Author Topic: Pad 39B to gain new Flame Deflector and Trench upgrade  (Read 23978 times)

Offline newpylong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Liked: 199
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: Pad 39B to gain new Flame Deflector and Trench upgrade
« Reply #20 on: 02/09/2015 11:21 PM »
No, all of the exhaust is going to the north, SRBs and RS-25s. No more wedge.
« Last Edit: 02/09/2015 11:21 PM by newpylong »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31222
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9495
  • Likes Given: 298
Re: Pad 39B to gain new Flame Deflector and Trench upgrade
« Reply #21 on: 02/10/2015 12:05 AM »

Note newlylong's response was re: SRB exhaust only per the context.  I expect the RS-25 exhaust will be directed S (same as it was for STS).  The geometry of the RS-25s might mean something different (a split of 2x2 N/S) but expect it to mimic STS.

STS was split because of the sidemount

Offline PahTo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1490
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 136
  • Likes Given: 393
Re: Pad 39B to gain new Flame Deflector and Trench upgrade
« Reply #22 on: 02/10/2015 01:56 PM »

Learn something new every day around this site...
Good stuff--thanks folks!

Offline AnalogMan

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2935
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 644
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Pad 39B to gain new Flame Deflector and Trench upgrade
« Reply #23 on: 02/10/2015 02:47 PM »
No, all of the exhaust is going to the north, SRBs and RS-25s. No more wedge.

There was some early evaluation of a flame deflector that diverted SRB and SSME plumes to different sides of the flame trench.  An idea labelled "Concept 1C2" was one of those and  incorporated a staggered ridge and slopes.

A simulation image of maximum surface pressures during SRB start-up shows the geometry considered - its compared to the baseline design which deflects to one side only.

Online DaveS

  • Shuttle program observer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7757
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 285
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Pad 39B to gain new Flame Deflector and Trench upgrade
« Reply #24 on: 02/10/2015 03:26 PM »

Note newlylong's response was re: SRB exhaust only per the context.  I expect the RS-25 exhaust will be directed S (same as it was for STS).  The geometry of the RS-25s might mean something different (a split of 2x2 N/S) but expect it to mimic STS.

STS was split because of the sidemount
To be accurate, Saturn V used wedge-shaped flame-deflector as well. It was mobile, on rails as it wasn't tied into the pad's water deluge system like the STS flame deflector.
"For Sardines, space is no problem!"
-1996 Astronaut class slogan

"We're rolling in the wrong direction but for the right reasons"
-USA engineer about the rollback of Discovery prior to the STS-114 Return To Flight mission

Offline PahTo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1490
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 136
  • Likes Given: 393
Re: Pad 39B to gain new Flame Deflector and Trench upgrade
« Reply #25 on: 02/10/2015 03:38 PM »
Thanks for the images, AnalogMan.  I assume these are some of the products of the analysis (from article)

Quote
Following simulations using NASA Ames’ supercomputer, a deflector design – that could withstand the high heat from plume exhaust, that did not result in plume blow-back, and whose surface pressure was within design margin limits – was selected.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6671
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 517
  • Likes Given: 312
Re: Pad 39B to gain new Flame Deflector and Trench upgrade
« Reply #26 on: 02/11/2015 04:02 PM »

Note newlylong's response was re: SRB exhaust only per the context.  I expect the RS-25 exhaust will be directed S (same as it was for STS).  The geometry of the RS-25s might mean something different (a split of 2x2 N/S) but expect it to mimic STS.

STS was split because of the sidemount
To be accurate, Saturn V used wedge-shaped flame-deflector as well. It was mobile, on rails as it wasn't tied into the pad's water deluge system like the STS flame deflector.

But was Saturn's flame divided?  It sure looks like it was in this picture.  And if so, why won't SLS's be divided?  It has all of it's exhaust in one central area like Saturn V, not offset like STS.  And it will be about 1Mlbs more thrust at liftoff that Saturn V  I'd always assumed 39A and 39B were set up the way they were because Saturn V had too much thrust to direct out just one flame port.  N-1's pad was built with 3 flame ducts...I assumed for the same reason. 
But if SLS's thrust can all go out the north side, seems like that was an incorrect assumption.  Why build the pad with two flame ducts then rather than just one if one can do the job?
« Last Edit: 02/11/2015 04:03 PM by Lobo »

Offline AS_501

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 109
  • Pittsburgh, PA
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Pad 39B to gain new Flame Deflector and Trench upgrade
« Reply #27 on: 02/11/2015 04:28 PM »

Note newlylong's response was re: SRB exhaust only per the context.  I expect the RS-25 exhaust will be directed S (same as it was for STS).  The geometry of the RS-25s might mean something different (a split of 2x2 N/S) but expect it to mimic STS.

STS was split because of the sidemount
To be accurate, Saturn V used wedge-shaped flame-deflector as well. It was mobile, on rails as it wasn't tied into the pad's water deluge system like the STS flame deflector.

But was Saturn's flame divided?  It sure looks like it was in this picture.  And if so, why won't SLS's be divided?  It has all of it's exhaust in one central area like Saturn V, not offset like STS.  And it will be about 1Mlbs more thrust at liftoff that Saturn V  I'd always assumed 39A and 39B were set up the way they were because Saturn V had too much thrust to direct out just one flame port.  N-1's pad was built with 3 flame ducts...I assumed for the same reason. 
But if SLS's thrust can all go out the north side, seems like that was an incorrect assumption.  Why build the pad with two flame ducts then rather than just one if one can do the job?

I'm no engineer, but there is something inherently unsettling about deflecting all that energy in one direction (asymmetrically).  Perhaps this could damage the launch platform?

Offline newpylong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Liked: 199
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: Pad 39B to gain new Flame Deflector and Trench upgrade
« Reply #28 on: 02/11/2015 04:42 PM »
Stop the nonsense. Nothing is going to be damaged and there is nothing inherently bad with a unidirectional flame.

Simulations and testing to aid in design for things like this did not exist when Saturn and even STS were developed. The single trench is less complex, allows for easier inspection and will be cheaper to build.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31222
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9495
  • Likes Given: 298
Re: Pad 39B to gain new Flame Deflector and Trench upgrade
« Reply #29 on: 02/11/2015 04:43 PM »

I'm no engineer, but there is something inherently unsettling about deflecting all that energy in one direction (asymmetrically).  Perhaps this could damage the launch platform?

No, see Atlas, Titan, Delta, etc

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6671
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 517
  • Likes Given: 312
Re: Pad 39B to gain new Flame Deflector and Trench upgrade
« Reply #30 on: 02/11/2015 05:02 PM »
Stop the nonsense. Nothing is going to be damaged and there is nothing inherently bad with a unidirectional flame.

Simulations and testing to aid in design for things like this did not exist when Saturn and even STS were developed. The single trench is less complex, allows for easier inspection and will be cheaper to build.

Yes, but we're talking a pad that's already built, not a new one they are going to build.  And the way it's built is to allow for exhaust out two sides especially with use of the Saturn type MLP's as SLS will.  Is it just today they are able to to in depth analysis of construction and determine that 39B was so over built that it can handle almost 9Mlbs of thrust out either side?  Something they'd couldn't be certain of in the 60's so they just added a lot of margin? Or something else?

I'm still trying to get the "why" of only using one side of an existing pad that already has two flame ports.  I understand the "why" of a new pad to only have one port with cost and simplicity.
« Last Edit: 02/11/2015 05:05 PM by Lobo »

Offline AS_501

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 109
  • Pittsburgh, PA
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Pad 39B to gain new Flame Deflector and Trench upgrade
« Reply #31 on: 02/11/2015 05:03 PM »
Thanks all for the feedback.  While we're in the general area of the trench, it will be interesting to see how the SLS sound suppression water system will be configured, given that:
-  SLS will be generating more acoustic energy that STS (I assume)
-  The spacecraft is at the top of the stack and inside a shroud, not down on the side and exposed

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31222
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9495
  • Likes Given: 298
Re: Pad 39B to gain new Flame Deflector and Trench upgrade
« Reply #32 on: 02/11/2015 06:22 PM »
Thanks all for the feedback.  While we're in the general area of the trench, it will be interesting to see how the SLS sound suppression water system will be configured, given that:
-  SLS will be generating more acoustic energy that STS (I assume)
-  The spacecraft is at the top of the stack and inside a shroud, not down on the side and exposed


Also there is no large deck to reflect sound energy back at the vehicle

Much less of a requirement. 

Offline newpylong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Liked: 199
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: Pad 39B to gain new Flame Deflector and Trench upgrade
« Reply #33 on: 02/11/2015 06:51 PM »
Stop the nonsense. Nothing is going to be damaged and there is nothing inherently bad with a unidirectional flame.

Simulations and testing to aid in design for things like this did not exist when Saturn and even STS were developed. The single trench is less complex, allows for easier inspection and will be cheaper to build.

Yes, but we're talking a pad that's already built, not a new one they are going to build.  And the way it's built is to allow for exhaust out two sides especially with use of the Saturn type MLP's as SLS will.  Is it just today they are able to to in depth analysis of construction and determine that 39B was so over built that it can handle almost 9Mlbs of thrust out either side?  Something they'd couldn't be certain of in the 60's so they just added a lot of margin? Or something else?

I'm still trying to get the "why" of only using one side of an existing pad that already has two flame ports.  I understand the "why" of a new pad to only have one port with cost and simplicity.

I answered your questions already as to why. Just because there are two it doesn't mean you need to use both.

If you need further information I am sure it's out there direct from GSDO.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31222
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9495
  • Likes Given: 298
Re: Pad 39B to gain new Flame Deflector and Trench upgrade
« Reply #34 on: 02/11/2015 07:04 PM »
Stop the nonsense. Nothing is going to be damaged and there is nothing inherently bad with a unidirectional flame.

Simulations and testing to aid in design for things like this did not exist when Saturn and even STS were developed. The single trench is less complex, allows for easier inspection and will be cheaper to build.

Yes, but we're talking a pad that's already built, not a new one they are going to build.  And the way it's built is to allow for exhaust out two sides especially with use of the Saturn type MLP's as SLS will.  Is it just today they are able to to in depth analysis of construction and determine that 39B was so over built that it can handle almost 9Mlbs of thrust out either side?  Something they'd couldn't be certain of in the 60's so they just added a lot of margin? Or something else?

I'm still trying to get the "why" of only using one side of an existing pad that already has two flame ports.  I understand the "why" of a new pad to only have one port with cost and simplicity.

I answered your questions already as to why. Just because there are two it doesn't mean you need to use both.

If you need further information I am sure it's out there direct from GSDO.

Having a single side flame deflector means that there is no leading edge that has to take the brunt of the exhaust.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6671
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 517
  • Likes Given: 312
Re: Pad 39B to gain new Flame Deflector and Trench upgrade
« Reply #35 on: 02/11/2015 10:08 PM »
Stop the nonsense. Nothing is going to be damaged and there is nothing inherently bad with a unidirectional flame.

Simulations and testing to aid in design for things like this did not exist when Saturn and even STS were developed. The single trench is less complex, allows for easier inspection and will be cheaper to build.

Yes, but we're talking a pad that's already built, not a new one they are going to build.  And the way it's built is to allow for exhaust out two sides especially with use of the Saturn type MLP's as SLS will.  Is it just today they are able to to in depth analysis of construction and determine that 39B was so over built that it can handle almost 9Mlbs of thrust out either side?  Something they'd couldn't be certain of in the 60's so they just added a lot of margin? Or something else?

I'm still trying to get the "why" of only using one side of an existing pad that already has two flame ports.  I understand the "why" of a new pad to only have one port with cost and simplicity.

I answered your questions already as to why. Just because there are two it doesn't mean you need to use both.

If you need further information I am sure it's out there direct from GSDO.

Having a single side flame deflector means that there is no leading edge that has to take the brunt of the exhaust.

And that certainly makes sense as well.

Why did Saturn V divide it's thrust then rather than just have it all go out the north as well? 

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6671
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 517
  • Likes Given: 312
Re: Pad 39B to gain new Flame Deflector and Trench upgrade
« Reply #36 on: 02/11/2015 10:13 PM »
Stop the nonsense. Nothing is going to be damaged and there is nothing inherently bad with a unidirectional flame.

Simulations and testing to aid in design for things like this did not exist when Saturn and even STS were developed. The single trench is less complex, allows for easier inspection and will be cheaper to build.

Yes, but we're talking a pad that's already built, not a new one they are going to build.  And the way it's built is to allow for exhaust out two sides especially with use of the Saturn type MLP's as SLS will.  Is it just today they are able to to in depth analysis of construction and determine that 39B was so over built that it can handle almost 9Mlbs of thrust out either side?  Something they'd couldn't be certain of in the 60's so they just added a lot of margin? Or something else?

I'm still trying to get the "why" of only using one side of an existing pad that already has two flame ports.  I understand the "why" of a new pad to only have one port with cost and simplicity.

I answered your questions already as to why. Just because there are two it doesn't mean you need to use both.

If you need further information I am sure it's out there direct from GSDO.

Not exactly.  You said why a single ducted trench is better than a multi ducted one if they were building a new one.  "Cheaper to build" to quote you.  But not how that applies to an existing two ducted trench which doesn't need to be built.  And if it makes mores sense to use just one side of it even though it has two, why did Saturn use both?

I'm not arguing, just curious.  Trying to learn.  :-)

 

Online catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4510
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 1397
  • Likes Given: 843
Re: Pad 39B to gain new Flame Deflector and Trench upgrade
« Reply #37 on: 02/12/2015 01:38 AM »
Stop the nonsense. Nothing is going to be damaged and there is nothing inherently bad with a unidirectional flame.

Simulations and testing to aid in design for things like this did not exist when Saturn and even STS were developed. The single trench is less complex, allows for easier inspection and will be cheaper to build.

Yes, but we're talking a pad that's already built, not a new one they are going to build.  And the way it's built is to allow for exhaust out two sides especially with use of the Saturn type MLP's as SLS will.  Is it just today they are able to to in depth analysis of construction and determine that 39B was so over built that it can handle almost 9Mlbs of thrust out either side?  Something they'd couldn't be certain of in the 60's so they just added a lot of margin? Or something else?

I'm still trying to get the "why" of only using one side of an existing pad that already has two flame ports.  I understand the "why" of a new pad to only have one port with cost and simplicity.

I answered your questions already as to why. Just because there are two it doesn't mean you need to use both.

If you need further information I am sure it's out there direct from GSDO.

Having a single side flame deflector means that there is no leading edge that has to take the brunt of the exhaust.

And that certainly makes sense as well.

Why did Saturn V divide it's thrust then rather than just have it all go out the north as well? 


Perhaps to reduce possible debris (blast force) raining down on the SpaceX horizontal integration assets just a 1/4 mile to the south of the pad?  Where as the Saturn and Shuttle facilities were 4 miles away.
« Last Edit: 02/12/2015 01:39 AM by catdlr »
Tony De La Rosa

Offline SWGlassPit

  • I break space hardware
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 437
  • Liked: 249
  • Likes Given: 35
Re: Pad 39B to gain new Flame Deflector and Trench upgrade
« Reply #38 on: 02/13/2015 01:56 PM »
It's just shy of a mile south.  1/4 mile south is the pad perimeter fence.

Offline chrisking0997

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 255
  • NASA Langley
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 184
Re: Pad 39B to gain new Flame Deflector and Trench upgrade
« Reply #39 on: 02/13/2015 04:39 PM »
debris from 39B flying to 39A?  :o
Tried to tell you, we did.  Listen, you did not.  Now, screwed we all are.

Tags: