#1
|
|||
|
|||
Pad damage
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. OM -- ]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Pad damage
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.) Related? Probably not, but with NASA seemingly unwilling to acknowledge that the new Tank gave a far from stellar performance, its hard to just dismiss the possibility. Brian |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Pad damage
In sci.space.history 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. How much can come off an SRB without it being "fatal?" Could a chunk of propellant have come-loose and detonated somewhere in the tunnel? How about the liquid propellants? Or perhaps something more prosaic - like someone left something behind in the tunnel? 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... |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Pad damage
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 00:11:23 +0000 (UTC), Rick Jones
wrote: How much can come off an SRB without it being "fatal?" Could a chunk of propellant have come-loose and detonated somewhere in the tunnel? How about the liquid propellants? ....Interesting question. Anyone have any data on observances of such situations in the past? Or perhaps something more prosaic - like someone left something behind in the tunnel? ....Are there any anti-NASA congressmen been reported missing since Saturday who might have been in the Canaveral-Titusville area? :-) OM -- ]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Pad damage
On Jun 2, 8:11 pm, Rick Jones wrote:
How much can come off an SRB without it being "fatal?" Could a chunk of propellant have come-loose and detonated somewhere in the tunnel? How about the liquid propellants? The solid propellant doesn't detonate and if a chunk came out, it would mean there is a problem with the SRM. Impossible with the liquids. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Pad damage
On Jun 2, 7:11 pm, 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. The vibration was with camera mount and not the ride to orbit |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Pad damage
Rick Jones wrote in news:g2227b$pdk$1
@usenet01.boi.hp.com: How much can come off an SRB without it being "fatal?" Could a chunk of propellant have come-loose and detonated somewhere in the tunnel? How about the liquid propellants? No. Most likely the pad's aged and deteriorated enough that it's started to fall apart under the stress. Imagine what a full-up Ares V might do to it with 10 million pounds or more of thrust... Way back in the 70's, I had the unique opportunity to walk through one of those trenches. I don't remember the lining being so clean appearing; seemed like it was pretty sooty. --Damon |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Pad damage
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. Although you can explain the shed concrete panels in the interior of the flame trench (via the zipper effect after one shed in the high velocity exhaust flow from the SRBs), those shifted panels on the ramp that surrounds the flame trench proper are more worrying. If the subsurface material that the pad is built on has shifted or slumped from age and repeated launchings, then the whole pad may be dangerous to use without major reconstruction, pretty much from the ground up. That would be very time-consuming and expensive. Pat |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Pad damage
Brian Thorn wrote: Related? Probably not, but with NASA seemingly unwilling to acknowledge that the new Tank gave a far from stellar performance, its hard to just dismiss the possibility. Did they have significant foam shedding? From what I read only around five very small sections of foam shed during ascent: http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shuttl...d2/index2.html It certainly looks to be in very good shape from the post separation imaging. Still, this is the first all-new ET incorporating all of the post-Columbia loss improvements, so it should have had almost no foam shedding at all. Pat |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Pad damage
Rick Jones wrote: How much can come off an SRB without it being "fatal?" Could a chunk of propellant have come-loose and detonated somewhere in the tunnel? How about the liquid propellants? That would be very bad from three different perspectives: 1.) The shed burning chunk of solid fuel would partially block the nozzle throat as it exited, raising the internal case pressure for a brief moment as it blew out of the exhaust nozzle. This could lead to the catastrophic rupture of the SRB casing at its weakest point from overpressure. 2.) With a piece of the central bore of the SRB grain missing, its combustion area would increase, with the overall thrust and internal pressure also increasing. 3.) Probably most dangerous of all, the void in the central bore of the fuel grain from the missing chunk of fuel could mean that the insulating effects of the solid fuel that protect the SRB casing itself from the heat of combustion until the end of the SRB burn would be removed from one section of the casing for several seconds at the end of the burn, causing a section of it to overheat (as in red-hot) and lose its structural strength, causing a hole in it. It would be something along the lines of of the Challenger SRB leak all over again. I very much doubt this happened though. It would have showed up in no uncertain terms in the launch telemetry from the ascending Shuttle as the thrust curve of one SRB would be very abnormal - too high during the first part of the burn, too low during its latter part. Or perhaps something more prosaic - like someone left something behind in the tunnel? "I could of sworn that I parked the Toyota Tundra here. Where the hell is it? Oh... wait a minute..." :-D Pat |
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 |