Do launch vehicles with SRBs leave any kind of particulate residues on the launch platform and tower decks? If so, do they have to be washed off? Are they corrosive/hazardous?
Thanks!
This is a photo album on Flickr that contains photos that show the aftermath of the Ares 1-X launch on October 28 2009: https://www.flickr.com/photos/apacheman/albums/72157622654906125
That's the aftermath of a single 4-segment SRB.
Didn't that particular mission produce an abnormal amount of damage to LC-39B? I remember reading about it.
It would be interesting to see what type of repairs were needed to the pads after a normal Shuttle launch. I know STS-124 caused a ton of damage to the flame trench.
This is a photo album on Flickr that contains photos that show the aftermath of the Ares 1-X launch on October 28 2009: https://www.flickr.com/photos/apacheman/albums/72157622654906125
That's the aftermath of a single 4-segment SRB.
Didn't that particular mission produce an abnormal amount of damage to LC-39B? I remember reading about it.
It would be interesting to see what type of repairs were needed to the pads after a normal Shuttle launch. I know STS-124 caused a ton of damage to the flame trench.
That was an outlier due to the anchors that held fire-resistant bricks to the walls of the north flame trench had corroded over the decades since it was built in the early-to-mid 1960's. This caused the bricks with the worst amount of wear to their anchors to be shot out of the flame trench by the SRB exhaust. There was no repeat of the incident ever again after they repaired and re-inforced the bricks.
This is a photo album on Flickr that contains photos that show the aftermath of the Ares 1-X launch on October 28 2009: https://www.flickr.com/photos/apacheman/albums/72157622654906125
That's the aftermath of a single 4-segment SRB.
Accordingly, the aftermath of two 5-segment SRBs on the SLS launcher may be even more conspicuous Thanks all for the responses.
This is a photo album on Flickr that contains photos that show the aftermath of the Ares 1-X launch on October 28 2009: https://www.flickr.com/photos/apacheman/albums/72157622654906125
That's the aftermath of a single 4-segment SRB.
Accordingly, the aftermath of two 5-segment SRBs on the SLS launcher may be even more conspicuous Thanks all for the responses.
EDIT: I messed this up. see later posts.
There does not appear to be a thrust difference between a 4-segment shuttle SRB and a 5-segment SLS SRB. The SLS SRB just last longer. The amount of SRB mass output at liftoff must depend on the SRB thrust and also on the launcher acceleration. The amount and type of the thrust from the non-SRB engines might also have an effect: the non-SRP engines are hydrolox RS-25s on both cases, but there are four on the SLS versus three on the shuttle, and the mixing probably depends on the the difference in geometry also.
There does not appear to be a thrust difference between a 4-segment shuttle SRB and a 5-segment SLS SRB. The SLS SRB just last longer. The amount of SRB mass output at liftoff must depend on the SRB thrust and also on the launcher acceleration. The amount and type of the thrust from the non-SRB engines might also have an effect: the non-SRP engines are hydrolox RS-25s on both cases, but there are four on the SLS versus three on the shuttle, and the mixing probably depends on the the difference in geometry also.
No. There is huge thrust difference, like 25%. Also, SRB mass output is not dependent on launcher acceleration or co-burning liquid engines.
Solids burn from the inside out
Longer - more thrust
wider - longer duration
There does not appear to be a thrust difference between a 4-segment shuttle SRB and a 5-segment SLS SRB. The SLS SRB just last longer. The amount of SRB mass output at liftoff must depend on the SRB thrust and also on the launcher acceleration. The amount and type of the thrust from the non-SRB engines might also have an effect: the non-SRP engines are hydrolox RS-25s on both cases, but there are four on the SLS versus three on the shuttle, and the mixing probably depends on the the difference in geometry also.
No. There is huge thrust difference, like 25%. Also, SRB mass output is not dependent on launcher acceleration or co-burning liquid engines.
Solids burn from the inside out
Longer - more thrust
wider - longer duration
Yep, and thanks for the correction. I messed it up. I accidentally picked up the vacuum thrust of the shuttle SRB and compared it to the sea-level thrust of the SLS SRB. Dumb.
lift-off thrust of one SLS SRB: 3,280,000 lb
f (
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20150016519)
lift-off thrust of one STS SRB: 2,650,000 lb
f (
https://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/system/system_SRB.html)
so the SLS has 23.7% higher thrust at lift-off.
I know the output in mass/sec is not dependent on acceleration and I did not mean to imply that: sorry. I meant that the total mass of material that impinges on the ground structures depends on the amount of time it takes to leave the pad, and that in turn depends on the acceleration.
I also know the total mass of SRB output does not depend on the co-burning RS-25 engines. I only brought this up because it might change the dynamics of the gas/particle flow, which might change the way it impinges on the pad.
This is a photo album on Flickr that contains photos that show the aftermath of the Ares 1-X launch on October 28 2009: https://www.flickr.com/photos/apacheman/albums/72157622654906125
That's the aftermath of a single 4-segment SRB.
Accordingly, the aftermath of two 5-segment SRBs on the SLS launcher may be even more conspicuous Thanks all for the responses.
Not necessarily.
The Ares 1-X damage was exacerbated by a pitch maneuver that resulted in the single SRB directly blasting the tower.
This pitch maneuver was not done on Shuttle nor will be done on SLS.
Do launch vehicles with SRBs leave any kind of particulate residues on the launch platform and tower decks? If so, do they have to be washed off? Are they corrosive/hazardous?
Thanks!
The RSRMV as used in upcoming SLS launches will no longer leave any traces of the NASA Standard Detonators(NSDs) that were used to frange the frangible nuts that held the STS stack to the MLP until the twang movements were favourable at T minus Zero. Mobile Launcher(ML) movements using the Crawler Transporter(CT) for SLS use "regular" nuts/studs that are torqued prior to transport, and mechanically loosened and removed at some time prior to launch.
For STS the RSRMs used:
2 redundant NSD per frangible nut
4 nuts/booster=8 NSD
2 boosters/stack=16 NSD
A small reduction in residue, large reduction in T minus zero complexity. The rest of the separation pyros remain.
Also the future SLS BOLE'/Dark Knights will not leave any hydrazine residues following launch as they will use eTVC or electric Throttle Vector Control instead of the current and future through SLS-8 when the current booster cases will have been exhausted.
IIRC some of the corrosives are hydrochloric acid which were collected in treatment ponds along with the launch water prior to release to the environment.