Collected Reports of the Panel on Technical Evaluation of NASA's Redesign of the Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster (1988) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
2 Interim Report #2: October 10, 1986
2 Interim Report #2: October 10, 1986
Pages 7-14
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 7... ...
Fletcher Administrator National Aeronautics & Space Administration 400 Maryland Avenue, S.W., Room 7137 Washington, DC 20546 Dear Jim: October 10, 1986 I am pleased to submit herewith the second interim report of the National Research Council Panel for the Technical Evaluation of the Redesign of the Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster. The purpose of this letter is to provide an independent technical evaluation of the progress of the redesign program thus far.
|
From page 8... ...
These and other uncertainties must be resolved through a vigorous test and engineering program. Regarding design of the insulation in the gap between case segments, the Panel notes that the baseline bonded insulator designs, while advantageous for protecting the metal joint and insulator-to-case bond, may also pose probe ems with assembly and demating.
|
From page 9... ...
The structure could incorporate a volume or reservoir of relatively cool, stagnant combustion gases between the mated insulating segments upstream of and in series with the first seal along a potential leak path. This volume could be fi1 leaf with a porous ablative material that would physically inhibit gas exchange and absorb the sensible heat that enters the reservoir.
|
From page 10... ...
The success of the redesign effort rests on the test program. The Marshall and Johnson teams and their contractors have briefed us on the potential role of a ful1-scale vertical test firing, including structural dynamics, in the test program.
|
From page 11... ...
The current test schedule envisions only one full scale, full duration test of the new nozzle that incorporates all the changes of the redesign. We recommend additional full scale, full duration testing to assure that the various elements of the design, including ablative material and additional pressure seals and leak check ports, operate as expected over the range of conditions imposed by the requirements.
|
From page 12... ...
We also will continue to review aspects of the design including assembly and disassembly of field joints and reuse. Alternative Design Considerations The alternative designs being considered by NASA meet the constraint of using the case forgings that have already been ordered.
|
From page 13... ...
We strongly recommend that NASA maintain a program to explore and develop original, possibly quite different designs for the next generation of SRB in parallel with the current redesign effort and for the contingency that the baseline design may not offer sufficiently good performance and margin of safety. In particular, an alternative SRB should take advantage of designs that are insensitive to or will benefit from the structural deformations that occur after ignition.
|
From page 14... ...
We believe that the planned test program requires significant augmentation with additional facilities and tests. It need not, however, include a full scale, full duration vertical test provided the static and dynamic loads of launch and flight, separately and in combination, are appropriately simulated elsewhere in the program.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.