Abstract
T HE author wishes to thank Glick and Caveny for their interest in his Note, and to comment briefly on the issues which they raise. In their Comment, Glick and Caveny make two points. First, and most important, they emphasize that an internal ballistic analysis of a solid rocket motor (SRM) ought to be coupled to a grain structural analysis to properly analyze SRM performance, since grain deformation can significantly alter the internal geometry. Second, they suggest that it may be possible to create more efficient segmented SRM designs than the simple modification proposed in Ref. 1, where alternate segments are installed in the motor upside down (relative to the usual orientation of segments in SRMs). Their prime candidate appears to be a design in which all of the segments are installed upside down (see Fig. Ic of Glick and Caveny's Comment), and the individual segments are tailored so that the resulting port flow area increase across slots is filled by the flow which emerges from the slots.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
