Comments by "GH1618" (@GH-oi2jf) on "" video.

  1. Once the assembly is on the launch pad, it is secured to the pad. The structure of the launch tower is taller than the SRBs, so would act as a lightning rod. They probably have an actual lightning rod on top of it. I expect rollout would only be done during clear weather.
    2
  2. A “motor” is “a ... thing which causes motion.” (The New Shorter Oxford) It is common usage to call the SRBs “rocket motors.” You don’t get to decide the terminology used by rocket engineers.
    2
  3. The leak from the SRB joint weakened the lower strut which held it to the main tank. The strut broke, allowing the SRB to pivot at the upper strut, breaking the main tank when the upper part of the SRB struck it.
    2
  4. We have detonated hydrogen bombs.
    1
  5. The SRBs provide 80% of the launch thrust, but are not 80% of the volume of the combined propulsion system. Imagine removing the SRBs and using two liquid fuel rockets of the same type as those in the orbiter. Each would have six engines and a fuel tank twice the size of the original main tank, at least. But that doesn’t account for the greater launch weight, so it would be worse than that. Think Saturn V.
    1
  6. A candle is solid fuel. A kerosene lamp is liquid fuel.
    1
  7. The assembly was secured to the pad until all rockets were firing.
    1
  8. SpaceX didn’t do it 40 years ago, though.
    1
  9. That would be bad. They would have to hold the assembly on the pad until it burned out. I don’t know how that would turn out. I’m sure they had high confidence in that aspect of the SRB.
    1
  10. They dislike videos produced by anybody on any subject.
    1
  11. They worked, didn’t they? It was only the joints that were a problem. Poor mechanical design.
    1
  12. They could have been made with a different material for sealing the joints. Boisjoly spoke about this.
    1
  13. These solid rockets provided 80% of the launch thrust of the Shuttle assembly.
    1
  14. It would have been a good systen had they done a better design job on those joints.
    1
  15. There is a video of Roger Boisjoly speaking on the design of the joints, which is worth a look.
    1
  16. They could have been safe. A poor joint design was the root cause of the failure.
    1
  17. Yes, but there were multiple aspects to the “reason.” Ultimately, it was a decision to launch in cold weather against the advice of Thiokol engineers that doomed the shuttle.
    1
  18. Feynman. He documented that fact in one of his books.
    1