[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 14:41:48 -0500 (EST)
On Sat, 3 Mar 2018, David Summers wrote:
Anyone have any thoughts on why liquid injection thrust vectoring has
fallen from favor? I had always thought that seemed simple and
effective.
The mass overhead can be substantial, and minimizing that requires using
reactive liquids (e.g. the N2O4 injection used in the Titan III SRBs)
which add handling hazards. I'd guess there might also be issues with
putting injection ports in ablative nozzle walls. And predicting the
exact effectiveness of LITVC is difficult, which hampers its use in big
bureaucratic programs that value certainty and abhor the idea of having to
make late design changes.
Once a sufficient injection of military money solved the problems of
making gimbaled nozzles, expensive though they are, interest in
alternatives dwindled. The people who really wanted big thrust-vectored
solids were, by and large, people who didn't care too much about the price
tag.
Henry
Other related posts:
