#21
|
|||
|
|||
Pad damage
Pat Flannery writes:
OM wrote: ...And weren't you also noting that the downlink audio had a significant vibration to it? I'm now wondering if there was more to it now, Brian. Some sort of resonance between the acoustic exhaust frequencies of the SRBs or SSMEs? If there was damaged caused, you'd expect it to be a lot more likely that the SRBs would be involved, due to their far greater acoustic shockwave output. I'd be more concerned over damage to the Shuttle's tail (and SSME nozzles, tiles and so on). If there was debris from the flame trench thrown over more than 500 meters some pieces of concrete could damage the tail easily, I think. This could have been a bad day with a failure mode coming out of nowhere. Look at this: http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/st...ad/damage5.jpg OK, the debris is not exactly likely to move into the direction of the exhaust, but having *some* pieces bouncing back could've been enough... Jochem -- "A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Pad damage
"Jochem Huhmann" wrote in message
... I'd be more concerned over damage to the Shuttle's tail (and SSME nozzles, tiles and so on). If there was debris from the flame trench thrown over more than 500 meters some pieces of concrete could damage the tail easily, I think. This could have been a bad day with a failure mode coming out of nowhere. Look at this: http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/st...ad/damage5.jpg OK, the debris is not exactly likely to move into the direction of the exhaust, but having *some* pieces bouncing back could've been enough... There's not much to richocet off - it's all outward bound, so won't affect the current mission. However, the timeline for future missions (all 10 of them) is now in doubt - it may take a while to do diagnostics and repair the pad. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Pad damage
Jochem Huhmann wrote: I'd be more concerned over damage to the Shuttle's tail (and SSME nozzles, tiles and so on). If there was debris from the flame trench thrown over more than 500 meters some pieces of concrete could damage the tail easily, I think. This could have been a bad day with a failure mode coming out of nowhere. Look at this: http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/st...ad/damage5.jpg OK, the debris is not exactly likely to move into the direction of the exhaust, but having *some* pieces bouncing back could've been enough... NASA went over the lift-off video carefully and said all the debris went out of the flame trench, with none of it striking the launch stack. I hadn't thought of the real problem here...this may screw up the HST repair mission, as they were going to have Endeavour waiting on pad 39B for transfer to 39A in case Atlantis suffered damage during ascent. Pad 39B is apparently not fully functional at the moment, so the damaged 39A is our only launch capable pad: http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shuttl...d3/index3.html And till it's fixed nothing is going anywhere on a Shuttle. Pat |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Pad damage
OM writes:
...Ok, if it's not a leaky pipe, then there's only one other thing it could be. Gophers. Caddyshack... -- A host is a host from coast to & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Pad damage
On Jun 3, 9:21 am, "Alan Erskine" wrote:
"Jochem Huhmann" wrote in message ... I'd be more concerned over damage to the Shuttle's tail (and SSME nozzles, tiles and so on). If there was debris from the flame trench thrown over more than 500 meters some pieces of concrete could damage the tail easily, I think. This could have been a bad day with a failure mode coming out of nowhere. Look at this: http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/st...ad/damage5.jpg OK, the debris is not exactly likely to move into the direction of the exhaust, but having *some* pieces bouncing back could've been enough... The MLP was covering the duct creating a physical barrier |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Pad damage
In sci.space.history Damon Hill wrote:
Yes, possibly. Now imagine this scenario with a full-up Ares V at around 10 million pounds of thrust... The world's largest, most powerful leaf blower. Getting it into the back of the gardener's beat-up old pickup truck to take it to the next site for "mow and blow" would be a challenge though. rick jones -- firebug n, the idiot who tosses a lit cigarette out his car window these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH... |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Pad damage
In sci.space.history Jochem Huhmann wrote:
OK, the debris is not exactly likely to move into the direction of the exhaust, but having *some* pieces bouncing back could've been enough... Unless there was something for them to bounce-off of they'd have to have been carried around by some sort of vortex leaving the tunnel. Ostensibly, the outlet of the tunnel is supposed to be far enough away from the launch vehicle to preclude exhaust gasses from getting back to the stack. Does that then imply that larger "particulates" would be unlikely to get back that far? rick jones -- Wisdom Teeth are impacted, people are affected by the effects of events. these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH... |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Pad damage
Brian Thorn wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:11:35 -0500, OM wrote: On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 22:22:50 GMT, "Brian Gaff" wrote: So then, what is the cause. Is it subsidence? Sounds like some ultrasound testing might be in order in the trench. ...And weren't you also noting that the downlink audio had a significant vibration to it? I'm now wondering if there was more to it now, Brian. And the disturbing increase in number and size of debris from a Tank that was supposed to be the "best yet" (but in reality looks to be the second worst since RTF.) Now that *all* the imagery is in and analyzed, I don't think that's a valid statement. Overall debris looks to be in line with other post-RTF tanks. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Pad damage
On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 11:03:05 -0500, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote: And the disturbing increase in number and size of debris from a Tank that was supposed to be the "best yet" (but in reality looks to be the second worst since RTF.) Now that *all* the imagery is in and analyzed, I don't think that's a valid statement. Overall debris looks to be in line with other post-RTF tanks. I'm glad I was wrong. But that sure _looked_ like a lot of debris shedding. Brian |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Pad damage
Brian Thorn wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 11:03:05 -0500, "Jorge R. Frank" wrote: And the disturbing increase in number and size of debris from a Tank that was supposed to be the "best yet" (but in reality looks to be the second worst since RTF.) Now that *all* the imagery is in and analyzed, I don't think that's a valid statement. Overall debris looks to be in line with other post-RTF tanks. I'm glad I was wrong. But that sure _looked_ like a lot of debris shedding. Just bad luck that most of the debris incidents happened to be within the FOV of the one live-downlinked camera. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pad damage | Brian Gaff | Space Shuttle | 56 | June 8th 08 08:08 AM |
Damage or no damage, safe return still questionable? | Raptor05 | Space Shuttle | 8 | August 7th 05 12:41 PM |
First picture of VAB damage | Rusty B | Space Shuttle | 33 | September 12th 04 05:31 AM |
First picture of VAB damage | Rusty B | Space Shuttle | 0 | September 7th 04 08:19 PM |
VAB still standing but some damage | John Doe | Space Shuttle | 0 | September 6th 04 08:52 PM |