Author Topic: Starship Launch Mount / Pad / Table Discussion  (Read 263152 times)

Online meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14127
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14001
  • Likes Given: 1391
Re: Starship Launch Mount / Pad / Table Discussion
« Reply #1160 on: 11/19/2023 05:17 pm »
Well a flame trench can have one outlet and an angle diverter.

Or two outlets and a wedge diverter.

Or three outlets and a tetrahedron diverter.

Or four outlets and a pyramid diverter.

Or six outlets and just say screw it and use a flat plate diverter.
Scroll back some pages to after IFT-1 and read back the doom and gloom poata about how SpaceX is ignoring the wisdom of The Ages, and how the ridiculously underbuilt OLM is a joke and they need a trench trench trench.

You're trying to argue dogma with logic.

"This is how it's done" always ignores the "why it was done" and the even more blasphemous "maybe there's a better way it could have been done".
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline DistantTemple

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1992
  • England
  • Liked: 1694
  • Likes Given: 2813
Re: Starship Launch Mount / Pad / Table Discussion
« Reply #1161 on: 11/20/2023 02:50 am »
Its supposed to be Unicorns dancing in the flame ducts not dancing dogs juggling with tranches of words - despite having a stainless steel dance floor.

Have you seen Elon's tweet that the shower head needs no servicing ahead of the next launch? What a blinding success!!!
We can always grow new new dendrites. Reach out and make connections and your world will burst with new insights. Then repose in consciousness.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8747
  • Liked: 4654
  • Likes Given: 768
Re: Starship Launch Mount / Pad / Table Discussion
« Reply #1162 on: 11/20/2023 04:57 am »
Moderators note:
Let's get our heads out of rabbit holes and pursue more fruitful, on topic, and up to date discussions rather than bashing each other with oblivion posts.

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5993
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9165
  • Likes Given: 38
Re: Starship Launch Mount / Pad / Table Discussion
« Reply #1163 on: 11/21/2023 04:41 pm »
https://twitter.com/bottinphilip/status/1726692001058607449

Quote
Ship qd looks a little bent out of shape
Pins for the two forward actuators that move the Ship QD plate about sheared off. One actuator has outright fallen out, and the other has the clevis jammed into the mount. QD plate itself is very likely fine, plumbing is hopefully fine but will have slammed into the work platform so the flex lines may need replacement. Actuators may need to be swapped out, or just need new pins.
For that sort of shear failure to occur, that'd probably be from force applied by the plume impinging on the arm. A 'hutch' over the arm for it to retract into would work (a'la most upper stage QDs), but as the 'loose' lines appear to have come through unscathed then that may just need a hard-mount for the QD arm to rapidly sit down into after retraction to bear the load.

Online catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10790
  • Enthusiast since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 8150
  • Likes Given: 7439
Re: Starship Launch Mount / Pad / Table Discussion
« Reply #1164 on: 11/21/2023 11:29 pm »


Quote
Ship qd looks a little bent out of shape
Pins for the two forward actuators that move the Ship QD plate about sheared off. One actuator has outright fallen out, and the other has the clevis jammed into the mount. QD plate itself is very likely fine, plumbing is hopefully fine but will have slammed into the work platform so the flex lines may need replacement. Actuators may need to be swapped out, or just need new pins.
For that sort of shear failure to occur, that'd probably be from force applied by the plume impinging on the arm. A 'hutch' over the arm for it to retract into would work (a'la most upper stage QDs), but as the 'loose' lines appear to have come through unscathed then that may just need a hard-mount for the QD arm to rapidly sit down into after retraction to bear the load.

I took Elon's 360 video of the launch and cropped it into the SQD movement in this video.  Appears to be OK until it disappears under Chopstik's arm, where I guess the thrust plume was turbulent in addition to the downward force.

Tony De La Rosa, ...I'm no Feline Dealer!! I move mountains.  but I'm better known for "I think it's highly sexual." Japanese to English Translation.

Offline EL_DIABLO

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 180
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 157
Re: Starship Launch Mount / Pad / Table Discussion
« Reply #1165 on: 11/22/2023 08:59 am »
They should just take the opportunity and move the QD arm, they put it on the wrong side of the tower.

