GOT@PSUVMA.BITNET (03/22/86)
There have been static firings of the Orbiters engines quit a few times.
During these tests the main engines were lit while the whole assembly
(orbiter, tank, and SRB's) was on the launch pad to measure the "twang"
of the system among other things.
To my knowledge it is impossible to test an SRB by igniting it on the
launch pad without actually launching. Even if the hold down bolts could
take that much thrust, as soon as the water noise suppression system
runs out of water (only a couple of seconds) the flame from the SRB's
would probably be enough to cause catastrophic damage. To date
there have only been seven static firings of SRB's, all of which were in
the horizontal position in special test fixtures.
Sunil Gupta
got@psuvma, s2g@psuecl
rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) (03/24/86)
In article <4619GOT@PSUVMA> GOT@PSUVMA.BITNET writes: >To my knowledge it is impossible to test an SRB by igniting it on the >launch pad without actually launching. Even if the hold down bolts could >take that much thrust, as soon as the water noise suppression system >runs out of water (only a couple of seconds) the flame from the SRB's >would probably be enough to cause catastrophic damage. To date >there have only been seven static firings of SRB's, all of which were in >the horizontal position in special test fixtures. To my knowledge you are correct, but the info on the water noise suppression system is not [quite]. The test stands at NSTL (National Space Technology Labs outside Bay St. Louis) were used to test the main engines (not the SRBs), and the system there would keep pumping 300,000 gallons per minute for a full- duration test firing (300 seconds). So the facilities are present to keep down flame damage -- but I still don't think that the test stands could handle the SRB thrust; any other comments on this? BTW, the test stands used a mock-up of the shuttle with a real fuel tank attached, not an actual shuttle itself (as you might imagine!). -- The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291) alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd allegra ]!burl!rcj ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd decvax watmath ]!clyde!rcj
GOT@PSUVMA.BITNET (03/27/86)
>To my knowledge you are correct, but the info on the water noise suppression >system is not [quite]. The test stands at NSTL (National Space Technology Labs >outside Bay St. Louis) were used to test the main engines (not the SRBs), >and the system there would keep pumping 300,000 gallons per minute for a full- >duration test firing (300 seconds). So the facilities are present to keep >down flame damage -- but I still don't think that the test stands could >handle the SRB thrust; any other comments on this? > >BTW, the test stands used a mock-up of the shuttle with a real fuel tank >attached, not an actual shuttle itself (as you might imagine!). Did I ever mention which test site? I don't think so. The test site that I was speaking of is Morton Thiokol's facility where they build and mold the SRB's. Check the last few (8) issues of Avaition Week, they even have a picture of an SRB in the test rig. When I mentioned the water noise supression system that was in referance to SRB firing on the launch pad. reread my previous posting. Sunil Gupta GOT@PSUVMA S2G@PSUECL
rjnoe@riccb.UUCP (Roger J. Noe) (03/27/86)
> To date > there have only been seven static firings of SRB's, all of which were in > the horizontal position in special test fixtures. > > Sunil Gupta > got@psuvma, s2g@psuecl I thought the SRBs had also been tested in the inverted position, i.e. pointed into the ground. Is this incorrect? -- Roger Noe ihnp4!riccb!rjnoe