The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > General Questions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-07-2003, 01:57 PM
bcullman bcullman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
shuttle originally designed to use something other than solid rocket boosters?

Just listening to NPR Science Friday, and a couple callers commented that NASA did not want to use solid rocket boosters with the Shuttle when it was designed in the 70's, but that the governement asked them to build a cheaper solution than the one they originally proposed, and *viola* our reliance on solid rocket boosters.

My question is - what did NASA orignally propose?
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 02-07-2003, 02:20 PM
chukhung chukhung is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
One of the best online histories of the space shuttle design process I've found is here: http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/sp4221.htm. "The Space Shuttle Decision. NASA's Search for a Reusable Space Vehicle." This is from the NASA History Office.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-07-2003, 05:04 PM
hobbes730 hobbes730 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
I don't know the exact history, but I'm sure NASA would have preferred to use liquid-fuel rockets only. The reason for this is that they can be throttled back or shut down completely, as opposed to the SRBs, which, once lit, will burn at full power until there's nothing left. However, SRBs are tremendously cheaper and simpler to build.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-07-2003, 06:06 PM
bonzer bonzer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
From Diane Vaughan's The Challenger Launch Decision (Chicago, 1996, p21):

Quote:
Both Liquid and Solid Rocket Boosters could be recovered and reused, but Liquid Rocket Boosters had high development costs and lower operating costs. When announcing the decision, then NASA Administrator James F. Fletcher stated candidly that the SRB choice turned on a "trade-off between future benefits and earlier savings in the immediate years ahead: liquid boosters have lower potential operating costs, while solid boosters have lower development costs." But production and schedule concerns also played a role in the design decision. Liquid Rocket Boosters dropped by parachute into the sea after launch required more refurbishment before reuse than did SRBs jettisoned in the same manner. SRBs could be ready to fly again in two weeks, fitting with the rapid turnaround time necessary to maintain the launch schedule Mathematica predicted.
Vaughan tends to take this Mathematica projection as the core of all STS planning. (I've omitted her various references.)
She has a relatively detailed discussion of the design decisions once NASA commited to SRBs. And, of course, she describes the evolution of the final design in detail.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.