ISRO: No Manned Mission to Moon

[kurup]

You don't NEED a solid booster, that's true. But in many cases it's 'optimal'. less moving parts, it's simpler and therefore lesser prone to failure.

'Strap On' boosters for instance- you need something that's a small size, solids can give that compactness much better than liquids in many cases.

True . Your point stands .

But majority of rockets with manned missions use a liquid booster . One has to wonder why ??

 

[SOHEIL]

True . Your point stands .

But majority of rockets with manned missions use a liquid booster . One has to wonder why ??

 

[kurup]

Apart from the reason that you mentioned , why do manned missions rockets prefer liquid booster over solid booster ??

 

[egodoc222]

Apart from the reason that you mentioned , why do manned missions rockets prefer liquid booster over solid booster ??

so that in case of emergency the mission can be aborted... not the case with solid fuel boosters which upon firing burn till the end... cannot be contained.
but US shuttles used solid boosters though!

 

[SOHEIL]

Apart from the reason that you mentioned , why do manned missions rockets prefer liquid booster over solid booster ??

Soyuz

.
.
.

CZ-2F /Shenzhou

.
.
.
​

Here is a point !

Both Russia & China lacking in SRBs !

 

[kurup]

Here is a point !

Both Russia & China lacking in SRBs !

The only rational explanation can be that different countries adopt different approaches .

You have an interesting point . China and Russia lacking in SRBs ....

 

[Guynextdoor2]

True . Your point stands .

But majority of rockets with manned missions use a liquid booster . One has to wonder why ??

No- Space shuttle with more than 100 launches have carried more men into space. So solids have done more than liquids here. MK3 is modeled on Ariane 5 config which would be the preferred system for Europeans if they want mannd missions- so ISRO would have little hesitation in using these babies (S 200) for early stages:

 

[Guynextdoor2]

The only rational explanation can be that different countries adopt different approaches .

You have an interesting point . China and Russia lacking in SRBs ....

Yes it's true. My hypothesis is this- as liquid systems began to evolve, several dangerous fuels began to be proposed- especially those like devil's venom- effectively corrodes lungs even if breathed in at low levels. Because they were easily used in missiles, Russians probably adoped it more. And then they managed to adapt it for rockets that were used for human flights (I don't know but am hypothesizing coz I think I read somewhere that fuels of several Russian systems were like that).

the Americans probably preferred solids and cryo engines (APollo) because they were safer for human flight (BREATHING and health risks).

so that in case of emergency the mission can be aborted... not the case with solid fuel boosters which upon firing burn till the end... cannot be contained.
but US shuttles used solid boosters though!

In emergencies the procedure is to blast the capsule clean off the launch pad. In a Russian system, an emergeny came from liquid system I guess, but the capsule was blasted clean off at the launch pad.