Author Topic: $28m contract for local KSC firm for Ares I Lightning Protection System Towers  (Read 14757 times)


Offline collectSPACE

  • The Source for Space History & Artifacts
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1871
  • Houston, TX
    • collectSPACE
  • Liked: 272
  • Likes Given: 4

Online Chris Bergin

Wow, that's awesome. Thanks Robert.

Offline discovery_fan

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 139
  • Austria EU
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Very interesting!

Just a small correction - In the article it reads:
"After the stand-down of the LON requirement was giving during STS-125, Discovery would then be transported from Pad B to Pad A and prepared for her primary mission, STS-126."
I think ist should read "Endeavour" instead of "Discovery".

Offline DeanHFox

  • Member
  • Posts: 13
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 3
With as many wires as are in the LPS,  I wonder if ARES-I launches will be accompanied by "LPS Clear!" calls in addition to "Tower Clear!" calls...  :)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11187
  • Likes Given: 331
LPS is Launch Processing System.  The acronym would not be used for anything else during launch

Online Chris Bergin

Quote
discovery_fan - 28/7/2007  11:21 AM

Very interesting!

Just a small correction - In the article it reads:
"After the stand-down of the LON requirement was giving during STS-125, Discovery would then be transported from Pad B to Pad A and prepared for her primary mission, STS-126."
I think ist should read "Endeavour" instead of "Discovery".

Corrected. I stole a line from a previous article I wrote, before Endeavour gained STS-400 from Discovery.

Offline Justin Space

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1254
  • England
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 238
Don't those crosswires mean there's very little margin for error during the first 10 seconds or so of launch? Seems like a small hole to launch through. Won't the booster exhaust also batter those wires after clearing them? Sorry if this is a dumb question.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11187
  • Likes Given: 331
The trajectory doesn't move more than a few feet on either side of the centerline.  If it did there would be a better issue.  The exhaust doesn't affect them.  See the Atlas V pad.

Offline spacemuppet

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 44
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
I see NASA is spending $28,000,000 to build 3 huge lightning towers around their new pad.  I thought it was modern belief that lightning does NOT necessarily strike the highest object, and that there are hundreds of documented cases to prove so.  Just wondering if NASA's towers effectively "prove" or "disprove" the age-old saying that "lightning always strikes the highest object".

Offline Jamie Young

  • This custom rank is currently being decided on
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1219
  • Denver
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 96
I think they would have considered all options and learned from the pads that do have this system.

Offline AstroRJY

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Erie, Pennsylvania USA
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
The artist rendering of what kind of launch pads we'l see for the next chapter of manned space flight is tremendously disappointing, what a letdown. Why do they need to clutter up another launch complex with these unsightly towers?  The single lightning mast was good enough for the Saturn Vs and for the space shuttles which were much larger and more complicated.   The Atlas V pad looks awkward enough, why are these really needed?  In aesthetic terms, they are a  real detriment.  BUt for practical aspects, whyy isn't the existing lighting rod sufficient?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11187
  • Likes Given: 331
Quote
AstroRJY - 29/7/2007  12:00 AM

The artist rendering of what kind of launch pads we'l see for the next chapter of manned space flight is tremendously disappointing, what a letdown. Why do they need to clutter up another launch complex with these unsightly towers?  The single lightning mast was good enough for the Saturn Vs and for the space shuttles which were much larger and more complicated.   The Atlas V pad looks awkward enough, why are these really needed?  In aesthetic terms, they are a  real detriment.  BUt for practical aspects, whyy isn't the existing lighting rod sufficient?

Because it isn't high enough.

There wasn't a mast for Saturn V's, only for Apollo/Soyuz

Because the single mast is not good enough.  And modern electronics are more susceptible.  Look at home electronics, surge protectors didn't really exist 30 years ago.

They are needed.  Delta-IV has them too

Why does aesthetics matter?

Offline pippin

  • Regular
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2566
  • Liked: 291
  • Likes Given: 39
Why do they cost 28 mil. bucks? I mean, is there a fully electronic lightning energy absober fancy stuff in there of what? The rendering looks like just 3 towers and some wire, sounds to me like they've got the comma a digit too far to the right.

Offline JIS

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1088
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
AstroRJY - 30/7/2007  5:00 AM

 The single lightning mast was good enough for the Saturn Vs and for the space shuttles which were much larger and more complicated.  

Both Ares1/Orion and Ares V are higher than STS. I wouldn't say STS is more complicated than AresV/EDS/LSAM or Ares1/Orion.
'Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill' - Old Greek experience

Offline JIS

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1088
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
pippin - 30/7/2007  12:33 PM

Why do they cost 28 mil. bucks?

With NASA as a costumer I would say it's very cheap.
'Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill' - Old Greek experience

Offline brihath

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 877
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 20
Quote
spacemuppet - 29/7/2007  11:23 AM

I see NASA is spending $28,000,000 to build 3 huge lightning towers around their new pad.  I thought it was modern belief that lightning does NOT necessarily strike the highest object, and that there are hundreds of documented cases to prove so.  Just wondering if NASA's towers effectively "prove" or "disprove" the age-old saying that "lightning always strikes the highest object".

I'm no expert, but connecting the towers with wire would create a sort of "Faraday Cage" around the pad for protection, probably increasing the probability that lightning would strike there first.  A comment from a design engineer on this would be helpful.

I agree that lightning doesn't necessarily strike the tallest object.  Last month lightning struck a tree in my yard when there was a tree twice as high in my neighbor's yard only 50 ft away.  Totally wiped out my computer, printers, APC UPS, cable modem, sprinkler system, etc.  But then again, I live in Tampa- the lightning capital of the USA.

Definately, modern microelectronics don't stand up well to surges.  I've lost equipment (computer MB, modems) before just due to surges in the local area from lightning.  Thats why I won't run my system without a UPS.

Offline AstroRJY

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Erie, Pennsylvania USA
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0

Quote
JIS - 30/7/2007  9:00 AM  
Quote
AstroRJY - 30/7/2007  5:00 AM   The single lightning mast was good enough for the Saturn Vs and for the space shuttles which were much larger and more complicated.  
 Both Ares1/Orion and Ares V are higher than STS. I wouldn't say STS is more complicated than AresV/EDS/LSAM or Ares1/Orion.

 

I meant that ARES is one vehicle. The shuttle has the ET, two SRBS and the orbiter.  

How tall are they expecting the complete ARES vehicle and spacecraft to be anyway? 


Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12940
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 4001
  • Likes Given: 761
Quote
brihath - 30/7/2007  8:41 AM

Quote
spacemuppet - 29/7/2007  11:23 AM

I see NASA is spending $28,000,000 to build 3 huge lightning towers around their new pad.  I thought it was modern belief that lightning does NOT necessarily strike the highest object, and that there are hundreds of documented cases to prove so.  Just wondering if NASA's towers effectively "prove" or "disprove" the age-old saying that "lightning always strikes the highest object".

I'm no expert, but connecting the towers with wire would create a sort of "Faraday Cage" around the pad for protection, probably increasing the probability that lightning would strike there first.  A comment from a design engineer on this would be helpful.

I agree that lightning doesn't necessarily strike the tallest object.  Last month lightning struck a tree in my yard when there was a tree twice as high in my neighbor's yard only 50 ft away.  Totally wiped out my computer, printers, APC UPS, cable modem, sprinkler system, etc.  But then again, I live in Tampa- the lightning capital of the USA.

Lightning doesn't strike the tallest object.  It strikes the object, or group of objects, that provide(s) the easiest path to ground.  This is often the tallest object at a given location, but not always.  

It is the grounding that is important.  As with icebergs, a lot of the lightning protection system at the pad won't be visible above ground.  The contractor will do a lot of digging to install a large subsurface grounding array connected to the tower bases.  If the system is designed and built properly, the towers and cables attached to them should then become an easier path to ground for lightning than a stacked Ares I/Orion vehicle *almost* all of the time.  I say *almost* because lightning can do unexpected things, which is why these lightning systems end up being so massive almost to the point of seeming to be overkill.  The design is an attempt to minimize probabilities.  

 - Ed Kyle

Offline pippin

  • Regular
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2566
  • Liked: 291
  • Likes Given: 39
As I understand Florida these towers should be more or less standing in water. Shouldn't that make grounding faily straightforward?

Tags: