of the same videos available at 720p on the archive.

http://www.archive.org/details/movies



.

__________________
I love sanding.

I think I'm going to be skipping my nights sleep today

__________________
Leo

My rocket fleet and more @ Leo's Leisure Site and on YouTube - My latest project: ALTDuino

I was providing a historical perspective not making a judgment call...

Later! OL JR

__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE Ultimate Weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Security and only $52 million per round!

I was definitely making a judgement call. Oh, BTW stating facts associated with that.

I found this thread while searching for something else here. BTW, he wasn't just a KGB agent, he was head of the KGB. Here's what I believe is the fascinating interview video referenced above:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/162965-4

I was disappointed that no caller asked about KGB involvement in the Vietnam war.

His book which I will now need to read:

http://www.amazon.com/Spymaster-Thi...70193320&sr=8-2

Finally, several outstanding films to watch about cold war espionage in my order of preference:

Fiction - The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (The Criterion Collection) (1965)

http://www.amazon.com/The-Came-Cold...n+from+the+cold

Fiction - Smiley's People (1982)

http://www.amazon.com/Smileys-Peopl...iley%27s+people

Fiction - Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (1979)

http://www.amazon.com/Tinker-Tailor...+tailor+soldier

Non-fiction - Family of Spies

http://www.amazon.com/Family-Spies-...family+of+spies

I agree. I once read somewhere (I can't remember the publication) that modern (composite propellant) solid propellant rockets require a mature and extensive polymer (rubber and plastics) industry, because the chemistry is so involved and complex. The article cited this as the main reason why the Soviet adoption of solid rockets took so long, as they literally had to create the polymer industry that could produce the propellants, case liners, burn inhibitors, and (later, when they needed motor cases lighter than steel ones) the composite, fiber-reinforced plastic motor cases! Today's missile-making rogue states, such as Iran and North Korea, also lack such polymer industries, so the simpler (from a materials perspective) liquid rockets are easier for them to produce.Aerojet, who developed the Nova-size 260" diameter monolithic solid motors in the 1960s (Lockheed Propulsion Co. built 156" diameter solids back then as well), proposed a variation by which such gigantic motors would be fueled on the launch pad, by pumping a gel propellant into the motor case from tanker trucks. After the gel propellant cured inside the motor case, the inflatable mandrel would be removed from the nozzle and the igniter (a small solid rocket motor) would be installed up the nozzle of the big motor. Such a scheme might be practical with huge hybrid motors, where the fuel could be cast inside the motor case in this way.I wouldn't characterize segmented large solid motors as a "dead end"; India has had excellent results and reliability with this technology, using a segmented maraging steel case for the first (core) stages of their PSLV and GSLV (Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle and Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle, respectively). They use the segmented maraging steel case for the lowest (and largest & heaviest) stage, while these rockets' third stages have fiber-reinforced plastic motor cases (their second and fourth stages use liquid propellants).

__________________
Black Shire--Draft horse in human form, model rocketeer, occasional mystic, and writer, see:
http://www.lulu.com/content/paperba...an-form/8075185
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6122050
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6126511
All of my book proceeds go to the Northcote Heavy Horse Centre www.northcotehorses.com.
NAR #54895 SR

That may be, but by "dead end" I meant "how do you improve them"?

There is very little true "improvement" available for SRM's versus liquid propellant systems.

The new "black knight" "advanced" boosters being promoted for SLS-- different (slightly more energetic) propellant chemistry, and spiral-filament-wound casings versus steel, tweaks to the throat diameter, operating pressure, and expansion ratio of the nozzle, but that's about it. Well, aside from the BOATLOAD of development money needed to actually design and produce them...

Reviving the F-1 as the F-1B on the other hand is MUCH more impressive from a performance and capabilities point of view...

It's inescapable, that SRM's are large and heavy, and ultimately hit a glass ceiling rather quickly when it comes to "uprating" where simply "adding more, bigger" motors imposes HUGE impacts on your infrastructure, requiring massive rework to handle the additional mass of the larger, heavier, or more numerous SRM's. LRB's are MUCH more forgiving in this regard, since their booster vehicles (tankage, structures, etc) are all moved EMPTY to the pads and only fuelled just prior to launch, and designing the system to support that static load is MUCH simpler, easier, and cheaper... Improvements to the performance of liquid rocket engines are also much easier to incorporate into the design, than it is for SRM's. SRM's also present a host of handling and pad checkout safety issues, since they are handled and serviced fully loaded.

While the "cast in place" technology sounds interesting, it's obviously not the state of the art, nor is there any talk of doing it that way that *I'm* aware of. While the idea might have been studied at some point, apparently it either never panned out or was impractical, or was rejected for other reasons. I would tend to think that the quality control issues alone would rule it out... solid motors are absolutely reliant upon good propellant/casing bonds and unformity in the motor propellant casting process to form a solid, even grain without faults, voids, or other imperfections, solidly bonded to the interior casing walls. Even the famous 260 inch monolithic Aerojet SRM had SERIOUS questions raised about it... just the propellant slump alone was projected to be about a foot or so (IIRC) and the issues with such a super-massive slug of propellant slumping inside the casing after being erected on the launching pad, creating enormous shear forces in the forward end of the propellant grain, pulling it downward and inward and causing wall delamination problems even in preliminary tests, were causing real doubts as to the practicality and reliability of such a huge SRM, if it had ever been built and put into regular production and use. (Remember all the tests that Aerojet did in the Everglades were fired inverted, in their casting silos which doubled as firing pit test stands-- the motors were all sub-scale as well (quarter length and half-length IIRC) and even THEY were too heavy to remove from the casting/firing silo fully fuelled with the existing equipment as it was! The 260 incher was going to require a WHOLE NEW INFRASTRUCTURE to handle them, both at the factory and at KSC... there's stuff in the scale section in the study summaries I posted on this!)

Then there's "cost sharing"... there is none! Granted NASA isn't really leveraging cost sharing much now anyway, but the big SRB's are strictly one-trick ponies, and there are MUCH better and cheaper ways of doing that. NASA could cost-share if they were smart and leveraged EELV technologies to the extent possible instead of going all "shuttle derived". Thing is, NOBODY is sharing the costs of large solid infrastructure and support costs, as they are strictly NASA's baby... even the AF dumped large segmented solids with the EELV's as I previously mentioned.

Later! OL JR

__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE Ultimate Weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Security and only $52 million per round!

The perchlorate environmental contamination alone would prevent the giant (Nova-size) solids from ever making a comeback. LOX/rubber hybrid motors of that size might be a different story...their fuel grains could even be cast with support frames "investment cast" inside the grains (like the metal "combustion ensuring" rods that were cast into the World War II-era aircraft rockets' propellant grains, only on a *much* larger scale).

__________________
Black Shire--Draft horse in human form, model rocketeer, occasional mystic, and writer, see:
http://www.lulu.com/content/paperba...an-form/8075185
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6122050
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6126511
All of my book proceeds go to the Northcote Heavy Horse Centre www.northcotehorses.com.
NAR #54895 SR