posted 06-14-2008 06:23 AM               

What is the smell of a launch?

How long on a still day does the smoke generated hang around?

posted 06-14-2008 09:57 AM               

Listening to the audio commentary on my DVD of Armageddon (Criterion collection version, including audio commentary from the director, the lead cameraman and astronaut Joe Allen), they talked about the survey they did to the cameras used to film the launches for the film, and even with the all clear given, there was still an almost overpowering acidic smell in the air that made a couple of their camera techs want to vomit. That was the extent of it though.

When I was down at the press site for STS-121, we had a bulletin a couple days before that with prevailing winds, there was a good chance that some particulate matter from Discovery's liftoff would get blown back towards the press site. I asked one of the other press guys if he ever had been pelted by SRB debris and he said yes, on a couple of occassions. He said normally it isn't anything to worry about. If it gets on the car, just try to get it washed off soon so one doesn't risk it etching the paint. Biggest thing was to not get a particulate in your eye since it would burn like a drop of acid rain and would need to be flushed out at a first aid station.

posted 06-14-2008 12:31 PM               

The Air Force did many studies on the effects of large SRBs on the atmosphere, namely from the shuttle and Titan IV and concluded that some nine shuttles and six Titans per year accounted for a bit less than one percent of the world's annual ozone depletion. Part of the tests included flying a WB-57 into the exhaust plumes after launch.

The Air Force cited the environment as one of its main reasons for retiring the Titan IV.

You can view data from those studies here:

Rockets and the Ozone Layer

IMPACT OF ROCKETS ON STRATOSPHERIC OZONE DEPLETION

Space Shuttle & Ozone Layer Damage

Article: Poisoned plumes

Rockets fueled with only hydrogen and oxygen, of which there is only the Delta IV, produce only water vapor; rockets powered by kerosene produce carbon dioxide. The process to manufacture hydrogen and kerosene is also pollutive.

Those are what I would call the facts. I wouldn't mind seeing SRBs retired, but in the overall goal of space exploration I would say it's worth the cost.

posted 06-14-2008 03:06 PM               

ACID RAIN STATEMENT
- At ignition, the Space Shuttle's twin solid rocket boosters produce an exhaust cloud containing drops of hydrochloric acid. This cloud drifts with the wind after the launch, slowly dissipating as it travels. These droplets are not strong enough to cause anything other than a minor irritation and are easily rinsed off with water.
- Launch viewing sites are far enough away from the launch site that there is ample time for visitors to return to the bus. It is imperative that you listen for all announcements and strictly follow all instructions provided by NASA.

Fortunately, we didn't get the "acid rain" effect at the Banana Creek viewing site for STS-124, but the folks I watched the launch with did have stories of when the wind did shift their way during previous launches, and of getting little flecks on them. After hearing their stories, I'm just as glad to have avoided it.

STS-124 was a beautiful launch. We didn't get the full sound and fury you read about over where we were, but you could definitely hear something was going on over at 39A. It was spectacular nonetheless.

posted 06-15-2008 04:34 AM               

I would say in the case of NASA, if SRBs had been a larger pollution hazard then they seem to be, there probably would have been more effort to come up with an LRB about ten years ago when initial studies were done concerning such a system to replace the SRBs. Reason being is that KSC is built on a wilderness preserve (federal land) and environmental studies take place there all the time. As such, there is plenty of data to measure the effects of rocket launches in that part of Florida.

If and when Orion begins to fly, chances are the flight rate will only be about two or three flights a year to the ISS if we are talking four to six month rotation rates of six crewmembers. Since Aries 1 would use a single SRB, then we are talking a reduction in pollution of about 1/5th of what we see in a given year with five shuttle launches.

Aries V won't fly until 2022 at the earliest it seems and at most I can only see maybe five flights a year maximum if the Lunar program ramps up the way NASA wants it to. Of course, solids are used in other space programs as well with Ariane V being a prime example.

posted 06-15-2008 08:02 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ben:
The Air Force did many studies on the effects of large SRBs on the atmosphere, namely from the shuttle and Titan IV and concluded that some nine shuttles and six Titans per year accounted for a bit less than one percent of the world's annual ozone depletion. Part of the tests included flying a WB-57 into the exhaust plumes after launch.

---

posted 06-15-2008 11:08 PM               

I think Titan also got retired as well due to other factors in its design, a big one being that the core stages of the booster utilize hypergolic fuels as the primary fuel and oxidizer. Atlas V and Delta IV heavy are much better boosters by comparison and can haul stuff up in the Titan power class now. Granted shuttle orbiter and many satellites also utilize hypergolics, but Titan was the last US booster to use it for the primary rocket motors.