Thande
Donor
I'm quite sure that it wouldn't be 'easy', but there were several plans to do just that.
Saturn V-B
Saturn S-IC-TLB
etc.
Isn't that more like the modern Atlas V/Delta IV Common Core Booster stage?
I'm quite sure that it wouldn't be 'easy', but there were several plans to do just that.
Saturn V-B
Saturn S-IC-TLB
etc.
Errr... What? The SRBs were meant to be expendable, and originally were. It was only after some guy in NASA decided that more 'reusable' was better that they decided to recover and refurbish the SRB's and AFAIK, it costs more to refurbish one than to build a new one.
In order to establish an approximate cost factor, a log was kept of the procedures, reconditioning manhours, materials, and an itemized list of replaced engine parts. The cost to recover and recondition the H- 1 engine was approximately 5 per cent of the cost of a new one.
No, you're mixing up the history a bit. There were a few initial proposals, both within JSC and unsolicited from Grumman, that used existing expendable SRBs, but by the time of JSC was laying out the Phase C Shuttle studies, the decision had already been made that the boosters would be reusable (and there would be two of them). MSFC wanted to give the contractors the option of pressure-fed (i.e. no-turbopump) liquid boosters, because they would have higher performance. JSC, however, thought they were too complex and expensive. So, all the Phase C/D contractors used SRBs in their proposals.
Here's an image showing the difference: http://www.nss.org/resources/library/shuttledecision/p398.gif (from http://www.nss.org/resources/library/shuttledecision/chapter09.htm )
http://www.nss.org/resources/library/shuttledecision/chapter09.htm said:The OMB also would allow a booster "of the reusable pressure-fed type," which Low had recommended.
...
Boeing and NASA-Marshall, however, would not be denied, as they proposed a new alternative: a pump-fed booster. Though this again was to be an S-IC variant, it would be without wings, tail, jet engines, landing gear, or crew compartment. Instead it amounted to the standard S-IC, fitted out to land in the ocean by using parachutes. A retro-rocket was to cushion its impact in the sea; it then would float like a ditched airplane as it awaited rescue. After refurbishment, it would fly again.
...
The strong case of a solid motor also gave a strong case for choosing the solid motor. No one had previously tried to recover and reuse a solid booster; those of the Titan III had simply plopped into the deep, to provide homes for fishes. Early in January, a NASA official had said, "It is not contemplated at this time that a solid-rocket booster would be recoverable." Yet the modest staging velocity of the solids, as low as 4000 ft/sec, meant that their heavy casings could easily serve as a heat sink. They also could withstand the stress of dropping by parachute into the ocean. NASA-Marshall and its contractors found that reusability of these solids would cut the cost per flight to around $10 million, allowing the Shuttle to maintain its advantage and to capture its traffic from expendables. [Aviation Week: January 10, 1972, p. 15; March 20, 1972, pp. 14-16; memo, Sullivan to Rice, March 13, 1972; letter, Low to Rice, January 11, 1972.]
you're right about "hot" engines dropped into cold, salwater. But, Boeing has the answer to that problem ! Before dropping the big upper stage into the ocean, just blew the LOX tank dome. Have the stage fall in the water LOX-tank first, with the engines up. When the open LOx tank hit the water, an immense volume of air is trapped, and the stage floats like a giant plug or cork !on those test were made during 1961
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=5948
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=6012
concusion on the report
there is a big BUT
that Test were made with cold engine !
if rocket stage fall under parachute into ocean
the engine are still very hot in contact with much colder seawater
the engine get brittle, wat result later in brittle fracture during reused !
With a good heavy lift rocket like an Energia or Saturn 5 you could build the space station quicker with larger modules, launch larger quicker interplanetry probes, and a bigger man sized Hubble space telescope.