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5993
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9165
  • Likes Given: 38
Re: Starship Launch Mount / Pad / Table Discussion
« Reply #1166 on: 11/22/2023 09:27 am »
They should just take the opportunity and move the QD arm, they put it on the wrong side of the tower.
Due to the requirements of keeping the chopstick tracks clear for traversal, fixed items like the support arm can only be mounted on the back of the tower.
Since its function as a booster stabilisation brace seems to have fallen by the wayside and its only job is now hosting the Ship QD arm, the LC-39A tower will probably have a much smaller and simpler support arm.

Online WiresMN

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 438
  • Likes Given: 264
Re: Starship Launch Mount / Pad / Table Discussion
« Reply #1167 on: 11/22/2023 04:13 pm »
They should just take the opportunity and move the QD arm, they put it on the wrong side of the tower.
Due to the requirements of keeping the chopstick tracks clear for traversal, fixed items like the support arm can only be mounted on the back of the tower.
Since its function as a booster stabilisation brace seems to have fallen by the wayside and its only job is now hosting the Ship QD arm, the LC-39A tower will probably have a much smaller and simpler support arm.

Once they stop messing the location of the ship QD, I suspect they will build a QD hood similar to the booster hood. I recall they were working on one before they started moving the location of the QD head. But I may be wrong on that last statement.

Offline EL_DIABLO

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 180
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 157
Re: Starship Launch Mount / Pad / Table Discussion
« Reply #1168 on: 11/22/2023 08:18 pm »
They should just take the opportunity and move the QD arm, they put it on the wrong side of the tower.
Due to the requirements of keeping the chopstick tracks clear for traversal, fixed items like the support arm can only be mounted on the back of the tower.
Since its function as a booster stabilisation brace seems to have fallen by the wayside and its only job is now hosting the Ship QD arm, the LC-39A tower will probably have a much smaller and simpler support arm.

What I mean is they should be catching and stacking from the opposite side, where the QD arm currently is. Hence moving it to the other side. Right now, in the event of a catch failure, the booster or ship will be falling onto GSE tanks and ancillaries.

Offline Proxa

  • Member
  • Posts: 5
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Starship Launch Mount / Pad / Table Discussion
« Reply #1169 on: 11/23/2023 11:44 am »
The showerhead did a great job in protecting the launch pad during IFT-2, but it seems to me that the system as a whole still needs more work before the pad is rapidly reuseable, beyond the rework that needs to be done on the ship’s quick disconnect.

Take for instance this screenshot I grabbed from the tower view just as Starship has left the pad: the launch mount has caught on fire. This might simply be paint catching fire and therefore a cosmetic issue or SpaceX might need to delay the gravity turn to stop the launch pad from partially melting. This image from RGV photography post-launch shows that the entire towerside of the launch mount got quite toasted during take-off.

Another place where it looks like the system needs more work is on the outer edge of the showerhead and the surrounding concrete.  At 5'o'clock on the RGV photo we see a grey/brown jet on the surface of the showerhead which indicates to me that the rocket exhaust was in direct contact with the showerhead. More water is probably needed to stop this contact. Around the pad itself we also see that the concrete is fractured so this needs to be repoured before the next flight and perhaps covered with steel for rapid reuse.

Offline StuffOfInterest

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 925
  • Just interested in space
  • McLean, Virginia, USA
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 226
Re: Starship Launch Mount / Pad / Table Discussion
« Reply #1170 on: 11/23/2023 01:24 pm »
Of course there is going to be more tuning of the pad to make turnaround easier.  Think back to the early Falcon 9 launches.  Arms (mechanical, not meat) were blown off.  Umbilical hoses caught on fire.  It took several revisions to get to what we see today where a pad can be turned around in just a few days.  I feel this is one big reason for the slow roll at KSC as they want to learn a few more lessons before putting the table in place.
« Last Edit: 11/23/2023 02:14 pm by StuffOfInterest »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37435
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21437
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Starship Launch Mount / Pad / Table Discussion
« Reply #1171 on: 11/23/2023 01:44 pm »

Take for instance this screenshot I grabbed from the tower view just as Starship has left the pad: the launch mount has caught on fire.


Not really.   The exhaust is fuel rich.  That area likely caused some interaction of the ambient air with the exhaust, slowed it downand swirled it so to speak.  The exhaust "reignited" and that area acted like a flame holder.

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5993
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9165
  • Likes Given: 38
Re: Starship Launch Mount / Pad / Table Discussion
« Reply #1172 on: 11/23/2023 01:49 pm »
In addition, the launch mount is coated in intumescent paint. Charring is the intended mechanism of action.

Re: Starship Launch Mount / Pad / Table Discussion
« Reply #1173 on: 11/23/2023 02:09 pm »
At some point will they not do this quick pitchover manuever away from the tower right after clearing the OLM? If its just to prevent the stack from recontacting the pad if it suffers a catastrophic failure at the beginning of flight, it seems like if they removed this as the vehicle becomes more reliable after more flights, it should allow the exhaust to continue to go through the center of the OLM all the way through clearing the tower instead of hitting and cremating the tower side of the OLM and pad. Unless there is another reason why they do this manuever.

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5993
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9165
  • Likes Given: 38
Re: Starship Launch Mount / Pad / Table Discussion
« Reply #1174 on: 11/23/2023 03:18 pm »
Before positing 'solutions', you'd need to show there is even a problem to solve in the first place. "There were flames and it looks burnt" is not a problem in and of itself, merely the expected operating environment for a launch pad.

Online catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10790
  • Enthusiast since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 8150
  • Likes Given: 7439
Re: Starship Launch Mount / Pad / Table Discussion
« Reply #1175 on: 11/23/2023 09:27 pm »
The showerhead did a great job in protecting the launch pad during IFT-2, but it seems to me that the system as a whole still needs more work before the pad is rapidly reuseable, beyond the rework that needs to be done on the ship’s quick disconnect.



Proxa,
This is your fourth post on the forum and you have not been welcomed yet.  Welcome to the forum, enjoy and be educated by an exceptional number of aerospace engineers, scientists, and employees of many aerospace companies, in addition to an army of armchair enthusiasts. 

Best
Tony
Tony De La Rosa, ...I'm no Feline Dealer!! I move mountains.  but I'm better known for "I think it's highly sexual." Japanese to English Translation.

Offline chopsticks

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1059
  • Québec, Canada
  • Liked: 1076
  • Likes Given: 164
Re: Starship Launch Mount / Pad / Table Discussion
« Reply #1176 on: 11/23/2023 11:37 pm »
Didn't Elon mention once something about water cooling the OLM itself? I think it was pretty vaguely mentioned, but after seeing the absolute inferno that it has to go through I have to wonder if this wouldn't be such a bad idea. I have no idea how you would implement this, especially given that there might be stuff inside the OLM that wouldn't like getting wet. Cooling the legs would be a good thing too I think, but again, I don't have any good ideas on how they might go about doing such a thing.

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5993
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9165
  • Likes Given: 38
Re: Starship Launch Mount / Pad / Table Discussion
« Reply #1177 on: 11/24/2023 12:17 pm »
Didn't Elon mention once something about water cooling the OLM itself? I think it was pretty vaguely mentioned, but after seeing the absolute inferno that it has to go through I have to wonder if this wouldn't be such a bad idea. I have no idea how you would implement this, especially given that there might be stuff inside the OLM that wouldn't like getting wet. Cooling the legs would be a good thing too I think, but again, I don't have any good ideas on how they might go about doing such a thing.
The parts that may not like water spray are also the parts that likely do not like high pressure high temperature gas spray either, so are inside the armoured 'donut' of the OLM.
Adding rainbirds to inundate the top of the OLM ring and to spray onto the OLM legs may be an alternative to the current solution of re-applying intumescent paint after each launch. However, since the OLM armour and the OLM legs are structural steel rather than Stainless, they will need regular recoating anyway for protection from the damp salty coastal environment, a watercooling system for the OLM ring could be a part that simply does not need to be added.

Tags: Table 
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1