6 ms·
I didn't know the space shuttle reused it's boosters. Apparently the two solid rocket boosters deployed parachutes after separation and were refurbished. Intere
by Valgrim 6y ago
I didn't know the space shuttle reused it's boosters. Apparently the two solid rocket boosters deployed parachutes after separation and were refurbished. Interesting! However the main booster could not be reused...
- djaychela 6y agoBy "main booster" do you mean the external tank?
- hylaride 6y agoBy "main booster" did you mean the big red thing? That was a fuel storage tank and yes, it was not re-used.
- DC-3 6y agoI believe it was actually one of the more strongly limiting factors on the frequency with which space shuttle launches could be conducted because the factory producing them could not turn them out particularly quickly.
- phkahler 6y agoBut it fed fuel to the 3 main engines on the orbiter, which were reused. The price of the tank should have been much lower than the engines.
- valuearb 6y agoEngines had to be totally rebuilt after each flight. SRBs cost around $70M each IIRC. The tank was extremely expensive because it had to be as light as possible, while keeping Hydrogen super chilled without leaking. They came out with lighter tanks later in program made out of more exotic materials.
- bryanlarsen 6y agoUnfortunately, refurbishing the solid boosters cost more than replacing them would have.
- m4rtink 6y agoYeah, IIRC they reused the steel segments holding the fuel, not sure about the rest (parachutes, nozzle, thrust vectoring hardware & the APU powering that, etc). And indeed, if you go the SRB way, a modern carbon fibre single use booster would likely be much more efficient (fuel ammount vs weight of construction to hold it) and cheaper. But still not cheaper than a reusable rocket of course. :)
- jessriedel 6y agoSRB separation happened when the shuttle reached ~3,100 mph. The external tank was jettisoned at ~17,500 mph, more than 5 times the speed (or 25 times the kinetic energy that would need to be dissipated in the atmosphere to recover).
- numpad0 6y agoWell that’s how they got the Challenger disaster. Reused booster ruptured under improper launch criteria revised for management and public relations reasons. Would it have been okay if it weren’t for the wrong go? Maybe, but still the potato quality refurbishment of flown boosters could have done it sooner or later.
- detaro 6y agoDo you have any more details on the booster being refurbished having any impact on Challenger?
- extropy 6y agoSearch for "Shuttle Seal Erosion" A brief summary is here: https://books.google.ch/books?id=XsuqDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT56&lpg=PT56&dq=srb+%22seal+erosion%22+shuttle&source=bl&ots=Okk5cB7nmN&sig=ACfU3U0Wo-fhjuHFA9SOmsKppSxCPfFtWw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjalq7Q-OjpAhWyyYUKHb4IBZUQ6AEwAnoECAcQAg#v=onepage&q=srb%20%22seal%20erosion%22%20shuttle&f=false https://books.google.ch/books?id=XsuqDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT56&lpg=PT... Edit: This one is better: https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/17321/did-the-challenger-srbs-fail-due-to-design-for-reuse https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/17321/did-the-chal...
- m4rtink 6y agoAFAIK the SRBs were made in segments to make them rail transportable from the factory (in a state with a friendly congressman ;-)) to the launch pad. There should be pictures of the segments being transported on rail from that one time the train derailed due to trestle collapsing under it.
- syncsynchalt 6y agoThe main booster (all three of them) were attached to the orbiter and were re-used, though not without refurbishment. (Falcon 9 is also refurbished after each launch).
- TeMPOraL 6y agoThe shuttle had two boosters, not three. It also had an external tank that burned in the atmosphere. The boosters were technically reusable, but refurbishing them after the corrosive bath they've taken by their landing in the ocean was much more expensive than making new ones from scratch. You'll note that SpaceX lands their rockets on a barge, instead of landing them on water and fishing them out later - that's because they want to keep the salt water out of the rocket.
- syncsynchalt 6y agoI think I've confused my terminology, as "main booster" usually means the first stage as a whole, but I used it to refer to the individual SSMEs. But I think _you're_ referring to the SRBs. In both cases (SSME and SRB) they were re-used in some fashion, though I agree the SRB re-use was not a good solution.
- TeMPOraL 6y agoYeah, SSMEs didn't have contact with salt water and were easier to refurb :). In general, they were a work of art. I thought you meant SRBs because they too were advertised as reusable, even though in practice, they weren't.
- m4rtink 6y agoThe Sovirt Buran shuttle had 5 boosters - the main Energia hydrolox core stage and 4 modified Zenit boosters. There were even plans to land the boosters and reuse them, the main issue being how to get the massive boosters back from the endless wateland around Baykonur. Also unlike the Space Shuttle, the 5 boosters did all the orbital boosting, Buran only had small orbital correction engines on board (like Shuttle OMS), all big engines were down on the boosters.