[AR] Re: Regarding Univerity solid rockets for cube-sat launch to orbit
- From: Henry Spencer <hspencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Arocket List <arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2018 13:43:19 -0500 (EST)
On Sat, 3 Mar 2018, J Farmer wrote:
Was all directional control during a Shuttle launch done via it's engines
and none via the SRBs?
No, the SRBs had gimbaled nozzles (and quite a bit of other complexity,
including their own gyros). The solid-rocket guys at Langley, who first
proposed the solid boosters, wanted fixed nozzles with the orbiter engines
doing all the control. They got overruled. "The problem is that the
control people overspecify their requirements by a factor of four or
five." -- Guy Thibodaux.
Yes, a large fraction of the shuttle's takeoff thrust came from the SRBs,
but that isn't necessarily prohibitive -- if memory serves, Delta II Heavy
(the late Delta II configuration that used Delta III's bigger strapons)
had a similar percentage of its takeoff thrust in fixed-nozzle solids.
Have there been working launch vehicles with solid motors that didn't
use some sort of aerodynamic control?
Plenty, starting with Minuteman and all the Western submarine-launched
ballistic missiles. If you take a purist view of "launch vehicles" :-),
there's Taurus, all the Minotaur variants I think, Athena, and Japan's
M-V.
Henry
Other related posts:
