| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Pat Flannery
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Damon Hill
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 7:48 am Post subject: Re: Dyna-Soar/Atlas-Centaur |
 |
|
Pat Flannery <flanner@daktel.com> wrote in
news:132lf7esi7dujb4@corp.supernews.com:
Article states the Centaur would burn LOX and "SF-1"; what the
heck would that have been? Seems like an obscure way to refer
to LH2.
--Damon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dave Michelson
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 8:44 am Post subject: Re: Dyna-Soar/Atlas-Centaur |
|
|
Damon Hill wrote:
| Quote: |
Pat Flannery <flanner@daktel.com> wrote in
news:132lf7esi7dujb4@corp.supernews.com:
Dyna-Soar on a Atlas-Centaur:
http://renax.club.fr/sharkit/altlas-centaur/altlas-centaur.htm
Article states the Centaur would burn LOX and "SF-1"; what the heck
would that have been? Seems like an obscure way to refer to LH2.
|
Indeed. The designation "SF-1" was a code name for a specification for
liquid hydrogen fuel that had been developed by Wright Field in the
1950's. The specification was apparently used to guide industrial firms
bidding on the development of LH2 facilities for the USAF.
--
Dave Michelson
davem@ece.ubc.ca |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
scottlowtherATixDOTnetcom
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 4:01 pm Post subject: Re: Dyna-Soar/Atlas-Centaur |
|
|
On Apr 21, 10:44 pm, Dave Michelson <d...@ece.ubc.ca> wrote:
| Quote: |
Damon Hill wrote:
Pat Flannery <flan...@daktel.com> wrote in
news:132lf7esi7dujb4@corp.supernews.com:
Dyna-Soar on a Atlas-Centaur:
http://renax.club.fr/sharkit/altlas-centaur/altlas-centaur.htm
Article states the Centaur would burn LOX and "SF-1"; what the heck
would that have been? Seems like an obscure way to refer to LH2.
Indeed. The designation "SF-1" was a code name for a specification for
liquid hydrogen fuel that had been developed by Wright Field in the
1950's. The specification was apparently used to guide industrial firms
bidding on the development of LH2 facilities for the USAF.
|
SF-1 also appears in a series of Convair preliminary designs for
hydrogen-fueled ASW and bomber aircraft. The unbuilt Convair P6Y was
studied with "SF-1" fueled variants: http://www.up-ship.com/drawndoc/drawndocair.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
John
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 8:56 pm Post subject: How to leave Dyna-Soar (or MOL) during an Abort WAS: Dy |
|
|
| Quote: |
"Dyna-Soar on a Atlas-Centaur"?
|
Hmmmmm, I had only seen the Titan IIIC version. Thanks for the
thread.
But I have a question. As I recall Gemini used ejection seats for
early aborts because the Titan II catastrophically failed in such a
way that seats were feasible (slower, smaller fireball), whereas
Mecury and Apollo catastrophically failed in such a way that seats
were out of the question.
How was a crew supposed to get away from the Atlas Centaur in a
hurry? IIRC, an escape tower was not fitted to Dyna-Soar and since
Atlas would not permit the use of a seat in Mercury, it would seem the
same would be the case for Dyna-Soar.
AND . . . how was a Dyna-Soar (or MOL) crew supposed to get away from
a Titan IIIC? SRBs can fail very quickly and with TONS of nasty
debris (recall the Delta at the Cape a few years ago or the Titan III/
IV loss at Vandenburg in the mid 1980's. Also remember the first
launch attempt of Ariane V, the SRBs were not the root cause, but the
rupture of the solids was spectacular)
Thanks and take care . . .
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Jorge R. Frank
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 2:55 am Post subject: Re: How to leave Dyna-Soar (or MOL) during an Abort WAS: |
|
|
John <pelchat@charter.net> wrote in news:1177520192.861750.75140
@t38g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
| Quote: |
AND . . . how was a Dyna-Soar (or MOL) crew supposed to get away from
a Titan IIIC? SRBs can fail very quickly and with TONS of nasty
debris (recall the Delta at the Cape a few years ago or the Titan III/
IV loss at Vandenburg in the mid 1980's.
|
The SRBs would have had thrust termination capability.
--
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Craig Fink
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 3:02 am Post subject: Re: How to leave Dyna-Soar (or MOL) during an Abort WAS: |
|
|
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
| Quote: |
John <pelchat@charter.net> wrote in news:1177520192.861750.75140
@t38g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
AND . . . how was a Dyna-Soar (or MOL) crew supposed to get away from
a Titan IIIC? SRBs can fail very quickly and with TONS of nasty
debris (recall the Delta at the Cape a few years ago or the Titan III/
IV loss at Vandenburg in the mid 1980's.
The SRBs would have had thrust termination capability.
|
I guess higher order detonation of an SRB could be described as thrust
termination also. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Pat Flannery
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Pat Flannery
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 4:24 am Post subject: Re: How to leave Dyna-Soar (or MOL) during an Abort WAS: |
|
|
John wrote:
| Quote: |
"Dyna-Soar on a Atlas-Centaur"?
Hmmmmm, I had only seen the Titan IIIC version. Thanks for the
thread.
But I have a question. As I recall Gemini used ejection seats for
early aborts because the Titan II catastrophically failed in such a
way that seats were feasible (slower, smaller fireball), whereas
Mecury and Apollo catastrophically failed in such a way that seats
were out of the question.
How was a crew supposed to get away from the Atlas Centaur in a
hurry? IIRC, an escape tower was not fitted to Dyna-Soar and since
Atlas would not permit the use of a seat in Mercury, it would seem the
same would be the case for Dyna-Soar.
Dyna-Soar reincorporated a high-thrust solid motor in the interstage |
between it and the launch vehicle. In case of a launch problem it would
use that to blast itself free; that's what's firing in this drawing:
http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/winter2004/images/01_02.jpg
| Quote: |
AND . . . how was a Dyna-Soar (or MOL) crew supposed to get away from
a Titan IIIC? SRBs can fail very quickly and with TONS of nasty
debris (recall the Delta at the Cape a few years ago or the Titan III/
IV loss at Vandenburg in the mid 1980's. Also remember the first
launch attempt of Ariane V, the SRBs were not the root cause, but the
rupture of the solids was spectacular)
The Titan III was originally going to incorporate blow-off panels on the |
SRB nosecones that would vent them in case of a problem; it was found
that the abrupt decrease in pressure in the fuel grain from venting it
would cause combustion to cease.
Originally the Shuttle was going to have these also, but the ET appeared
to be too fragile to take the blast from the panels firing, and the
fire exiting from them would envelope the orbiter, with probably fatal
effects on it as well.
In MOL, you'd shut everything down and then either eject, or at higher
altitudes separate the Gemini RV from the stack via salvoing its five
retro motors (it had five, unlike the standard Gemini's four).
Pat |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
mmaker@my-deja.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 2:21 pm Post subject: Re: How to leave Dyna-Soar (or MOL) during an Abort WAS: Dyn |
|
|
On Apr 25, 5:56 pm, John <pelc...@charter.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
IIRC, an escape tower was not fitted to Dyna-Soar and since
Atlas would not permit the use of a seat in Mercury, it would seem the
same would be the case for Dyna-Soar.
|
Early on (e.g. a pad abort) they'd use the Dyna-Soar's solid rocket to
get away from the booster, and then glide back to land. It seemed
quite an optimistic plan, but Neil Armstrong did some tests using a
jet that had been modified to fly like the Dyna-Soar and proved that
it could be done.
I'm not sure what they'd have done later in the launch when they
couldn't return to KSC... presumably they'd have to ditch and hope to
get picked up. Assuming they didn't lose a wing due to aerodynamic
stress in a Challenger-style accident anyway.
NTRS has at least one document about Armstrong's pad abort test
flights, I'm not sure if they have others about Dyna-Soar aborts.
Mark |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
John
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 9:49 pm Post subject: Re: How to leave Dyna-Soar (or MOL) during an Abort WAS: Dyn |
|
|
| Quote: |
In MOL, you'd shut everything down and then either eject, or at higher
altitudes separate the Gemini RV from the stack via salvoing its five
retro motors (it had five, unlike the standard Gemini's four).
Pat-
|
Pat (and others)
What makes me wonder about the viability of seats was the memory of
the SRB failures that I cited in my earlier post. Those accidents
looked, at least to me, every bit as bad as an Atlas destructively
rearranging itself, but perhaps that was just an illusion.
This may be a very hard question to reply to in a quantitative sense,
but I have had the impression that most liquid-fueled vehicles give
you some initial hint that things are turning south while solids
provide less warning that things are not as they should be. Are
solids really less likely to give you some indication (assuming you
have the right instrumentation in the right place) so that you can
know that it is time to abort/eject/pray?
Blue skies . . .
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Rusty
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 12:54 am Post subject: Re: How to leave Dyna-Soar (or MOL) during an Abort WAS: Dyn |
|
|
On Apr 25, 9:56 am, John <pelc...@charter.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Dyna-Soar on a Atlas-Centaur"?
Hmmmmm, I had only seen the Titan IIIC version. Thanks for the
thread.
But I have a question. As I recall Gemini used ejection seats for
early aborts because the Titan II catastrophically failed in such a
way that seats were feasible (slower, smaller fireball), whereas
Mecury and Apollo catastrophically failed in such a way that seats
were out of the question.
How was a crew supposed to get away from the Atlas Centaur in a
hurry? IIRC, an escape tower was not fitted to Dyna-Soar and since
Atlas would not permit the use of a seat in Mercury, it would seem the
same would be the case for Dyna-Soar.
AND . . . how was a Dyna-Soar (or MOL) crew supposed to get away from
a Titan IIIC? SRBs can fail very quickly and with TONS of nasty
debris (recall the Delta at the Cape a few years ago or the Titan III/
IV loss at Vandenburg in the mid 1980's. Also remember the first
launch attempt of Ariane V, the SRBs were not the root cause, but the
rupture of the solids was spectacular)
Thanks and take care . . .
John
|
Here's some info about early simulations of Dyna-Soar launch aborts:
Neil Armstrong prepares to fly a Dyna-Soar abort simulation in
one of Dryden's Douglas F5D-1 Skylancer aircraft
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/F-5D/Small/EC62-128.jpg
Flight simulated subsonic off-pad landing and escape maneuvers for
vertically launched hypersonic glider - pilot performance and safety
requirements
Authors: Armstrong, N. A.; Dana, W. H.; Matranga, G. J.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19660024040_1966024040.pdf
Rusty |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Rusty
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 12:58 am Post subject: Re: How to leave Dyna-Soar (or MOL) during an Abort WAS: Dyn |
|
|
On Apr 25, 9:56 am, John <pelc...@charter.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Dyna-Soar on a Atlas-Centaur"?
Hmmmmm, I had only seen the Titan IIIC version. Thanks for the
thread.
But I have a question. As I recall Gemini used ejection seats for
early aborts because the Titan II catastrophically failed in such a
way that seats were feasible (slower, smaller fireball), whereas
Mecury and Apollo catastrophically failed in such a way that seats
were out of the question.
How was a crew supposed to get away from the Atlas Centaur in a
hurry? IIRC, an escape tower was not fitted to Dyna-Soar and since
Atlas would not permit the use of a seat in Mercury, it would seem the
same would be the case for Dyna-Soar.
AND . . . how was a Dyna-Soar (or MOL) crew supposed to get away from
a Titan IIIC? SRBs can fail very quickly and with TONS of nasty
debris (recall the Delta at the Cape a few years ago or the Titan III/
IV loss at Vandenburg in the mid 1980's. Also remember the first
launch attempt of Ariane V, the SRBs were not the root cause, but the
rupture of the solids was spectacular)
Thanks and take care . . .
John
|
Here's some info about early launch abort tests for the Dyna Soar:
Neil Armstrong prepares to fly a Dyna-Soar abort simulation in
one of Dryden's Douglas F5D-1 Skylancer aircraft
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/F-5D/Small/EC62-128.jpg
Flight simulated subsonic off-pad landing and escape maneuvers for
vertically launched hypersonic glider - pilot performance and safety
requirements
Authors: Armstrong, N. A.; Dana, W. H.; Matranga, G. J.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19660024040_1966024040.pdf
Rusty |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Pat Flannery
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 5:18 am Post subject: Re: How to leave Dyna-Soar (or MOL) during an Abort WAS: Dyn |
|
|
mmaker@my-deja.com wrote:
| Quote: |
I'm not sure what they'd have done later in the launch when they
couldn't return to KSC... presumably they'd have to ditch and hope to
get picked up.
|
It also had a ejection seat, so I assume the pilot would bleed off its
speed till it was low enough for him to eject.
Pat |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Pat Flannery
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 6:12 am Post subject: Re: How to leave Dyna-Soar (or MOL) during an Abort WAS: Dyn |
|
|
John wrote:
| Quote: |
This may be a very hard question to reply to in a quantitative sense,
but I have had the impression that most liquid-fueled vehicles give
you some initial hint that things are turning south while solids
provide less warning that things are not as they should be.
depends on the failure mode... if it outright explodes you aren't going |
to get much of a warning at all, obviously; And in that case you have to
get free before the shockwave of the explosion reaches your vehicle;
they did animations showing this on The Stick, and it's a case where the
more distance you can place between the crew and the SRB, the better.
But if the failure is a burn-through like happened to Challenger, that
would give you enough warning time to activate the escape system.
Originally, the Shuttle was going to have burn-through sensors on the
SRBs and a pair of solid rockets to allow the orbiter to fly off of the
stack if something like that occurred.
| Quote: |
Are
solids really less likely to give you some indication (assuming you
have the right instrumentation in the right place) so that you can
know that it is time to abort/eject/pray?
|
I think if the pressure inside the solid suddenly starts going through
the roof, that's the time to leave the booster. 
Because of the fact that the SRB could go real bad real fast, and
because of that fact I am in favor of a escape system that has both a
manual and automatic activation mode, like was used on Apollo; because I
can see circumstances arising when you don't have the time to manually
activate it after something goes wrong in a big hurry.
On the other hand, the SRB has had a really good record, with, what is
it now? 230 separate SRBs being used operationally on Shuttles with only
one catastrophic failure; that's the best performance rating of any
major rocket stage AFAIK.
Pat |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
222 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
