You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

kpreid comments on Stupid Questions May 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

10 Post author: Gondolinian 01 May 2015 05:28PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (263)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: kpreid 22 May 2015 02:27:50PM 1 point [-]

I'm now actually rather curious about the range safety stuff for the SRBs - one of the dangers of an SRB is that there's basically no way to shut it down, and indeed they kept going for some time after Challenger blew up

What I've heard (no research) is that thrust termination for a solid rocket works by charges opening the top end, so that the exhaust exits from both ends and the thrust mostly cancels itself out, or perhaps by splitting along the length of the side (destroying all integrity). In any case, the fuel still burns, but you can stop it from accelerating further.

Comment author: Lumifer 22 May 2015 03:43:57PM 0 points [-]

Hm. A solid rocket burns from one end, opening up the nose will do nothing to the thrust. Splitting a side, I would guess, will lead to uncontrolled acceleration with chaotic flight path, but not zero acceleration.

Comment author: kpreid 23 May 2015 03:02:35PM 2 points [-]

Apparently that's true of some model rocket motors, but the SRBs have a hollow through the entire length of the propellant, so that it burns from the center out to the casing along the entire length at the same time.

Comment author: CBHacking 26 May 2015 07:44:26AM 1 point [-]

That exposes the maximum surface area for combustion, I guess (the surface area actually increases as the propellant is burned, interestingly) so blowing the top would work, yeah.