Ares1-X Launch Pad has "Substantial" Damage!

Treet wrote:
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 15:28:21 -0500, "Jonathan" wrote:

Pad damage

Has significance relevance to the cost of launches.


Why you couldn't have been strapped to the base of the pad during
launch escapes us.

Why did you feel the need to be abusive?

Sylvia.

Sylvia Else wrote:
Treet wrote:
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 15:28:21 -0500, "Jonathan" wrote:

Pad damage

Has significance relevance to the cost of launches.

Possibly. Possibly not. This is the last launch for this tower before it
is demolished so not much hardening was done. Ares I will have a
different tower. The results of Ares I-X will indicate how much
hardening the Ares I tower will need.

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

Possibly. Possibly not. This is the last launch for this tower before it
is demolished so not much hardening was done. Ares I will have a
different tower. The results of Ares I-X will indicate how much
hardening the Ares I tower will need.


Was the damage caused by the rocket's immediate departure form vertical
attitude upon engine ignition ? or was its exhaust different from that
of an SRB during a shuttle launch ?

Was the mentioned damage on/in the mobile launch platform or on the
tower itself ?

Is hydrazine sent to the shuttle via the launch platform or via the tower ?


Is it correct to state that Ares-5, should it be built, would be
significantly higher than its Ares-1 brother and thus need to have the
various tower umbilicals/structures duplicated at different heights ?

And if Ares-1 will be launched next to a much higher (ares-5 capable)
tower, has this week test launch really simulated the impact on the
tower since they haven't measured the potential damage at tower levels
that do not exist on the shuttle tower ?

Hmm, now call me cynical if you like, but this would not actually have been
unexpected given the way the pad was bodged, erm I mean adapted for the
launch.. grin.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Jonathan" wrote in message
...
"Pad Avoidance Maneuver"?



Pad damage

"Approximately two hours after launch of Ares I-X, safing crews
entering pad LC-39B reported a small cloud of residual
nitrogen tetroxide leaking from an obsolete shuttle oxidizer line
at the 95-foot-level of the Fixed Service Structure, where it
connects to the Rotating Service Structure. At 8:40am on
October 29, 2009, a hydrazine leak was detected on the
95-foot-level, between the Payload Changeout Room and
the Fixed Service Structure. Both leaks were capped without
injury.[18]'

Due to the Pad Avoidance Maneuver performed by Ares I-X,
shortly after liftoff, the Fixed Service Structure at LC-39B
received significantly more direct rocket exhaust than occurs
during a normal Space Shuttle launch. The resulting damage
has been reported as "substantial," with both pad elevators
rendered inoperable, all communication lines between the pad
and launch control destroyed and all outdoor megaphones melted.
The vehicle-facing portions of the Fixed Service Structure appear
to have suffered extreme heat damage and scorching, as do the
hinge columns supporting the Rotating Service Structure.[19]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares_I-X

I think it was an attempt at humour, but maybe it was the wrong person to
aim it at.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
...
Treet wrote:
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 15:28:21 -0500, "Jonathan" wrote:

Pad damage

Has significance relevance to the cost of launches.


Why you couldn't have been strapped to the base of the pad during
launch escapes us.

Why did you feel the need to be abusive?

Sylvia.

Treet wrote:
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 15:28:21 -0500, "Jonathan" wrote:

Pad damage

Why you couldn't have been strapped to the base of the pad during
launch escapes us.

Who's 'us'? I only hear a tweet twitting.

Brian Gaff wrote:

I think it was an attempt at humour, but maybe it was the wrong person to
aim it at.

No, that was Mosley's violent psychotic rage. He really needs to learn
how to control that. You need to learn how to distinguish it from humor.

Brian

"Pad Avoidance Maneuver"?



Pad damage

"Approximately two hours after launch of Ares I-X, safing crews
entering pad LC-39B reported a small cloud of residual
nitrogen tetroxide leaking from an obsolete shuttle oxidizer line
at the 95-foot-level of the Fixed Service Structure, where it
connects to the Rotating Service Structure. At 8:40am on
October 29, 2009, a hydrazine leak was detected on the
95-foot-level, between the Payload Changeout Room and
the Fixed Service Structure. Both leaks were capped without
injury.[18]'

Due to the Pad Avoidance Maneuver performed by Ares I-X,
shortly after liftoff, the Fixed Service Structure at LC-39B
received significantly more direct rocket exhaust than occurs
during a normal Space Shuttle launch. The resulting damage
has been reported as "substantial," with both pad elevators
rendered inoperable, all communication lines between the pad
and launch control destroyed and all outdoor megaphones melted.
The vehicle-facing portions of the Fixed Service Structure appear
to have suffered extreme heat damage and scorching, as do the
hinge columns supporting the Rotating Service Structure.[19]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares_I-X

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
I think it was an attempt at humour, but maybe it was the wrong person to aim
it at.

Brian



I don't mind. I spend hours trying to be as annoying as possible.

To me NASA defines the govt agency which not only needs a new
goal the most, but also has an equal potential to change the world.
Right now, and right here, exists a spectacularly rare opportunity
to create a better future for everyone.

I sincerely believe this issue defines the theoretical limit where
the fewest number of people possible, can create the greatest
amount of change possible. NASA is a large, rigid system
existing near a behavioral critical point. A minor puff of 'wind'
(at just the right place) could cause this ship to change it's tack.
This strong belief is the source of my endless huffing and puffing.

NASA needs a new direction!
The Internet can change anything!
The world needs saving!

The only way for those things to become one is if the public
decides, and wrenches decision making away from
the smoke-filled rooms. Which have been hiding behind
'it's rocket science' and national security to hijack our
scientific, economic and political futures ever since 9/11.

Those things are for the people to decide.

I just read a rather astonishing fact, a fact which places
our current time in a rather chilling perspective.
Did you know the US national budget is up 90% since 9/11, and
our defense spending has doubled since then?
http://www.marke****ch.com/story/con...les-2009-10-12


Right now we happen to be in the 'bust' portion of that
boom and bust cycle.

This is where a 'sea-change' becomes possible like few
other times, and also absolutely crucial.


Singin'....

"C'mon, turn this thing around.
Right Now!
Hey, it's your tomorrow.
Right Now!
C'mon it's everything.
Right Now!
Catch a magic moment, do it
Right here and now!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aTYp8-O96M




Jonathan



Write Your Representative
https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml


NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER EXPLORATORY RESEARCH
AND TECHNOLOGY (SERT) PROGRAM
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1




s




--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
...
Treet wrote:
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 15:28:21 -0500, "Jonathan" wrote:

Pad damage

Has significance relevance to the cost of launches.


Why you couldn't have been strapped to the base of the pad during
launch escapes us.

Why did you feel the need to be abusive?

Sylvia.

On Nov 1, 3:11*am, John Doe wrote:

1. Was the damage caused by the rocket's immediate departure form vertical
attitude upon engine ignition ? or was its exhaust different from that
of an SRB during a shuttle launch ?

2. Was the mentioned damage on/in the mobile launch platform or on the
tower itself ?

3. Is hydrazine sent to the shuttle via the launch platform or via the tower ?

4. Is it correct to state that Ares-5, should it be built, would be
significantly higher than its Ares-1 brother and thus need to have the
various tower umbilicals/structures duplicated at different heights ?

5. And if Ares-1 will be launched next to a much higher (ares-5 capable)
tower, has this week test launch really simulated the impact on the
tower since they haven't measured the potential damage at tower levels
that do not exist on the shuttle tower ?


1. It was an old shuttle booster. The exhaust is exactly the same

2. both

3. Via the rotating tower. The leak was at the hinge. This has no
bearing on Ares I

4. Ares I & 5 will have new, different and separate umbilical towers
mounted on different platforms

5. See #4