|Quoting Thrust (Reply 5):|
So in terms of a booster, how would the SI-C rank in terms of fuel efficiency compared to SRBs ,and the SII qnd SIVB compared to those of the shuttle engines?
|Quoting Areopagus (Reply 8):|
|Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 4):|
Actually the SRBs are throttleable, after a fashion. The forward section has a star pattern in the core. This provides additional burning area & more thrust right after ignition.
|Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 3):|
SRB's are also significantly more simple...no plumbing or complex storage required. They also seem to be very reliable. Sure, they can't be throttled but predicting their thrust profile is pretty much worked out by now.
They are easy to build, store and use and launch aborts don't require defueling...with the costs and dangers involved.
|Quoting ADent (Reply 11):|
Not super easy to store - they need bunkers. A liquid rocket can be stored in a hanger.
Not easy to ship, especially in large sizes - they are hazardous cargo. SRMs are also heavy to ship - vs an empty liquid rocket.
|Quoting spudh (Reply 12):|
I get what you are saying but LH and LO are not so handy and safe to transport and store in the volume required for a Rocket so that will weigh against the SRB difficulties.