Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Sergio

"Serious question, is the exhaust from the solid rocket boosters "environmentally friendly"? "

I'm no expert, but here's my guess... the Solid Rocket Boosters are just as the name indicates. A solid chemical compound that is burned. That would most likely NOT be environmentally friendly.

The main tank, the big orange thing, is filled with liquid, mostly oxygen. That would be environmentally friendly.

So, the answer could be, yes and no.


20 posted on 07/28/2005 9:14:57 AM PDT by brownsfan (It's not a war on terror... it's a war with islam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]


To: brownsfan
I'm no expert, but here's my guess... the Solid Rocket Boosters are just as the name indicates. A solid chemical compound that is burned. That would most likely NOT be environmentally friendly.

That's pretty much correct.The SRB's combine a "rubber" laced with aluminum powder fuel and an ammonium perchlorate oxidizer. The exhaust from the SRBs is probably pretty nasty stuff, all sorts of hydrocarbons and aluminum and it's oxides. The SSME's, the main engines burn hydrogen and oxygen, with the exhaust being steam, that is water vapor. That's just about as environmentally friendly as you can get.

The original conceptual design for the shuttle would have had a fly-back booster, probably also burning LOX and H2, although possibly just jet fuel/kerosene and oxygen, which would probably still be more environmentally friendly than the witches brew that comes out of the SRBs. Yet another victim of budget cuts used to benefit the social welfare state.

109 posted on 07/28/2005 3:18:23 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson