4
$\begingroup$

Through some research, I got to know about the booster separation motors (BSMs) used on the space shuttle in order to separate the solid rocket boosters (SRBs). However I did not understand if this is similar to Hot staging on a rocket or does the separation and BSM firing take place simultaneously? and if so how?

It also wonder what other methods of booster separation have been used throughout time and which of them are used today?

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You're asking what the order of operations is between the pyros that blow the bolts and the ones that ignite the BSMs? I mean, as far as I'm aware it was one ordnance firing signal that went to all of 'em, so they're simultaneous to within the tolerances of electrical travel time and detonator ignition delay. I'm not sure what you mean by 'how'... if all the wires are connected to one voltage source, they all trigger off the same current. But, there's folks on here with way more detailed knowledge of the SST systems than me and the documents to back it up, so I'll leave actual answers to them. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 27 at 19:23
  • $\begingroup$ The space shuttle SRB sep sequence is detailed in this answer space.stackexchange.com/a/58721 A canonical reference for this sequence is linked. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 1 at 2:14

2 Answers 2

0
$\begingroup$

The explosive bolts that held the Space Shuttle boosters on and the ignition for the Booster Separation Motors all used the same NASA standard detonators wired to the same trigger circuit (with lots of redundancies, of course). When the ordnance firing signal went off, the circuit energized, putting power into all the BSMs and all the explosive bolts at once. It all happened simultaneously, aside from any millisecond-scale variations due to electrical travel time and chemical ignition delay.

It's not really hot-staging, where the upper stage fires while still attached to the lower stage, because the purpose of hot-staging is to use the ongoing thrust from the lower stage to make sure the fuel stays at the bottom of the upper stage's tank, to avoid gas bubbles that could cause ignition problems. But it's similar in the sense that when the BSMs fire, the boosters have not yet physically moved away from the main tank (obviously, since that movement is what the BSMs were meant to accomplish).

As to other designs, I know the Falcon Heavy uses pneumatic rams to shove the booster Falcons away from the core (at which point aerodynamic forces finish the job). I'm not particularly familiar with the staging processes of other side-mounted boosters such as the Titan IV or the Ariane series.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Do you have a reference for this information? I'd like to read about the lots of redundancies. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 3 at 19:25
  • $\begingroup$ Well, this memo was one of my sources, but I don't think it actually addresses redundancy. The wikipedia page for the SRB describes in the Separation section that each of the explosive bolts has dual redundant NSDs, and the BSMs "are ignited by firing redundant NSD pressure cartridges into redundant confined detonating fuse manifolds". I didn't find an original source for those, but I didn't search all that long; the source section on that page is longer than my arm. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 3 at 20:15
  • $\begingroup$ I didn't see much info about the actual wiring, but I may have simply assumed that redundant igniters would have fully redundant signaling circuits, as the alternative would be a life-critical system with a single point of failure in the wiring harness. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 3 at 20:17
  • $\begingroup$ You can see a schematic of the circuitry here gandalfddi.z19.web.core.windows.net/Shuttle/… on page 33 of the pdf on drawing 10.2 in the upper left and right hand corners of the drawing. The circuitry is pretty straightforward: there were two circuits, A and B, providing 1 level of redundancy. The BSM igniters were also physically interconnected so either electrical signal would fire both. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 3 at 21:57
  • $\begingroup$ Okay, yeah, that's pretty well what I was expecting. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 4 at 2:58
-4
$\begingroup$

It is a closely choreographed operation. Obviously it has to be or it would tear the core vehicle apart. Historically it was done with a liquid core that was already a launch vehicle in use that needed added lift. One of the easiest ways was to add more rockets to the stack so solids were by far the easiest solution. Light and go, don't need to worry about fueling, complicated engines, etc. So when they burn out, usually registered by internal sensors reading a specific low pressure value, they are separated by pyros at the attach bolts and then kicked away with small solids as there isn't really any other good way to do it. One smaller solid strap-ons spring devices were used to push the burnt out booster casing away from the rocket.I also just read the large GEM solids on the Atlas 5 just fall away when they burn out but that sounds odd because on the Starliner flight I also read they stayed attach for a minute after burnout to make certain they were completely burnt out and wouldn't affect the Atlas core.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.