Re: Ares1-X Launch Pad has "Substantial" Damage!
Sylvia Else
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 15:28:21 -0500, "Jonathan" <Ho...@Again.net> 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.
Jorge R. Frank
> Treet wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 15:28:21 -0500, "Jonathan" <Ho...@Again.net> 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.
John Doe
> 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 ?
Brian Gaff
unexpected given the way the pad was bodged, erm I mean adapted for the
launch.. grin.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
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" <Ho...@Again.net> wrote in message
news:tNednfCA69GWA3HX...@giganews.com...
> "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
aim it at.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
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" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:0068cdba$0$17011$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
Jonathan
"OM" <o...@sci.space.history> wrote in message
news:m72qe51tr0573v698...@4ax.com...
That's not my understanding, LC-39b was to be stripped and new
towers built at for Ares future flights at the same pad, and Ares V at
LC-39a. Sounds to me like they need to redesign the new
towers because of the way the booster behaved right after launch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LC-39B
If that's so, it's just one more nail in the coffin for the Vision for Space
Exploration.
>
> ...Which, IIRC, was a stated test objective. Once again, "jonathan"
> trolls without bothering to check his facts, much less post *real*
> ones.
>
> OM
>
> --
>
> ]=====================================[
> ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
> ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
> ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
> ]=====================================[
Me
> 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