WI: SRB problems fixed earlier?

IOTL, Morton Thiokol had identified the issue that led to the Challenger disaster as early as 1977(!) and told MSFC, but neither organization actually did anything about it or informed upper NASA management, instead preferring to ignore the problem. This, of course, ended in tragedy. So, suppose instead that the issue is noticed and reported to higher level management. Presumably, since the first flight wouldn't be for at least 2 years, the issue would be resolved before STS-1, and hence Challenger would never happen (although you can argue otherwise). What would happen?

Personally, given the apparently poor safety culture at NASA (many of the errors that led to the Columbia disaster were similar to the ones that led to Challenger--for example, tile and heat-shield damage had been a major concern since the first flight, there had been several examples of orbiters just barely surviving, and the foam had been mooted as an issue before--but no one did anything, instead preferring to ignore the problem), there would likely have been a different fatal failure at some other point, possibly even in 1986/1987 due to the high flight rate they wanted to maintain then. Even if there isn't, the uneconomic nature of the shuttles relative to ELVs will eventually become obvious, though it may take longer (Shuttles will be somewhat cheaper compared to OTL due to higher flight rates, and there will be more payloads manifested due to lack of disasters--OTL, after Challenger Reagan banned commercial payloads from the Shuttle), so likely by 2000 or so they are mostly doing what they did OTL, after all--free-flying research flights and space station assembly missions, maybe some DoD missions. The biggest difference will simply be that Challenger is flying and 7 people will (probably) still be alive.
 

Thande

Donor
Even if a disaster happened soon after Challenger (and ignoring butterflies here), one important change is the survival of Christa McAuliffe and the Teacher in Space programme, perhaps leading to more public engagement with the shuttle programme.

I always found it rather odd that both shuttle disasters happened to missions with unusual crew on board - Columbia of course had the Israeli Ramon on it.
 
Even if a disaster happened soon after Challenger (and ignoring butterflies here), one important change is the survival of Christa McAuliffe and the Teacher in Space programme, perhaps leading to more public engagement with the shuttle programme.

Perhaps, and perhaps they do their Journalist in Space thing. It could happen, I suppose. It would be easier if we go back to the late '60s and modify NASA bureaucracy and culture so that safety and public engagement are seen as more important, but that would obviously introduce a lot of butterflies.

I always found it rather odd that both shuttle disasters happened to missions with unusual crew on board - Columbia of course had the Israeli Ramon on it.

Yeah, that is kinda strange--and Guion Bluford's flight (STS-8) itself nearly suffered a fatal SRB malfunction! :eek: STS-7 (the first US woman in space) had a micrometeroid hit the window and chip it. Man, God hates unusual Shuttle flights :p
 
let go back times farther

during last phase of shuttle R&D were SBR alterantive
Aerojet proposed Solidblock SBR aka monolithic motor concept
they build for Nasa the AJ-260 (Height: 18.29 m x 6.60 m ø) solid rocket in 1960s
http://www.astronautix.com/stages/260lidhl.htm
Maxime "Max" A. Faget design also single-segment SBR of the shuttle
the disadvantage of single-segment SBR is you need to fill them with fuel near to launch site
that mean a hazardous solidrocket fuel factory in Kennedy space center
A rocket fuel (ammonium perchlorate) plant exploded in Nevada in May 1988.

so NASA and USAF preferred segment SBR because "better transport and handling" by railroad
 
Last edited:
No, the probability that the 260 inch SRBs ever fly is pretty low. They had huge thrust oscillation issues, and were very hard to cast in the Florida humidity.

The original POD is much more likely, especially if Thiokol does a cold weather static fire that goes wrong...
 

Cook

Banned
Why not do away with the SRBs entirely and have Hybrid fuel Boosters instead?
Lower thrust but less risk.
 
Why not do away with the SRBs entirely and have Hybrid fuel Boosters instead?
Lower thrust but less risk.

More development risk. The Shuttle SRBs are based on existing Titan designs, so were be pretty easy to design and build, but hybrid boosters would need a lot of R&D at the time, since no one (except apparently the Russians) had built working models. They already had the high-R&D TPS and SSME, so it wouldn't have made sense to go for hybrid boosters.
 

Archibald

Banned
STS-51C.

This was nearly a STS-51L "dress rehearsal". Note the date: January 24 1985 (!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-51-C
The very same problem that doomed Challenger manifested itself badly. Except that temperature were warmer, and, above all the horrific altitude wing gusts that shaked Challenger were less. So Discovery made it to orbit safely.
STS-51C marked the beginning of Roger Boisjoly (unsuccesful, alas...) crusade against Morthon Thiockol and NASA.

The rest, sadly is history :(
 
STS-51C.

This was nearly a STS-51L "dress rehearsal". Note the date: January 24 1985 (!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-51-C
The very same problem that doomed Challenger manifested itself badly. Except that temperature were warmer, and, above all the horrific altitude wing gusts that shaked Challenger were less. So Discovery made it to orbit safely.
STS-51C marked the beginning of Roger Boisjoly (unsuccesful, alas...) crusade against Morthon Thiockol and NASA.

The rest, sadly is history :(

Well, obviously that wouldn't happen ITTL, since the SRBs had been redesigned in 1977.
 

Thande

Donor
Man, God hates unusual Shuttle flights :p

And the Columbia also blew up over the town of Palestine, Texas - the Islamist clerics over here had fun with that one :rolleyes:

While we're on the subject of liquid boosters, though it's not a terribly realistic prospect, I feel we should mention the Saturn-Shuttle - instead of SRBs or LRBs, just insert the bottom of the external tank into the first stage of the Saturn V.

shusat1c.gif
 
Shuttle-Saturn was a kinda desperate ploy by Boeing (the contractor for the S-IC) to salvage something out of the move away from a flyback booster. The flyback cost way too much to develop, but the Shuttle S-IC was obscenely expensive per flight compared to the SRBs.
 
Top