[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 16:58:06 -0500 (EST)
On Sat, 3 Mar 2018, Henry Vanderbilt wrote:
Small correction: Titan III. One of the changes made for Titan IV, in
fact, was development of new improved SRBs... (The first few Titan IVs
flew with the old SRBs because the new ones ran late...)
Small correction to the small correction <grin> Indeed, the Titan IV A
had the old 7-segment SRM, with liquid injection TVC. The IV B had the
new upgraded 3-segment SRMU with gimballed nozzles...
And a small correction to the s.c. to the s.c. :-) Now that you've
reminded me of it, I was told at the time (never went digging to confirm)
that officially, what *really* made a Titan a IVB was the various changes
made to the core -- including bringing it into full conformance with Cape
safety rules for the first time (!). That is, it was theoretically
possible to have a IVB with the old SRBs, although I don't think that ever
actually happened.
(Also -- more background than a correction -- calling the new SRB design
"upgraded" was a bit of a euphemism. It was a tip-to-toe redesign, by a
different supplier, with different propellant mix, slightly larger size,
and longer casing segments made of composites rather than steel, in
addition to the gimbaling nozzle. It was also an object lesson in the
perils of trying to do a firm-fixed-price development contract with a
company long wedded to cost-plus practices: Hercules badly underestimated
development costs. In fact, I was told that the explosion of the first
prototype was another case of Hubble Mirror Syndrome: "we can't afford
the man-hours to figure out exactly what's going on there, so officially
the uncertainty does not exist".)
Henry
Other related posts:
