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

To: anymouse

“Engineers are concerned that the new rocket meant to replace the space shuttle and send astronauts on their way to the moon could shake violently during the first few minutes of flight, possibly destroying the entire vehicle.”

This is a result of using solid fuel boosters. Why are is NASA using them rather than safer, less expensive, and less polluting liquid fueled boosters? Those seemed to work fine in the Apollo project.

Fortunately, private enterprise may yet come to the rescue, in the form of the SPACEX Falcon 9 project and its kerosene fueled liquid engines.


31 posted on 01/20/2008 5:09:07 AM PST by PreciousLiberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: PreciousLiberty

Liquid fuel doen’t pack the punch of solid fuel, and it’s harder to store. High thrust-to-weight is especially important during liftoff. NASA has also designed them to be recoverable. The trade-off is not being sure what the damn things will do once the fuse is lit.


34 posted on 01/20/2008 5:26:51 AM PST by Telepathic Intruder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | 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