SRB Question

1,100,000 pounds according to a NASA website.

Personally I would advise you focus on your triggers as they are likely related to sign-on/credit card customer billing issues and we don't want to screw those up ... so get back to work and focus!

Hell I would explain SQL triggers designed to update records due to the fact that most of the class will most likely be employed as IT workers instead of Space Shuttle Booster manufactures ... Space Shuttle will be decommissioned in the next couple of years so why bother?

Here is the google answer for the question you originally proposed:

They produce about 3.1 million pounds (13.8 million newtons) thrust each for the first few seconds after ignition, before gradually declining for the remainder of a two-minute burn.

I leave it up to you to do the division AFTER you have successfully scripted and debuged you SQL code.

Just remember the burn rate is non-linear so unless you are up on your differential equations or have a program to "do-the-math" division will be in the "ball park" but a couple of orders of magnitude off.

Hope this helps :) Now I have to get back to SSO, DB2 backend, and DFS space issues that I am working on ... ah the power of cheese.

Thanks WOR, but Joe gave me what I was looking for. I was primarily concerned with weight, rather than performance... they're only 5th. graders ya know...

20.7 grams into 1.1 million pounds would mean that it'd take around a mere 28.7 million E18 grains to equal the SRB.

/Vader

Impressive!

Vader/

Just throwin' some numbers out...

Actually, related to an EDI system I wrote. I'm actually a multivalued kinda guy...

tah

Hope that SQL scripting/debugging is going along smoothly ... anyways, the scape and paste may not have worked as I am playing around with Cygnus and Exceed ... trying to get these damn things to emulate my terminals correctly ... here is your info again googled:

The two solid rocket boosters are each 149.1 feet (45.4 meters) high and 12.2 feet (3.7 meters) in diameter. Each weighs 1,300,000 pounds (589,670 kilograms). Their solid propellant consists of a mixture of Aluminum powder, Ammonium Perchlorate powder, and a dash of Iron Oxide catalyst, held together with a polymer binder. They produce about 3.1 million pounds (13.8 million newtons) thrust each for the first few seconds after ignition, before gradually declining for the remainder of a two-minute burn. Tog ether with the three main engines on the orbiter, this provides a total thrust of over 7.3 million pounds (32.5 million newtons) at liftoff.

So this you could do the division and get propellant ratios within an order of magnitude :)

I figured the SRB to be about 1,422,000,000 newton sec, or a 6Z (ZZZZZZ) motor.

Paul

I think your math is a few orders of magnitude off.

Each SRB is 1.43B Ns and 1.1M pounds. That is 2^27 times a C engine, which would be about an AE or AF.

So, each SRB would be about 35.8 million E18 motors by power or 24.1 million E18 motors by weight.

Just a few orders of magnitude, with a couple of "head calculations"... I said 28.7 million, and yes, I was looking specifically at weight.

I'll trim those calcs up before the launch tomorrow..

Still, a rather impressive number..

tah

IRC we calculated that one SRB is a class AE motor (5 steps past Z). So the power difference is on the order of 2^26:1, or 67 million times bigger.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

SRBs have higher ISP than what we use, so it would be even more than that. My 67 million number was based on the full AE class motor, which the SRB isn't. I don't recall the exact NS value, but I'd put it in the 30-40 million to one range.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

So the difference between 1,422,000,000 newton sec and 1.43B Ns is a few orders of magnitude? You may look into some remedial math classes.

Paul

No, that's not where the disparity was.

It's an AE class motor, many, many orders of magnitude less than a ZZZZZZ.

Or maybe, by 6Z, you meant 5 doublings past a Z? Which is the same as AE, and makes more sense.

Doug

If we're using ASCII, after Z comes [, \, ], ^, _, and `.

That would make the SRBs _ engines?

No, it's EBCDIC, so that makes them ¬ engines :)

Doug

Ah, now I see. Pardon, It didn't occur to me that anyone would would read "6Z" as "six times a Z" rather that six doublings of past Z (or AE).

Paul