In November of 2020, the rocket company SpaceX was just starting to make some progress in the testing
program for their new vehicle, Starship, one of the most ambitious rocket projects in history.
One of the prototypes, serial number 8, was on the pad to test-fire the engines for the very first
time as a fully stacked vehicle. Almost as soon as the engine lit up, it was clear that something was
wrong. A shower of sparks exploded into the dusky sky, and the engine abruptly stopped. The sparks
looked innocuous at a distance without a reference for scale, but in reality, they consisted of
massive, glowing chunks of the launchpad below the rocket. One of these chunks was blasted into
the engine bay, severing an essential cable and severely damaging the rocket. The event brought
into the spotlight what is probably the most humble piece of engineering of the entire rocket
industry: the pad. How do we build structures that can withstand such insane conditions, what happens
when they don’t work, and how might we solve these challenges on other planets? I’m Grady and this is
Practical Engineering. In today’s episode, we’re talking about launch pads and refractory concrete.
This video is sponsored by HelloFresh, America’s number 1 meal kit. More on that later.
Rocket launch pads are subject to conditions that aren’t very similar to typical infrastructure.
There are a lot of creative ways to manage the extremely high-temperature exhaust gases
barrelling out of a rocket engine at incredible speeds during a launch.
With the Space Shuttle and the in-progress SLS, the launch facilities incorporate a flame trench.
This is a structure used to deflect the exhaust gases of a rocket away from the vehicle itself
and all the delicate support structures, fuel and power lines, et cetera. But,
a launch isn’t the only time that rockets and their fiery engines get close to the ground.
SpaceX and other launch providers are now landing rockets propulsively (in other words,
with engines). And in most cases, the coming down has a lot less precision than the going up.
It isn’t feasible to pinpoint a rocket landing atop a fancy flame diversion structure,
at least not yet. Instead, they usually just land on a slab of concrete. But, it’s not just
regular concrete. The relationship between heat and that omnipresent gray durable substance is
pretty complex, and I have a few demonstrations set up here in my garage so we can learn more.
Concrete is a relatively fire-resistant material. That’s one of the reasons we use so much of it
in our buildings and infrastructure: it doesn’t burn. It can provide protection
like around the stairwells of buildings. It can also withstand exposure to risky conditions that
we wouldn’t allow for other materials, like in warehouses and factories where there’s
potential for sparks. Because it is so durable and incombustible, there is a lot of science
around the topic of concrete and fire. Engineers have to consider how to design structures that
can withstand it. And, if a fire has occurred, we need engineers to inspect structures to figure out
whether they’ve been damaged beyond repair or are still safe to use. That can be pretty obvious in
some cases, but concrete can be damaged in ways that aren’t immediately clear to the naked eye.
When the damage is obvious, it’s probably because of moisture. Concrete is a porous material,
and it can absorb water from the air. But, it’s not super porous. After all, we build dams out
of concrete. Moisture can take years to get in after it’s cured. If that water gets too hot,
it can turn to steam, expanding in volume within the interstitial spaces of the concrete.
And if that steam can’t get out fast enough, it will build up pressure to the point where the
concrete breaks. This is known as moisture clog spalling because the water in the pores of the
concrete blocks the steam from getting out. Actually, I did try to simulate this effect,
but my heat wasn’t enough or my sample was too small and gave the steam too many easy
paths to exit. I wasn’t able to make it spall, but you can see some water exiting the sample.
What I really want to show you is how concrete heat damage can be more subtle and insidious.
I’m making a bunch of cylinders of concrete and we’re going to test their strength after exposure
to extreme heat. These samples are just made with regular old portland cement concrete from
a ready-mix bag purchased from a home center. Just for fun, I’m also making equivalent samples from
a specialty concrete that uses materials resistant to deterioration from high heat
(also known as refractory concrete). I’m testing three different scenarios:
controls left at room temperature with no heat, samples warmed in my oven to 500 degrees F,
260 C., and samples blasted using a gas torch. Two types of concrete times three different
temperatures times two samples means I have 12 cylinders in all (but I made a few more just in
case something went wrong - they come in handy sometimes). Once they’ve all been heated except
the controls, I let them sit in my garage for a week. Now it’s time to break them.
Using a hydraulic press to crush a concrete cylinder isn’t just a lot of fun. It’s the
time-tested and industry-approved way of figuring out how strong the concrete is. On almost
all construction projects that use concrete, samples of the mix are taken to a laboratory,
cured in cylindrical molds, and crushed on a press to verify the concrete was as strong as required.
We’re doing the same thing here to see if the heat affected the strength of these samples.
Before we get started, let’s just take a look. From the outside,
it’s not clear that anything’s different. But, let’s find out if that’s true.
The regular concrete control cylinders broke at 3000 psi or 20 MPa. Unfortunately, the
refractory concrete control cylinders maxed out my little press here at 10 tons without breaking.
That’s 6,400 psi or 44 MPa. This stuff has small fibers in it to provide some insulation against
heat and reduce cracking, and they also help make it much stronger. A fair comparison isn’t
going to be possible, but I still think this demo is illuminative - if you’ll pardon the pun. Now
I’ll break the heated samples. The ones that went into the oven spent about an hour there
to make sure they were fully heated. The portland cement cylinders broke at an average of 2200 psi
or 15 MPa. That means they lost about 25% of their compressive strength compared to the unheated
samples. We’ll talk about why in a minute. The refractory concrete samples out of the oven still
wouldn’t break. They may have lost some strength, but it wasn’t enough to break in my 10-ton press.
The samples that got the blow torch were next, and the effect was dramatic on the portland
cement concrete. Both samples broke at around 1300 psi or 9 MPa, losing more than half their
original strength. The refractory cylinders did break this time, although it was still at nearly
the maximum pressure I could deliver. The lesson here is pretty simple: concrete exposed to high
temperatures might look fine even when it has lost a significant amount of strength. But why?
The biggest culprit is microcracking caused by thermal expansion.
Concrete is a composite material, after all. It’s made from a mixture of large and small aggregates
and cement paste. Most materials change volume according to temperature, expanding when hot and
shrinking when cooled. But the materials that make up concrete have slight differences in
the way they behave when subjected to changes in temperature. Those differences aren’t so critical
when the temperature swings are small. But, when subjected to extremes - like under the heat of a
massive rocket engine - microfractures occur at the interfaces between the different components
as they expand and shrink at the different rates. I used these waxes that melt at different
temperatures to try and estimate the temperature of the blow torch samples. They probably didn’t
get much hotter than the oven samples in most places, but directly in line with the flame was
scorching, probably over 1000 degrees F, 500 C. That type of uneven heating from a small,
incredibly hot source, exacerbates this type of damage. The tiny cracks grow over time,
weakening the concrete as they do, and they aren’t usually visible to the naked eye.
Interestingly, once the concrete is broken, it sometimes does carry a sign that it got too hot.
Many of the aggregates used in concrete will turn pink after exposure to extreme heat.
It doesn’t show up on camera quite as clearly as it does in person, but you can see that most of
the rocks in the sample on the right are pinkish compared to the control cylinder on the left.
Refractory concrete isn’t a single material, but really a general name for concretes designed to
withstand high temperatures. Every manufacturer has their special blend of herbs and spices.
Usually, they use cement that includes oxides which absorb heat less readily
and have reduced thermal expansion. So they’re less prone to deterioration when subjected to
extreme temperatures, as I demonstrated. They also often have embedded fibers that provide
insulation and tensile reinforcement similar to the way rebar holds
macroscope cracks from growing. These extremely useful properties are taken advantage of in a
variety of industrial processes like furnaces, kilns, incinerators, and even nuclear reactors.
Like we saw in the demo, even refractory concrete is subject to damage due to heating.
We don’t know what the original strength was, but we do know it dropped below the
capacity of the press after being blasted by the blow torch. That potential for damage is
especially present in the case of launch pads where concrete is not just exposed to heat
but also corrosive gases moving at incredible speeds and sometimes
carrying solid airborne particulates capable of eroding even extremely durable materials.
Many launch pads use a ceramic epoxy material to repair damaged areas of refractory
concrete launch pads or just to provide an extra layer of thermal insulation. It was actually a
chunk of this epoxy (called Martyte) that damaged the Starship engine during the static test fire.
This demonstration highlights the difficulties that launch providers face.
Landing pads are extremely important. Without them, rocket engines cause extensive erosion,
blasting the loose soil atop the planet (called regolith) away at incredible speeds. This is one
of the reasons the two recent Mars rovers used a complicated sky crane system for landing.
The rovers themselves were lowered onto the planet via cables while the rocket thruster
nozzles stayed high above the surface. Once the wheels were safely on the ground,
the cables were cut and the crane flew off to crash well away from the rover.
It was all to reduce the potential for damage from those rocket engine plumes.
In fact, when you land a rocket on the moon, the exhaust gases are moving faster than the
planetary escape velocity. That means, not only can the flying dust threaten the vehicle itself,
the engines also send a plume of ejecta flying out like a swarm of microscopic bullets
with no atmosphere and not enough gravity to slow them down. If an orbiting spacecraft
were to fly through this plume, it would almost certainly be damaged. So, moon landings have to
be timed to prevent collisions between orbiting spacecraft and these sheets of ejected regolith.
That’s a lot of complexity that could be solved with a simple square of concrete.
But, what seems simple on earth has some interplanetary complications,
one more important than others: Concrete is heavy. That’s one of its main features.
Concrete structures mostly stay put because their weight pins them to the ground. But
that weight is a huge disadvantage if you have to carry the raw materials to another planet.
Reducing mass is everything when it comes to launch payloads, and the weight of an entire
rocket is often less than that of the pad it takes off from. In other words, we won’t be
bringing concrete launch or landing pad assembly kits to the moon, Mars, or elsewhere anytime soon.
There are some creative ideas for building launchpads on other planets that take advantage
of local materials, and we’ve even made some lunar concrete using samples brought back to
earth. But like almost all tasks that happen outside of earth’s comfort, it’s never as easy
as it seems at first glance. The stakes are high, as we saw during the static test of SpaceX’s SN8.
When a launch or landing pad fails, it can be worse than if it wasn’t there at all,
creating high-speed projectiles that jeopardize the safety of the vehicle
and its support equipment, not to mention its crew. It’s a nice reminder that even the
humblest provision here on earth - a solid, flat, and durable surface - is an absolute
luxury on another world and of the importance of infrastructure in our interplanetary quests.
It’s time for everyone’s favorite segment of me trying to cook while
my wife and toddler try to capture that on video.
Cooking dinner with a little one in the house can be a bit of an
adventure. That’s why we’re thankful for HelloFresh, the sponsor of this video,
for converting cooking from a chore into our favorite thing to do on date night.
We’re indecisive eaters and get stuck in recipe ruts really easily.
We end up eating the same meals every single week. HelloFresh pulls us out those ruts by
curating delicious recipes from all over the world and with interesting ingredients to try.
The pre-portioned ingredients mean there’s less prep and less food waste,
and the packaging is mostly recyclable or already recycled content. HelloFresh also helps us get
dinner ready quickly when we haven’t had time or energy for planning, prep, and shopping.
Go try it yourself at HelloFresh.com and use code PRACTICAL14
to get 14 free meals, including free shipping.
Supporting our sponsors helps support this channel. That’s HelloFresh.com and use code
PRACTICAL14. Thanks, HelloFresh, and thank YOU for watching. Let me know what you think.