How is thrust transmitted from strap on boosters to the central core?
Strap on boosters of a lot of heavy launch vehicles seems to be attached with just a few "flimsy" struts.
Here are few images for reference :
Some of the possibilities:
- These support structures from the strap-ons are extremely strong and well designed to transfer the thrust.
There are other hidden support structures to bear/transfer the thrust to the central core.
Somewhat a mix of the above two possibilities or something other than the listed.
SO, how do the thrust actually get transmitted to the central core?
design falcon-heavy launch-vehicle thrust booster
edited Nov 20 at 21:18
Dragongeek
3,8271331
asked Nov 20 at 20:08
karthikeyan
1,296923
|
show 1 more comment
Strap on boosters of a lot of heavy launch vehicles seems to be attached with just a few "flimsy" struts.
Here are few images for reference :
Some of the possibilities:
- These support structures from the strap-ons are extremely strong and well designed to transfer the thrust.
There are other hidden support structures to bear/transfer the thrust to the central core.
Somewhat a mix of the above two possibilities or something other than the listed.
SO, how do the thrust actually get transmitted to the central core?
design falcon-heavy launch-vehicle thrust booster
edited Nov 20 at 21:18
Dragongeek
3,8271331
asked Nov 20 at 20:08
karthikeyan
1,296923
2
Related: Are any strap-on boosters held in place by actual straps?
– Russell Borogove
Nov 20 at 20:22
@RussellBorogove in your answer linked, the case is Soyuz which has the strap on in flush with the core. But the case I'm looking at specifically are the FH, Delta, etc where there is just 2 thin rods that connect on the top and bottom.
– karthikeyan
Nov 20 at 20:32
Something worth noting, the struts on top would also be being pushed into the core because of the torque action of the side boosters (depending on any vectoring).
– tl8
Nov 21 at 1:36
2
slightly related, w/ photos of struts: Shear forces between Shuttle, tank, and boosters - what pushes what?
– uhoh
Nov 21 at 1:57
1
Remember that the strap on has to lift itself first before transmitting force to the core stage. So not all the thrust is directly imparted to the struts.
– Antzi
Nov 21 at 5:56
|
show 1 more comment
Strap on boosters of a lot of heavy launch vehicles seems to be attached with just a few "flimsy" struts.
Here are few images for reference :
Some of the possibilities:
- These support structures from the strap-ons are extremely strong and well designed to transfer the thrust.
There are other hidden support structures to bear/transfer the thrust to the central core.
Somewhat a mix of the above two possibilities or something other than the listed.
SO, how do the thrust actually get transmitted to the central core?
design falcon-heavy launch-vehicle thrust booster
edited Nov 20 at 21:18
Dragongeek
3,8271331
asked Nov 20 at 20:08
karthikeyan
1,296923
Strap on boosters of a lot of heavy launch vehicles seems to be attached with just a few "flimsy" struts.
Here are few images for reference :
Some of the possibilities:
- These support structures from the strap-ons are extremely strong and well designed to transfer the thrust.
There are other hidden support structures to bear/transfer the thrust to the central core.
Somewhat a mix of the above two possibilities or something other than the listed.
SO, how do the thrust actually get transmitted to the central core?
design falcon-heavy launch-vehicle thrust booster
design falcon-heavy launch-vehicle thrust booster
edited Nov 20 at 21:18
Dragongeek
3,8271331
asked Nov 20 at 20:08
karthikeyan
1,296923
edited Nov 20 at 21:18
Dragongeek
3,8271331
asked Nov 20 at 20:08
karthikeyan
1,296923
edited Nov 20 at 21:18
Dragongeek
3,8271331
edited Nov 20 at 21:18
Dragongeek
3,8271331
edited Nov 20 at 21:18
Dragongeek
3,8271331
3,8271331
asked Nov 20 at 20:08
karthikeyan
1,296923
asked Nov 20 at 20:08
karthikeyan
1,296923
asked Nov 20 at 20:08
karthikeyan
1,296923
1,296923
2
Related: Are any strap-on boosters held in place by actual straps?
– Russell Borogove
Nov 20 at 20:22
@RussellBorogove in your answer linked, the case is Soyuz which has the strap on in flush with the core. But the case I'm looking at specifically are the FH, Delta, etc where there is just 2 thin rods that connect on the top and bottom.
– karthikeyan
Nov 20 at 20:32
Something worth noting, the struts on top would also be being pushed into the core because of the torque action of the side boosters (depending on any vectoring).
– tl8
Nov 21 at 1:36
2
slightly related, w/ photos of struts: Shear forces between Shuttle, tank, and boosters - what pushes what?
– uhoh
Nov 21 at 1:57
1
Remember that the strap on has to lift itself first before transmitting force to the core stage. So not all the thrust is directly imparted to the struts.
– Antzi
Nov 21 at 5:56
|
show 1 more comment
2
Related: Are any strap-on boosters held in place by actual straps?
– Russell Borogove
Nov 20 at 20:22
@RussellBorogove in your answer linked, the case is Soyuz which has the strap on in flush with the core. But the case I'm looking at specifically are the FH, Delta, etc where there is just 2 thin rods that connect on the top and bottom.
– karthikeyan
Nov 20 at 20:32
Something worth noting, the struts on top would also be being pushed into the core because of the torque action of the side boosters (depending on any vectoring).
– tl8
Nov 21 at 1:36
2
slightly related, w/ photos of struts: Shear forces between Shuttle, tank, and boosters - what pushes what?
– uhoh
Nov 21 at 1:57
1
Remember that the strap on has to lift itself first before transmitting force to the core stage. So not all the thrust is directly imparted to the struts.
– Antzi
Nov 21 at 5:56
2
2
Related: Are any strap-on boosters held in place by actual straps?
– Russell Borogove
Nov 20 at 20:22
Related: Are any strap-on boosters held in place by actual straps?
– Russell Borogove
Nov 20 at 20:22
@RussellBorogove in your answer linked, the case is Soyuz which has the strap on in flush with the core. But the case I'm looking at specifically are the FH, Delta, etc where there is just 2 thin rods that connect on the top and bottom.
– karthikeyan
Nov 20 at 20:32
@RussellBorogove in your answer linked, the case is Soyuz which has the strap on in flush with the core. But the case I'm looking at specifically are the FH, Delta, etc where there is just 2 thin rods that connect on the top and bottom.
– karthikeyan
Nov 20 at 20:32
Something worth noting, the struts on top would also be being pushed into the core because of the torque action of the side boosters (depending on any vectoring).
– tl8
Nov 21 at 1:36
Something worth noting, the struts on top would also be being pushed into the core because of the torque action of the side boosters (depending on any vectoring).
– tl8
Nov 21 at 1:36
2
2
slightly related, w/ photos of struts: Shear forces between Shuttle, tank, and boosters - what pushes what?
– uhoh
Nov 21 at 1:57
slightly related, w/ photos of struts: Shear forces between Shuttle, tank, and boosters - what pushes what?
– uhoh
Nov 21 at 1:57
1
1
Remember that the strap on has to lift itself first before transmitting force to the core stage. So not all the thrust is directly imparted to the struts.
– Antzi
Nov 21 at 5:56
Remember that the strap on has to lift itself first before transmitting force to the core stage. So not all the thrust is directly imparted to the struts.
– Antzi
Nov 21 at 5:56
|
show 1 more comment
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
It’s a sense of scale issue. As much as the struts might look like flimsy bits of drainpipe, those rockets are around 15 meters wide, and the struts are more like the heavy steel beams used to hold up entire buildings.
So yes, they’re just really strong.
answered Nov 20 at 22:42
Quentin Clarkson
1,932515
8
Falcon Heavy core diameter is 3.66m; from the picture I estimate the upper struts are about 24cm or 9" in height. Delta Heavy core is 5.1m; the picture is too fuzzy for me to accurately estimate the size of the struts.
– Russell Borogove
Nov 20 at 23:24
Using a similar approach I got 36cm (14”) for each of the two lower attachment points on the Delta Heavy. But yeah, it’s tricky finding something much more accurate than “way bigger than they look”.
– Quentin Clarkson
Nov 21 at 0:49
21
Also, people underestimate the strength of solid metal. A scientist was amazed when I told him a single high-grade 1/4 inch (6 mm) steel bolt is good for 3-4 tons.
– user71659
Nov 21 at 7:53
3
@user71659: Now I feel like a gorilla for snapping one.
– Joshua
Nov 21 at 20:18
1
@ChrisStratton [citation needed] There are companies selling quarter inch bolts with tension failure loads of 4.3 tons
– TemporalWolf
Nov 21 at 21:51
add a comment |
For Delta IV Heavy, according to Spaceflight101:
The CBCs functioning as boosters are attached to the central core using thrust struts that interface with the interstage section of the launcher to transfer loads from the boosters to the rest of the vehicle. Additional attachment points reside in the base of the vehicle right above the engine heat shields.
The "thrust struts" described are the thin horizontal pieces near the top of the boosters. The "additional attachment points" are at the bottom of the cylindrical portion of the cores, just above the tapered boat-tail heat shields around the engines. This diagram gives a slightly better view of the latter:
All the force differential between the boosters and center core goes through those attachment points.
For Falcon Heavy, the setup is similar:
The boosters are attached to the central core stage via structural interfaces in the aft section and interfaces that connect the upper portion of the boosters to the interstage area of the Falcon Heavy via thrust struts to transfer loads to the vehicle. Separation of the boosters is accomplished using collets in the structural interfaces, avoiding the use of pyrotechnics since SpaceX prefers to use systems that can be tested and re-used. The reaction control system of the boosters ensures a clean separation from the core stage.
The base connection points appear to be singular, rather than dual as on the D4H:
The struts are pretty substantial; from the first picture in the question, I estimate the height of the upper struts to be about 24cm.
For Soyuz, the force seems to all be transmitted to sockets near the top of the core stage which are engaged by the nose of the boosters; I believe the straps at the base hold the boosters in position without transmitting significant load.
answered Nov 20 at 20:42
Russell Borogove
81.6k2271353
3
Does anyone know how much thrust is transferred through the top (resp. bottom) attachments in each case?
– Steve Linton
Nov 20 at 20:46
9
@karthikeyan remember that a significant portion of a side booster's thrust is used to accelerate its own mass
– Jack
Nov 20 at 21:23
2
No idea how the load is distributed. Jack's point is good, although in both the D4H and Falcon Heavy case, the center core is throttled down to ~55% while the side boosters are burning, and the center stick supports the mass of the upper stage and payload.
– Russell Borogove
Nov 20 at 21:29
6
@karthikeyan No, that's just the fundamental problem with rockets. Most of the mass of the spaceships is there to move the vehicle in the first place. Mass ratios of about 25 are around the limit of our technology (with staging!) - Saturn V's payload was 4% of its launch mass; the Shuttle only had 1%. Rockets are a ridiculous way to get things into orbit, we wouldn't use them if we had anything better :D The SRBs on the Shuttle had launch thrust only twice their own weight - so indeed, at launch, half of their thrust was to lift themselves. Then, 24-35mm solid struts are massive.
– Luaan
Nov 21 at 11:59
4
@Luaan Shuttle put about 4.5% of its launch mass into orbit; it was only for sentimental reasons that most of it was returned to Earth. ;)
– Russell Borogove
Nov 21 at 15:48
|
show 9 more comments
This is evidently wrong, but I always assumed that the most important thing being transferred from the side boosters is not thrust, but fuel.
The thrusters on the side boosters just need to keep up with the main booster until they run low on fuel. At that point, they detach, and the main booster still has some fuel to spare, since it has been fed fuel continuously.
answered Nov 21 at 9:08
Osthekake
951
Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.
5
Unfortunately no one has ever flown a cross-fed booster system like you describe: no rocket has ever simultaneously run an engine from one tank and pumped fuel to another tank. Falcon Heavy was originally planned to do this, but it proved too expensive to design for its usefulness.
– Nathan Tuggy
Nov 21 at 9:24
5
@Osthekake Welcome to Space Exploration SE! Try to always include sources in your answer. In this case, trying to find a source will probably lead you to the conclusion that boosters are not there to provide fuel to the main booster. Cross-feeding can also be called "asparagus staging". You can find a discussion of "asparagus staging" here for example: forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/…
– BlueCoder
Nov 21 at 9:32
(In any case, even when cross-feeding/asparagus staging, the boosters do not simply provide fuel, the thrust they provide is useful too)
– BlueCoder
Nov 21 at 9:37
3
In the case of the American Space Shuttle (which I think was mentioned before), the boosters are named SRB from Solid fuel Rocket Boosters. The shuttle engines use the fuel from the tank - the russian "shuttle" (the Energia/Buran complex) had rocket engines on the central tank itself
– Calin Ceteras
Nov 21 at 14:24
2
@CalinCeteras Yes, the Shuttle looks like a case of cross-feeding...although the central tank wasn't a booster, but just a tank :)
– BlueCoder
Nov 21 at 15:07
|
show 4 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "508"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f32147%2fhow-is-thrust-transmitted-from-strap-on-boosters-to-the-central-core%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
It’s a sense of scale issue. As much as the struts might look like flimsy bits of drainpipe, those rockets are around 15 meters wide, and the struts are more like the heavy steel beams used to hold up entire buildings.
So yes, they’re just really strong.
answered Nov 20 at 22:42
Quentin Clarkson
1,932515
8
Falcon Heavy core diameter is 3.66m; from the picture I estimate the upper struts are about 24cm or 9" in height. Delta Heavy core is 5.1m; the picture is too fuzzy for me to accurately estimate the size of the struts.
– Russell Borogove
Nov 20 at 23:24
Using a similar approach I got 36cm (14”) for each of the two lower attachment points on the Delta Heavy. But yeah, it’s tricky finding something much more accurate than “way bigger than they look”.
– Quentin Clarkson
Nov 21 at 0:49
21
Also, people underestimate the strength of solid metal. A scientist was amazed when I told him a single high-grade 1/4 inch (6 mm) steel bolt is good for 3-4 tons.
– user71659
Nov 21 at 7:53
3
@user71659: Now I feel like a gorilla for snapping one.
– Joshua
Nov 21 at 20:18
1
@ChrisStratton [citation needed] There are companies selling quarter inch bolts with tension failure loads of 4.3 tons
– TemporalWolf
Nov 21 at 21:51
add a comment |
It’s a sense of scale issue. As much as the struts might look like flimsy bits of drainpipe, those rockets are around 15 meters wide, and the struts are more like the heavy steel beams used to hold up entire buildings.
So yes, they’re just really strong.
answered Nov 20 at 22:42
Quentin Clarkson
1,932515
8
Falcon Heavy core diameter is 3.66m; from the picture I estimate the upper struts are about 24cm or 9" in height. Delta Heavy core is 5.1m; the picture is too fuzzy for me to accurately estimate the size of the struts.
– Russell Borogove
Nov 20 at 23:24
Using a similar approach I got 36cm (14”) for each of the two lower attachment points on the Delta Heavy. But yeah, it’s tricky finding something much more accurate than “way bigger than they look”.
– Quentin Clarkson
Nov 21 at 0:49
21
Also, people underestimate the strength of solid metal. A scientist was amazed when I told him a single high-grade 1/4 inch (6 mm) steel bolt is good for 3-4 tons.
– user71659
Nov 21 at 7:53
3
@user71659: Now I feel like a gorilla for snapping one.
– Joshua
Nov 21 at 20:18
1
@ChrisStratton [citation needed] There are companies selling quarter inch bolts with tension failure loads of 4.3 tons
– TemporalWolf
Nov 21 at 21:51
add a comment |
It’s a sense of scale issue. As much as the struts might look like flimsy bits of drainpipe, those rockets are around 15 meters wide, and the struts are more like the heavy steel beams used to hold up entire buildings.
So yes, they’re just really strong.
answered Nov 20 at 22:42
Quentin Clarkson
1,932515
It’s a sense of scale issue. As much as the struts might look like flimsy bits of drainpipe, those rockets are around 15 meters wide, and the struts are more like the heavy steel beams used to hold up entire buildings.
So yes, they’re just really strong.
answered Nov 20 at 22:42
Quentin Clarkson
1,932515
answered Nov 20 at 22:42
Quentin Clarkson
1,932515
answered Nov 20 at 22:42
Quentin Clarkson
1,932515
answered Nov 20 at 22:42
Quentin Clarkson
1,932515
1,932515
8
Falcon Heavy core diameter is 3.66m; from the picture I estimate the upper struts are about 24cm or 9" in height. Delta Heavy core is 5.1m; the picture is too fuzzy for me to accurately estimate the size of the struts.
– Russell Borogove
Nov 20 at 23:24
Using a similar approach I got 36cm (14”) for each of the two lower attachment points on the Delta Heavy. But yeah, it’s tricky finding something much more accurate than “way bigger than they look”.
– Quentin Clarkson
Nov 21 at 0:49
21
Also, people underestimate the strength of solid metal. A scientist was amazed when I told him a single high-grade 1/4 inch (6 mm) steel bolt is good for 3-4 tons.
– user71659
Nov 21 at 7:53
3
@user71659: Now I feel like a gorilla for snapping one.
– Joshua
Nov 21 at 20:18
1
@ChrisStratton [citation needed] There are companies selling quarter inch bolts with tension failure loads of 4.3 tons
– TemporalWolf
Nov 21 at 21:51
add a comment |
8
Falcon Heavy core diameter is 3.66m; from the picture I estimate the upper struts are about 24cm or 9" in height. Delta Heavy core is 5.1m; the picture is too fuzzy for me to accurately estimate the size of the struts.
– Russell Borogove
Nov 20 at 23:24
Using a similar approach I got 36cm (14”) for each of the two lower attachment points on the Delta Heavy. But yeah, it’s tricky finding something much more accurate than “way bigger than they look”.
– Quentin Clarkson
Nov 21 at 0:49
21
Also, people underestimate the strength of solid metal. A scientist was amazed when I told him a single high-grade 1/4 inch (6 mm) steel bolt is good for 3-4 tons.
– user71659
Nov 21 at 7:53
3
@user71659: Now I feel like a gorilla for snapping one.
– Joshua
Nov 21 at 20:18
1
@ChrisStratton [citation needed] There are companies selling quarter inch bolts with tension failure loads of 4.3 tons
– TemporalWolf
Nov 21 at 21:51
8
8
Falcon Heavy core diameter is 3.66m; from the picture I estimate the upper struts are about 24cm or 9" in height. Delta Heavy core is 5.1m; the picture is too fuzzy for me to accurately estimate the size of the struts.
– Russell Borogove
Nov 20 at 23:24
Falcon Heavy core diameter is 3.66m; from the picture I estimate the upper struts are about 24cm or 9" in height. Delta Heavy core is 5.1m; the picture is too fuzzy for me to accurately estimate the size of the struts.
– Russell Borogove
Nov 20 at 23:24
Using a similar approach I got 36cm (14”) for each of the two lower attachment points on the Delta Heavy. But yeah, it’s tricky finding something much more accurate than “way bigger than they look”.
– Quentin Clarkson
Nov 21 at 0:49
Using a similar approach I got 36cm (14”) for each of the two lower attachment points on the Delta Heavy. But yeah, it’s tricky finding something much more accurate than “way bigger than they look”.
– Quentin Clarkson
Nov 21 at 0:49
21
21
Also, people underestimate the strength of solid metal. A scientist was amazed when I told him a single high-grade 1/4 inch (6 mm) steel bolt is good for 3-4 tons.
– user71659
Nov 21 at 7:53
Also, people underestimate the strength of solid metal. A scientist was amazed when I told him a single high-grade 1/4 inch (6 mm) steel bolt is good for 3-4 tons.
– user71659
Nov 21 at 7:53
3
3
@user71659: Now I feel like a gorilla for snapping one.
– Joshua
Nov 21 at 20:18
@user71659: Now I feel like a gorilla for snapping one.
– Joshua
Nov 21 at 20:18
1
1
@ChrisStratton [citation needed] There are companies selling quarter inch bolts with tension failure loads of 4.3 tons
– TemporalWolf
Nov 21 at 21:51
@ChrisStratton [citation needed] There are companies selling quarter inch bolts with tension failure loads of 4.3 tons
– TemporalWolf
Nov 21 at 21:51
add a comment |
For Delta IV Heavy, according to Spaceflight101:
The CBCs functioning as boosters are attached to the central core using thrust struts that interface with the interstage section of the launcher to transfer loads from the boosters to the rest of the vehicle. Additional attachment points reside in the base of the vehicle right above the engine heat shields.
The "thrust struts" described are the thin horizontal pieces near the top of the boosters. The "additional attachment points" are at the bottom of the cylindrical portion of the cores, just above the tapered boat-tail heat shields around the engines. This diagram gives a slightly better view of the latter:
All the force differential between the boosters and center core goes through those attachment points.
For Falcon Heavy, the setup is similar:
The boosters are attached to the central core stage via structural interfaces in the aft section and interfaces that connect the upper portion of the boosters to the interstage area of the Falcon Heavy via thrust struts to transfer loads to the vehicle. Separation of the boosters is accomplished using collets in the structural interfaces, avoiding the use of pyrotechnics since SpaceX prefers to use systems that can be tested and re-used. The reaction control system of the boosters ensures a clean separation from the core stage.
The base connection points appear to be singular, rather than dual as on the D4H:
The struts are pretty substantial; from the first picture in the question, I estimate the height of the upper struts to be about 24cm.
For Soyuz, the force seems to all be transmitted to sockets near the top of the core stage which are engaged by the nose of the boosters; I believe the straps at the base hold the boosters in position without transmitting significant load.
answered Nov 20 at 20:42
Russell Borogove
81.6k2271353
3
Does anyone know how much thrust is transferred through the top (resp. bottom) attachments in each case?
– Steve Linton
Nov 20 at 20:46
9
@karthikeyan remember that a significant portion of a side booster's thrust is used to accelerate its own mass
– Jack
Nov 20 at 21:23
2
No idea how the load is distributed. Jack's point is good, although in both the D4H and Falcon Heavy case, the center core is throttled down to ~55% while the side boosters are burning, and the center stick supports the mass of the upper stage and payload.
– Russell Borogove
Nov 20 at 21:29
6
@karthikeyan No, that's just the fundamental problem with rockets. Most of the mass of the spaceships is there to move the vehicle in the first place. Mass ratios of about 25 are around the limit of our technology (with staging!) - Saturn V's payload was 4% of its launch mass; the Shuttle only had 1%. Rockets are a ridiculous way to get things into orbit, we wouldn't use them if we had anything better :D The SRBs on the Shuttle had launch thrust only twice their own weight - so indeed, at launch, half of their thrust was to lift themselves. Then, 24-35mm solid struts are massive.
– Luaan
Nov 21 at 11:59
4
@Luaan Shuttle put about 4.5% of its launch mass into orbit; it was only for sentimental reasons that most of it was returned to Earth. ;)
– Russell Borogove
Nov 21 at 15:48
|
show 9 more comments
For Delta IV Heavy, according to Spaceflight101:
The CBCs functioning as boosters are attached to the central core using thrust struts that interface with the interstage section of the launcher to transfer loads from the boosters to the rest of the vehicle. Additional attachment points reside in the base of the vehicle right above the engine heat shields.
The "thrust struts" described are the thin horizontal pieces near the top of the boosters. The "additional attachment points" are at the bottom of the cylindrical portion of the cores, just above the tapered boat-tail heat shields around the engines. This diagram gives a slightly better view of the latter:
All the force differential between the boosters and center core goes through those attachment points.
For Falcon Heavy, the setup is similar:
The boosters are attached to the central core stage via structural interfaces in the aft section and interfaces that connect the upper portion of the boosters to the interstage area of the Falcon Heavy via thrust struts to transfer loads to the vehicle. Separation of the boosters is accomplished using collets in the structural interfaces, avoiding the use of pyrotechnics since SpaceX prefers to use systems that can be tested and re-used. The reaction control system of the boosters ensures a clean separation from the core stage.
The base connection points appear to be singular, rather than dual as on the D4H:
The struts are pretty substantial; from the first picture in the question, I estimate the height of the upper struts to be about 24cm.
For Soyuz, the force seems to all be transmitted to sockets near the top of the core stage which are engaged by the nose of the boosters; I believe the straps at the base hold the boosters in position without transmitting significant load.
answered Nov 20 at 20:42
Russell Borogove
81.6k2271353
3
Does anyone know how much thrust is transferred through the top (resp. bottom) attachments in each case?
– Steve Linton
Nov 20 at 20:46
9
@karthikeyan remember that a significant portion of a side booster's thrust is used to accelerate its own mass
– Jack
Nov 20 at 21:23
2
No idea how the load is distributed. Jack's point is good, although in both the D4H and Falcon Heavy case, the center core is throttled down to ~55% while the side boosters are burning, and the center stick supports the mass of the upper stage and payload.
– Russell Borogove
Nov 20 at 21:29
6
@karthikeyan No, that's just the fundamental problem with rockets. Most of the mass of the spaceships is there to move the vehicle in the first place. Mass ratios of about 25 are around the limit of our technology (with staging!) - Saturn V's payload was 4% of its launch mass; the Shuttle only had 1%. Rockets are a ridiculous way to get things into orbit, we wouldn't use them if we had anything better :D The SRBs on the Shuttle had launch thrust only twice their own weight - so indeed, at launch, half of their thrust was to lift themselves. Then, 24-35mm solid struts are massive.
– Luaan
Nov 21 at 11:59
4
@Luaan Shuttle put about 4.5% of its launch mass into orbit; it was only for sentimental reasons that most of it was returned to Earth. ;)
– Russell Borogove
Nov 21 at 15:48
|
show 9 more comments
For Delta IV Heavy, according to Spaceflight101:
The CBCs functioning as boosters are attached to the central core using thrust struts that interface with the interstage section of the launcher to transfer loads from the boosters to the rest of the vehicle. Additional attachment points reside in the base of the vehicle right above the engine heat shields.
The "thrust struts" described are the thin horizontal pieces near the top of the boosters. The "additional attachment points" are at the bottom of the cylindrical portion of the cores, just above the tapered boat-tail heat shields around the engines. This diagram gives a slightly better view of the latter:
All the force differential between the boosters and center core goes through those attachment points.
For Falcon Heavy, the setup is similar:
The boosters are attached to the central core stage via structural interfaces in the aft section and interfaces that connect the upper portion of the boosters to the interstage area of the Falcon Heavy via thrust struts to transfer loads to the vehicle. Separation of the boosters is accomplished using collets in the structural interfaces, avoiding the use of pyrotechnics since SpaceX prefers to use systems that can be tested and re-used. The reaction control system of the boosters ensures a clean separation from the core stage.
The base connection points appear to be singular, rather than dual as on the D4H:
The struts are pretty substantial; from the first picture in the question, I estimate the height of the upper struts to be about 24cm.
For Soyuz, the force seems to all be transmitted to sockets near the top of the core stage which are engaged by the nose of the boosters; I believe the straps at the base hold the boosters in position without transmitting significant load.
answered Nov 20 at 20:42
Russell Borogove
81.6k2271353
For Delta IV Heavy, according to Spaceflight101:
The CBCs functioning as boosters are attached to the central core using thrust struts that interface with the interstage section of the launcher to transfer loads from the boosters to the rest of the vehicle. Additional attachment points reside in the base of the vehicle right above the engine heat shields.
The "thrust struts" described are the thin horizontal pieces near the top of the boosters. The "additional attachment points" are at the bottom of the cylindrical portion of the cores, just above the tapered boat-tail heat shields around the engines. This diagram gives a slightly better view of the latter:
All the force differential between the boosters and center core goes through those attachment points.
For Falcon Heavy, the setup is similar:
The boosters are attached to the central core stage via structural interfaces in the aft section and interfaces that connect the upper portion of the boosters to the interstage area of the Falcon Heavy via thrust struts to transfer loads to the vehicle. Separation of the boosters is accomplished using collets in the structural interfaces, avoiding the use of pyrotechnics since SpaceX prefers to use systems that can be tested and re-used. The reaction control system of the boosters ensures a clean separation from the core stage.
The base connection points appear to be singular, rather than dual as on the D4H:
The struts are pretty substantial; from the first picture in the question, I estimate the height of the upper struts to be about 24cm.
For Soyuz, the force seems to all be transmitted to sockets near the top of the core stage which are engaged by the nose of the boosters; I believe the straps at the base hold the boosters in position without transmitting significant load.
answered Nov 20 at 20:42
Russell Borogove
81.6k2271353
edited Nov 20 at 23:25
answered Nov 20 at 20:42
Russell Borogove
81.6k2271353
answered Nov 20 at 20:42
Russell Borogove
81.6k2271353
answered Nov 20 at 20:42
Russell Borogove
81.6k2271353
81.6k2271353
3
Does anyone know how much thrust is transferred through the top (resp. bottom) attachments in each case?
– Steve Linton
Nov 20 at 20:46
9
@karthikeyan remember that a significant portion of a side booster's thrust is used to accelerate its own mass
– Jack
Nov 20 at 21:23
2
No idea how the load is distributed. Jack's point is good, although in both the D4H and Falcon Heavy case, the center core is throttled down to ~55% while the side boosters are burning, and the center stick supports the mass of the upper stage and payload.
– Russell Borogove
Nov 20 at 21:29
6
@karthikeyan No, that's just the fundamental problem with rockets. Most of the mass of the spaceships is there to move the vehicle in the first place. Mass ratios of about 25 are around the limit of our technology (with staging!) - Saturn V's payload was 4% of its launch mass; the Shuttle only had 1%. Rockets are a ridiculous way to get things into orbit, we wouldn't use them if we had anything better :D The SRBs on the Shuttle had launch thrust only twice their own weight - so indeed, at launch, half of their thrust was to lift themselves. Then, 24-35mm solid struts are massive.
– Luaan
Nov 21 at 11:59
4
@Luaan Shuttle put about 4.5% of its launch mass into orbit; it was only for sentimental reasons that most of it was returned to Earth. ;)
– Russell Borogove
Nov 21 at 15:48
|
show 9 more comments
3
Does anyone know how much thrust is transferred through the top (resp. bottom) attachments in each case?
– Steve Linton
Nov 20 at 20:46
9
@karthikeyan remember that a significant portion of a side booster's thrust is used to accelerate its own mass
– Jack
Nov 20 at 21:23
2
No idea how the load is distributed. Jack's point is good, although in both the D4H and Falcon Heavy case, the center core is throttled down to ~55% while the side boosters are burning, and the center stick supports the mass of the upper stage and payload.
– Russell Borogove
Nov 20 at 21:29
6
@karthikeyan No, that's just the fundamental problem with rockets. Most of the mass of the spaceships is there to move the vehicle in the first place. Mass ratios of about 25 are around the limit of our technology (with staging!) - Saturn V's payload was 4% of its launch mass; the Shuttle only had 1%. Rockets are a ridiculous way to get things into orbit, we wouldn't use them if we had anything better :D The SRBs on the Shuttle had launch thrust only twice their own weight - so indeed, at launch, half of their thrust was to lift themselves. Then, 24-35mm solid struts are massive.
– Luaan
Nov 21 at 11:59
4
@Luaan Shuttle put about 4.5% of its launch mass into orbit; it was only for sentimental reasons that most of it was returned to Earth. ;)
– Russell Borogove
Nov 21 at 15:48
3
3
Does anyone know how much thrust is transferred through the top (resp. bottom) attachments in each case?
– Steve Linton
Nov 20 at 20:46
Does anyone know how much thrust is transferred through the top (resp. bottom) attachments in each case?
– Steve Linton
Nov 20 at 20:46
9
9
@karthikeyan remember that a significant portion of a side booster's thrust is used to accelerate its own mass
– Jack
Nov 20 at 21:23
@karthikeyan remember that a significant portion of a side booster's thrust is used to accelerate its own mass
– Jack
Nov 20 at 21:23
2
2
No idea how the load is distributed. Jack's point is good, although in both the D4H and Falcon Heavy case, the center core is throttled down to ~55% while the side boosters are burning, and the center stick supports the mass of the upper stage and payload.
– Russell Borogove
Nov 20 at 21:29
No idea how the load is distributed. Jack's point is good, although in both the D4H and Falcon Heavy case, the center core is throttled down to ~55% while the side boosters are burning, and the center stick supports the mass of the upper stage and payload.
– Russell Borogove
Nov 20 at 21:29
6
6
@karthikeyan No, that's just the fundamental problem with rockets. Most of the mass of the spaceships is there to move the vehicle in the first place. Mass ratios of about 25 are around the limit of our technology (with staging!) - Saturn V's payload was 4% of its launch mass; the Shuttle only had 1%. Rockets are a ridiculous way to get things into orbit, we wouldn't use them if we had anything better :D The SRBs on the Shuttle had launch thrust only twice their own weight - so indeed, at launch, half of their thrust was to lift themselves. Then, 24-35mm solid struts are massive.
– Luaan
Nov 21 at 11:59
@karthikeyan No, that's just the fundamental problem with rockets. Most of the mass of the spaceships is there to move the vehicle in the first place. Mass ratios of about 25 are around the limit of our technology (with staging!) - Saturn V's payload was 4% of its launch mass; the Shuttle only had 1%. Rockets are a ridiculous way to get things into orbit, we wouldn't use them if we had anything better :D The SRBs on the Shuttle had launch thrust only twice their own weight - so indeed, at launch, half of their thrust was to lift themselves. Then, 24-35mm solid struts are massive.
– Luaan
Nov 21 at 11:59
4
4
@Luaan Shuttle put about 4.5% of its launch mass into orbit; it was only for sentimental reasons that most of it was returned to Earth. ;)
– Russell Borogove
Nov 21 at 15:48
@Luaan Shuttle put about 4.5% of its launch mass into orbit; it was only for sentimental reasons that most of it was returned to Earth. ;)
– Russell Borogove
Nov 21 at 15:48
|
show 9 more comments
This is evidently wrong, but I always assumed that the most important thing being transferred from the side boosters is not thrust, but fuel.
The thrusters on the side boosters just need to keep up with the main booster until they run low on fuel. At that point, they detach, and the main booster still has some fuel to spare, since it has been fed fuel continuously.
answered Nov 21 at 9:08
Osthekake
951
Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.
5
Unfortunately no one has ever flown a cross-fed booster system like you describe: no rocket has ever simultaneously run an engine from one tank and pumped fuel to another tank. Falcon Heavy was originally planned to do this, but it proved too expensive to design for its usefulness.
– Nathan Tuggy
Nov 21 at 9:24
5
@Osthekake Welcome to Space Exploration SE! Try to always include sources in your answer. In this case, trying to find a source will probably lead you to the conclusion that boosters are not there to provide fuel to the main booster. Cross-feeding can also be called "asparagus staging". You can find a discussion of "asparagus staging" here for example: forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/…
– BlueCoder
Nov 21 at 9:32
(In any case, even when cross-feeding/asparagus staging, the boosters do not simply provide fuel, the thrust they provide is useful too)
– BlueCoder
Nov 21 at 9:37
3
In the case of the American Space Shuttle (which I think was mentioned before), the boosters are named SRB from Solid fuel Rocket Boosters. The shuttle engines use the fuel from the tank - the russian "shuttle" (the Energia/Buran complex) had rocket engines on the central tank itself
– Calin Ceteras
Nov 21 at 14:24
2
@CalinCeteras Yes, the Shuttle looks like a case of cross-feeding...although the central tank wasn't a booster, but just a tank :)
– BlueCoder
Nov 21 at 15:07
|
show 4 more comments
This is evidently wrong, but I always assumed that the most important thing being transferred from the side boosters is not thrust, but fuel.
The thrusters on the side boosters just need to keep up with the main booster until they run low on fuel. At that point, they detach, and the main booster still has some fuel to spare, since it has been fed fuel continuously.
answered Nov 21 at 9:08
Osthekake
951
Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.
5
Unfortunately no one has ever flown a cross-fed booster system like you describe: no rocket has ever simultaneously run an engine from one tank and pumped fuel to another tank. Falcon Heavy was originally planned to do this, but it proved too expensive to design for its usefulness.
– Nathan Tuggy
Nov 21 at 9:24
5
@Osthekake Welcome to Space Exploration SE! Try to always include sources in your answer. In this case, trying to find a source will probably lead you to the conclusion that boosters are not there to provide fuel to the main booster. Cross-feeding can also be called "asparagus staging". You can find a discussion of "asparagus staging" here for example: forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/…
– BlueCoder
Nov 21 at 9:32
(In any case, even when cross-feeding/asparagus staging, the boosters do not simply provide fuel, the thrust they provide is useful too)
– BlueCoder
Nov 21 at 9:37
3
In the case of the American Space Shuttle (which I think was mentioned before), the boosters are named SRB from Solid fuel Rocket Boosters. The shuttle engines use the fuel from the tank - the russian "shuttle" (the Energia/Buran complex) had rocket engines on the central tank itself
– Calin Ceteras
Nov 21 at 14:24
2
@CalinCeteras Yes, the Shuttle looks like a case of cross-feeding...although the central tank wasn't a booster, but just a tank :)
– BlueCoder
Nov 21 at 15:07
|
show 4 more comments
This is evidently wrong, but I always assumed that the most important thing being transferred from the side boosters is not thrust, but fuel.
The thrusters on the side boosters just need to keep up with the main booster until they run low on fuel. At that point, they detach, and the main booster still has some fuel to spare, since it has been fed fuel continuously.
answered Nov 21 at 9:08
Osthekake
951
This is evidently wrong, but I always assumed that the most important thing being transferred from the side boosters is not thrust, but fuel.
The thrusters on the side boosters just need to keep up with the main booster until they run low on fuel. At that point, they detach, and the main booster still has some fuel to spare, since it has been fed fuel continuously.
answered Nov 21 at 9:08
Osthekake
951
edited Nov 21 at 10:10
answered Nov 21 at 9:08
Osthekake
951
answered Nov 21 at 9:08
Osthekake
951
answered Nov 21 at 9:08
Osthekake
951
951
Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.
Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.
5
Unfortunately no one has ever flown a cross-fed booster system like you describe: no rocket has ever simultaneously run an engine from one tank and pumped fuel to another tank. Falcon Heavy was originally planned to do this, but it proved too expensive to design for its usefulness.
– Nathan Tuggy
Nov 21 at 9:24
5
@Osthekake Welcome to Space Exploration SE! Try to always include sources in your answer. In this case, trying to find a source will probably lead you to the conclusion that boosters are not there to provide fuel to the main booster. Cross-feeding can also be called "asparagus staging". You can find a discussion of "asparagus staging" here for example: forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/…
– BlueCoder
Nov 21 at 9:32
(In any case, even when cross-feeding/asparagus staging, the boosters do not simply provide fuel, the thrust they provide is useful too)
– BlueCoder
Nov 21 at 9:37
3
In the case of the American Space Shuttle (which I think was mentioned before), the boosters are named SRB from Solid fuel Rocket Boosters. The shuttle engines use the fuel from the tank - the russian "shuttle" (the Energia/Buran complex) had rocket engines on the central tank itself
– Calin Ceteras
Nov 21 at 14:24
2
@CalinCeteras Yes, the Shuttle looks like a case of cross-feeding...although the central tank wasn't a booster, but just a tank :)
– BlueCoder
Nov 21 at 15:07
|
show 4 more comments
5
Unfortunately no one has ever flown a cross-fed booster system like you describe: no rocket has ever simultaneously run an engine from one tank and pumped fuel to another tank. Falcon Heavy was originally planned to do this, but it proved too expensive to design for its usefulness.
– Nathan Tuggy
Nov 21 at 9:24
5
@Osthekake Welcome to Space Exploration SE! Try to always include sources in your answer. In this case, trying to find a source will probably lead you to the conclusion that boosters are not there to provide fuel to the main booster. Cross-feeding can also be called "asparagus staging". You can find a discussion of "asparagus staging" here for example: forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/…
– BlueCoder
Nov 21 at 9:32
(In any case, even when cross-feeding/asparagus staging, the boosters do not simply provide fuel, the thrust they provide is useful too)
– BlueCoder
Nov 21 at 9:37
3
In the case of the American Space Shuttle (which I think was mentioned before), the boosters are named SRB from Solid fuel Rocket Boosters. The shuttle engines use the fuel from the tank - the russian "shuttle" (the Energia/Buran complex) had rocket engines on the central tank itself
– Calin Ceteras
Nov 21 at 14:24
2
@CalinCeteras Yes, the Shuttle looks like a case of cross-feeding...although the central tank wasn't a booster, but just a tank :)
– BlueCoder
Nov 21 at 15:07
5
5
Unfortunately no one has ever flown a cross-fed booster system like you describe: no rocket has ever simultaneously run an engine from one tank and pumped fuel to another tank. Falcon Heavy was originally planned to do this, but it proved too expensive to design for its usefulness.
– Nathan Tuggy
Nov 21 at 9:24
Unfortunately no one has ever flown a cross-fed booster system like you describe: no rocket has ever simultaneously run an engine from one tank and pumped fuel to another tank. Falcon Heavy was originally planned to do this, but it proved too expensive to design for its usefulness.
– Nathan Tuggy
Nov 21 at 9:24
5
5
@Osthekake Welcome to Space Exploration SE! Try to always include sources in your answer. In this case, trying to find a source will probably lead you to the conclusion that boosters are not there to provide fuel to the main booster. Cross-feeding can also be called "asparagus staging". You can find a discussion of "asparagus staging" here for example: forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/…
– BlueCoder
Nov 21 at 9:32
@Osthekake Welcome to Space Exploration SE! Try to always include sources in your answer. In this case, trying to find a source will probably lead you to the conclusion that boosters are not there to provide fuel to the main booster. Cross-feeding can also be called "asparagus staging". You can find a discussion of "asparagus staging" here for example: forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/…
– BlueCoder
Nov 21 at 9:32
(In any case, even when cross-feeding/asparagus staging, the boosters do not simply provide fuel, the thrust they provide is useful too)
– BlueCoder
Nov 21 at 9:37
(In any case, even when cross-feeding/asparagus staging, the boosters do not simply provide fuel, the thrust they provide is useful too)
– BlueCoder
Nov 21 at 9:37
3
3
In the case of the American Space Shuttle (which I think was mentioned before), the boosters are named SRB from Solid fuel Rocket Boosters. The shuttle engines use the fuel from the tank - the russian "shuttle" (the Energia/Buran complex) had rocket engines on the central tank itself
– Calin Ceteras
Nov 21 at 14:24
In the case of the American Space Shuttle (which I think was mentioned before), the boosters are named SRB from Solid fuel Rocket Boosters. The shuttle engines use the fuel from the tank - the russian "shuttle" (the Energia/Buran complex) had rocket engines on the central tank itself
– Calin Ceteras
Nov 21 at 14:24
2
2
@CalinCeteras Yes, the Shuttle looks like a case of cross-feeding...although the central tank wasn't a booster, but just a tank :)
– BlueCoder
Nov 21 at 15:07
@CalinCeteras Yes, the Shuttle looks like a case of cross-feeding...although the central tank wasn't a booster, but just a tank :)
– BlueCoder
Nov 21 at 15:07
|
show 4 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to Space Exploration Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f32147%2fhow-is-thrust-transmitted-from-strap-on-boosters-to-the-central-core%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
Related: Are any strap-on boosters held in place by actual straps?
– Russell Borogove
Nov 20 at 20:22
@RussellBorogove in your answer linked, the case is Soyuz which has the strap on in flush with the core. But the case I'm looking at specifically are the FH, Delta, etc where there is just 2 thin rods that connect on the top and bottom.
– karthikeyan
Nov 20 at 20:32
Something worth noting, the struts on top would also be being pushed into the core because of the torque action of the side boosters (depending on any vectoring).
– tl8
Nov 21 at 1:36
2
slightly related, w/ photos of struts: Shear forces between Shuttle, tank, and boosters - what pushes what?
– uhoh
Nov 21 at 1:57
1
Remember that the strap on has to lift itself first before transmitting force to the core stage. So not all the thrust is directly imparted to the struts.
– Antzi
Nov 21 at 5:56