9

Yes, the water heats up. Lots of it evaporates. There is a system to catch and filter the remainder, which is polluted with combustion products of the SRBs. Those massive clouds in the foreground are water vapor mixed with combustion products of the SRBs. For the Shuttle, this report states that 166 tonnes of water is evaporated, out of 1135 tonnes ...


7

The mechanism seems to be related to the bubbles in water rather than the water itself: Bubbles are excellent at absorbing the sound. They absorb the acoustic energy and as a consequence of which get heated up. NASA exploited this and sprayed water molecules in the air surrounding the Mobile Launcher Platform. This reduced the sound from the firing of the ...


7

The amount of energy involved in a take off and landing will be roughly equal to the mass being moved, and approximately the same proportion of energy will be turned into sound given the same engines are involved. Going up a falcon heavy is around 1400 tonnes, coming down the stages have split apart and are almost empty. Have not found authoritative numbers ...


5

This paper "Space Shuttle Noise Suppression Concepts for the Eastern Test Range" doesn't mention "tiny bubbles". Rather, it states the rationale for flooding the launch pad with water is that "Adding mass is a means of attempting to reduce the turbulent flow velocities in a constant momentum flow system" (This question Why are rocket ...


4

Not sure about more modern systems, but there is a lot of information available about the STS system. This page (in French) has a lot of good information including pictures. It shows the "rainbird" sprayers for the deck area of the launch pad And the system around the Solid Rocket Booster holes, including the water bags that were added after the STS-1 ...


4

tl;dr: water droplets scatter the sound keeping it more localized, and also absorb some of it, while some is also absorbed in all the other surfaces the sound strikes. There's no where near enough power to boil this much water. Sound in the air at these (audio and sub-sonic) frequencies pretty much always ends up as mostly heat. Ultrasonic sound can be ...


3

As other answers have pointed out, the necessary noise is much lower for landing than take off, but this doesn't mean that the actual amount of noise will be so reduced. As control theory gets better, and landing on a larger fraction of the available thrust becomes an option, I think we will see it happen as it makes sense from a performance point of view. ...


3

Another take on the question: you have to get your aiming perfectly right. Others have already pointed out, that landing does not cause as much noise as launching. However, if we consider using a sound suppression system, then this comes along with a lot of plumbing and other infrastructure. For launch, this is not a problem, since the location of the ...


3

TLDR A landing booster creates < 10% of the noise of a rocket launch. This is possibly reduced much further in near vacuum conditions (Moon/Mars). No sound suppression could be fine at these noise levels. To expand on the previous answer; A rocket's engines must create more force than the force of gravity on the rocket in order for it to accelerate ...


3

Welcome to the site. Flame deflections are not always used on small rockets But as rockets become larger they are increasingly necessary at least on Earth, Flame deflectors such as flame trenches serve a number of purposes. Firstly they prevent damage to the rocket caused by the rebounding of foreign objects such as concrete ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible