High Definition Standard Definition Theater
Video id : 2EsqMLT0Hzw
ImmersiveAmbientModecolor: #e2d2d4 (color 2)
Video Format : 22 (720p) openh264 ( https://github.com/cisco/openh264) mp4a.40.2 | 44100Hz
Audio Format: Opus - Normalized audio
PokeTubeEncryptID: 5fee109f11242cf8733439100f0b7c1658030799cc28abf277c9d0622e8bd453a8586564537ca9bf551c358f8791ab72
Proxy : eu-proxy.poketube.fun - refresh the page to change the proxy location
Date : 1715062463244 - unknown on Apple WebKit
Mystery text : MkVzcU1MVDBIencgaSAgbG92ICB1IGV1LXByb3h5LnBva2V0dWJlLmZ1bg==
143 : true
673,309 Views • Jun 20, 2023 • Click to toggle off description
Launchpads are incredible feats of engineering. Let's cover some of the basics!
🌌Get Nebula using my link for 40% off an annual subscription: go.nebula.tv/Practical-Engineering
🚁Watch the Logistics of Search and Rescue: nebula.tv/videos/wendover-the-logistics-of-search-…

Unlike NASA, which spends years in planning and engineering, SpaceX uses rapid development cycles and full-scale tests to work toward its eventual goals. They push their hardware to the limit to learn as much as possible, and we get to follow along. They’re betting it will pay off to develop fast instead of carefully. This video compares the Stage 0 launch pad to the historic pad 39A.

Watch this video ad-free on Nebula: nebula.tv/videos/practical-engineering-was-starshi…

Signed copies of my book (plus other cool stuff) are available here: store.practical.engineering/

Practical Engineering is a YouTube channel about infrastructure and the human-made world around us. It is hosted, written, and produced by Grady Hillhouse. We have new videos posted regularly, so please subscribe for updates. If you enjoyed the video, hit that ‘like’ button, give us a comment, or watch another of our videos!

CONNECT WITH ME
____________________________________
Website: practical.engineering/
Twitter: twitter.com/HillhouseGrady
Instagram: www.instagram.com/practicalengineering
Reddit: www.redlib.matthew.science/r/PracticalEngineering
Facebook: www.facebook.com/PracticalEngineerGrady​
Patreon: patreon.com/PracticalEngineering

SPONSORSHIP INQUIRIES
____________________________________
Please email my agent at practicalengineering@standard.tv

DISCLAIMER
____________________________________
This is not engineering advice. Everything here is for informational and entertainment purposes only. Contact an engineer licensed to practice in your area if you need professional advice or services. All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes.

SPECIAL THANKS
____________________________________
This video is sponsored by Nebula.
Some footage courtesy of @NASASpaceflight
Stock video and imagery provided by Getty Images.
Music by Epidemic Sound: epidemicsound.com/creator
Tonic and Energy by Elexive is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License
Source:    • Elexive - Tonic and Energy [Creative ...  
Video by Grady Hillhouse
Edited by Wesley Crump
Written and Produced by Ralph Crewe
Production Assistance from Josh Lorenz
Graphics by Nebula Studi
Metadata And Engagement

Views : 673,309
Genre: Education
Date of upload: Jun 20, 2023 ^^


Rating : 4.869 (1,072/31,683 LTDR)
RYD date created : 2024-05-05T20:57:59.365185Z
See in json
Tags

YouTube Comments - 2,444 Comments

Top Comments of this video!! :3

@timeimp

10 months ago

Can we expect a "I built a small-scale Starship in my garage" clip? 😂

3.6K |

@HammerOn-bu7gx

10 months ago

Just a point of clarification: The flame deflectors of launch pad 39A and 39B, during the Saturn and Shuttle eras, were steel frames covered in concrete. At least during a Saturn launch, approximately one foot of the concrete was ablated off of it. Also, the one shown in your graphic at about the 6:18 point is for the Ariane pad in French Guiana. It is a one sided deflector. The Saturn deflector split the exhaust to two sides. Also, the flame trenches were initially lined with ceramic fire bricks to protect the underlying concrete. I don't know if that has been replaced by refractory concrete or some combination.

1.2K |

@UrFavSoundTech

10 months ago

Another big reason why 39 was so monstrous was that NASA was tired of building custom pads for each rocket. KSC is littered with single use pads.

346 |

@voicetest6019

10 months ago

This brings me back to a retort of the "Mechanical Engineers build weapons, Civil Engineers build targets" joke from my uni physics days: Civil Engineers build cities, Mechanical Engineers build headaches for Civil Engineers.

424 |

@petem6503

10 months ago

I was part of the team that re-furbed the test stand at Edwards after Challenger failed. The mechanical systems to provide the water for cooling are impressive. The diverter there was hollow, with tens of thousands of holes in the "hot side" to shield the diverter surface from the flame with a "fog" discharge of water through the surface. The criteria was 5 million gallons of water, delivered in something like 3~5 minutes. The pump houses (there were two) had about 20,000 HP of pumps. The water into the diverter was carried in two 48" pipes. One of our guys took videos of the "dry run" (no flame) test of the water system. The audio can be heard "shut it down, shut it down!!!" once someone realized that without the flame, the water flew downhill into the sloped desert...right toward the tiny berg of Boron, CA. The "fishtail" bottom end of the diverter caused the water to jump right over the drainage canal that was supposed to carry off excess water. It was a fun project. Almost forgot to mention: we didn't determine the criteria for water flow, etc., but we were instructed that no material available (late 80's) could withstand the rocket blast, so the water protected the gantry, diverter, etc. When I saw the damage to the impact area of the flame, I wondered if the real problem was a mechanical one: not enough water? Pump fail?

288 |

@bubbax1115

10 months ago

My favorite comment: "The launchpad left starbase faster than the rocket did."

380 |

@saltyroe3179

10 months ago

My dad worked on the designs of the launch pads and launchers for the Atlas missile. The issue of making reusable launch pads led to concrete turn buckets with refractor brick lining. Water flooding was developed latter by NASA at Cape Canaveral. The cost of a fleet of Atlas missiles pads that would be used once against the USSR led to the coffin launcher. This launcher had the missile horizontal until fueled, then erected to vertical for launch. The launcher was surrounded by a wall mostly to keep things out while waiting for years for a launch order that never came. If launched, the Atlas would destroy the launcher and surrounding wall. When the US went to silos for ICBMs there were extensive systems to direct the blast out the bottom of the silo and to vents outside the silo tube. This was intended to prevent the missile from destroying itself before leaving the silo. Over at the Soviet Cosmodrome the solution was brutally simple: dig a deep hole in the ground, canterleaver a platform over the hole, put rocket on platform. When the rocket took off the blast went into the hole and the effect on dirt in the bottom wasn't an issue. Of course you cannot (as you pointed) out, economicly dig a giant hole at Cape Canaveral (Kennedy) or Boca Chica. I cannot imagine that SpaceX didn't know that they had built an expendable launch pad. The question is do they want to pay for a reusable pad? It might be cheaper to build an expendable pad for each launch, just like the Atlas coffin launcher.

67 |

@Darisiabgal7573

10 months ago

The problem with boca chica site is its built on the rio grande flood plain. The sand is essentially delivered down the rio grande during historic floods that occurred before the two upsteam dams were built, falcon lake and lake amistad. Within the sand laid down since the last ice age when sea levels were lower is a spongey like material with organic material and bacteria trapped in an anoxic environment. While the surface may look firm, putting pressure on the surface can cause the sand to become more maleable. Now imagine, you have a set of rocket engines with their thrust vector pointing down at a sheet like structure laying over something that is hard agregate on top and spongey below. The ISP of the engine is in the 350 range which we multiply a 9.8 m/s for and exhaust velocity of Mach10. This does not reach the launch pad, but the rocket engines resonate and their wave functions create pulse waves that travel at hypersonic speed to the sheet of concrete. This is much like a sonicator used to clean off surface debris but a million times more powerful. The sheet itself begins to vibrate and the substrate below begins to undergo liquifaction. The pad is now free to vibrate, and because concrete is fairly weak under stretching it just breaks up. Because of the nature of the sand below this causes the substrate to give and the action of the Ve on the concrete itself scours it away. I am been to boca chica, i had the fortunate exoerience of sinking a car in that sand, Its not like other soils with tightening layers as you go down, its just goopy sand, often pitch black layers of bacteria laden sand. When they chose the site I pondered how they were going to stabilize the soil, just to build the equipment. They had problems with the soil in the begining because it was so wet and soft. They demonstrate some magical technique they use to dry things out. But look at boca chica, on any given day it looks dry and sand, until you get below the surface. The region has suffered from storm after storm, flood after flood. After hurricane allen, the main road up S. padre island was chopped into a dozen pieces, 8x8x8 blocks of granite were torn out nowhere to be found. There were tropical fish from the offshore island living in the large ponds that Allen created were the road used to be. This is the nature of boca chica, its not stable, over thousands of years it gets torn up and completely rebuilt, what looks like dry land today is just an illusion.

46 |

@ArrakisMusicOfficial

10 months ago

I would love to see a garage model of a flame diverter with a deluge system, I know you can do it Grady!

929 |

@eliljeho

10 months ago

I know it's new, but it would be interesting to hear your perspective on the I95 collapse and repair before the final report is finalized, and apparently repaired. Maybe a topic for a short?

499 |

@counterfit5

10 months ago

The water deluge system was as much, if not more, for protection the pad from the incredible sound pressure rather than thermal protection. Saturn V nearly maxed out the possible sound pressure possible in 1atm of air

184 |

@TheVonMatrices

10 months ago

It's worth pointing out that one of the speculated reasons that there were so many engine failures that ultimately doomed the launch was because of debris from the launchpad striking the engines. So even without considering government regulations or neighbors, there is a strong reason for the company to build a more durable launchpad to protect the rocket itself.

212 |

@heaslyben

10 months ago

Calling a rocket launch "thunderous" may be an understatement, but it is definitely a thunderstatement!

422 |

@Zanthum

10 months ago

NASA also used asbestos in the flame trench at 39a, I believe in the joints between the concrete slabs. I remember mesothelioma lawsuit ads talking about the flame trench specifically as a potential source of exposure.

56 |

@tlskillman

10 months ago

Thanks for the historical perspective. Seems like NASA was all over the launch pad issue from the start. I wish you had said more about the SpaceX water deluge plan. I couldn't tell how you felt about the odds of success.

101 |

@StephenGillie

10 months ago

"Exciting to watch" reminds of cars which are "exciting to drive" in that you don't know if you'll arrive at your destination.

6 |

@trooper5157

10 months ago

Great to see content related to space travel and rocketry. So much of the channel (we've followed since the early days) relates to civil engineering for municipalities - its good to see some other areas of interest, like this, covered. Keep it up!

50 |

@jimbobur

10 months ago

From an engineering standpoint I don't think flame diverters or a water deluge systems are really necessary for SpaceX. They can just submerge the launchpad in the ocean's-worth of copium in the comments section.

314 |

@YourArmsGone

10 months ago

One of my biggest concerns with the Starship pad is how close the fuel farm is. We saw several tanks damaged by the last launch which could easily have resulted in an explosion and even more damage. So far I haven't see SpaceX address this issue.

54 |

@Verrisin

10 months ago

You have not mentioned the most interesting part. - They said the problem is because the soil below the concrete slab compressed, and thus the concrete snapped and flames got through it. It would have been much less violent, if the concrete ablated as it was supposed to. - I was hoping for analysis of that.

47 |

Go To Top