A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » History
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Pad damage



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old June 3rd 08, 01:25 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history
Jochem Huhmann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 606
Default 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  
Old June 3rd 08, 02:21 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history
Alan Erskine[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,316
Default 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  
Old June 3rd 08, 05:12 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default 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  
Old June 3rd 08, 07:58 PM posted to sci.space.history
David Lesher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 198
Default 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  
Old June 3rd 08, 09:44 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 558
Default 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  
Old June 4th 08, 06:50 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history
Rick Jones
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 685
Default 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  
Old June 4th 08, 06:58 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history
Rick Jones
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 685
Default 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  
Old June 7th 08, 05:03 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history
Jorge R. Frank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,089
Default 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  
Old June 7th 08, 10:27 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history
Brian Thorn[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,266
Default 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  
Old June 7th 08, 10:31 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history
Jorge R. Frank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,089
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.