[AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?
- From: "John Dom" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> ("johndom")
- To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2023 04:07:01 +0200 (CEST)
Ariane 5 APCP boosters have been unsegmented. Cast in one piece. Saw
the vertical casting setup in France which proved big. I do not know
about coming Ariane 6's fabrication details. Nor about their internal
geometries.
Internal geometry looked complicated especially for the top segments of
the Shuttle boosters. Variable burning rates by 3D geometry. Never
understood how or why.
The Shuttle boosters were segmented for ship transportation (size!) I
read at the time.
John
Verzonden vanuit Proximus Mail
Van: Henry Spencer <hspencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Verzonden: 28 april 2023 02:14:57 CEST
Aan: Arocket List <arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Onderwerp: [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023, jake wrote:
I was wondering about that, that would have been a truly impressive
mixer to watch from a very very great distance lol.
It could have happened -- Aerojet's big for the SRB contract proposed
non-segmented boosters, which would have to be cast in a single
operation, presumably likewise in pairs!
And they may already have been set up for it -- in the 60s, Aerojet
made and fired a few prototypes of an enormous 280in-diameter
non-segmented solid, penciled in as a strapon for the Saturn V.
They didn't get the SRB contract, partly because segmented solids were
considered a better-known technology for big solids, partly because
handling such massive solids would have required VAB crane upgrades(*),
and partly because of the politics of Utah (where Thiokol was located).
(* You might wonder, how would the 280in monsters for the Saturn V
have been handled? Well, differently. :-) The Saturn V, or more
precisely an upgraded model of it, would have been assembled and rolled
out to the pad without them. Then one of the crawlers would pick up a
special handling frame, go get one 280in solid, deliver it to the pad
and put it down in position, and repeat as necessary. I never saw an
explanation of what would be done if the rocket had to be quickly moved
back to the VAB due to an incoming hurricane -- one of the design cases
for the crawler... )
Henry
Other related posts:
- » [AR] APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- Terry McCreary
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- roxanna Mason
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- kevin ward
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- kevin ward
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- kevin ward
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- Terry McCreary
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- John DeMar
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- David Summers
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- kevin ward
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- kevin ward
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- kevin ward
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- kevin ward
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- kevin ward
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- kevin ward
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- kevin ward
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- Matthew JL
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- George Herbert
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- kevin ward
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- kevin ward
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- roxanna Mason
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- jake
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- roxanna Mason
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- Henry Spencer
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- Henry Spencer
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- Troy Prideaux
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort? - John Dom
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- roxanna Mason
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- roxanna Mason
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- Henry Spencer
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- Henry Spencer
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- Henry Spencer
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- Troy Prideaux
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- roxanna Mason
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- roxanna Mason
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- Troy Prideaux
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- Henry Spencer
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- roxanna Mason
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- roxanna Mason
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- Troy Prideaux
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- Ben Brockert