Ares 1-X Pad Avoidance Maneuver only ....1 Degree???
Jonathan
BY STEPHEN CLARK
SPACEFLIGHT NOW
Posted: October 20, 2009
"Flight designers have programmed the rocket to execute a slight
avoidance maneuver moments after liftoff to keep from damaging
the pad with its fiery hot motor plume. The rocket's nozzle will be
gimbaled about 1 degree for the "walk off" maneuver. "We've
designed a flyaway maneuver for the nozzle to cant over ever so
slightly -- 1 degree -- not that much to us, but with 2 million pounds
of thrust, that's going to take the vehicle and help it to fly away
from the pad," Stelzer said.
"Stover said engineers predict there will be about 15 feet of clearance
between the pad and the rocket at liftoff, so there is no threat of
physical contact. Officials are only concerned about the affects of the
booster's plume.
http://spaceflightnow.com/ares1x/091020pad/
If anyone believes the 'pad maneuver' was only one degree...
that the turn at launch was 'slight'.... well then I have a
few bridges for sale you might be interested in.
Looked closer to ten degrees to me.
And isn't the booster plume being pushed ...towards...the pad
not away from it???
High-Definition Ares 1-x Launch Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tn-xza2m8so
s
s
Me
> If anyone believes the 'pad maneuver' was only one degree...
> that the turn at launch was 'slight'.... well then I have a
> few bridges for sale you might be interested in.
>
> Looked closer to ten degrees to me.
>
It was slight and no where near 10 degrees. Its length exaggerated
the effect.
Why do you insist on seeing for problems where there are none.
Brian Gaff
happen to any rocket scientist.......
thud.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Jonathan" <Ho...@Again.net> wrote in message
news:b6ydndPqNp-1aobW...@giganews.com...
gaetanomarano
why STILL talk about the X-fake-version of a DEAD rocket???
http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts2/058ares1dead.html
.
Sylvia Else
> Ares 1-X rocket arrives at launch pad for test flight
> BY STEPHEN CLARK
> SPACEFLIGHT NOW
> Posted: October 20, 2009
>
>
> "Flight designers have programmed the rocket to execute a slight
> avoidance maneuver moments after liftoff to keep from damaging
> the pad with its fiery hot motor plume. The rocket's nozzle will be
> gimbaled about 1 degree for the "walk off" maneuver. "We've
> designed a flyaway maneuver for the nozzle to cant over ever so
> slightly -- 1 degree -- not that much to us, but with 2 million pounds
> of thrust, that's going to take the vehicle and help it to fly away
> from the pad," Stelzer said.
>
> "Stover said engineers predict there will be about 15 feet of clearance
> between the pad and the rocket at liftoff, so there is no threat of
> physical contact. Officials are only concerned about the affects of the
> booster's plume.
> http://spaceflightnow.com/ares1x/091020pad/
>
>
>
>
> If anyone believes the 'pad maneuver' was only one degree...
> that the turn at launch was 'slight'.... well then I have a
> few bridges for sale you might be interested in.
>
> Looked closer to ten degrees to me.
If the motor's not pointed through the c-of-g then you get a torque,
whose affects are integrated until the motor is centred.
They said that the motor will be gymbaled 1 degree, not that that would
be the extend of the change in orientation of the craft.
Sylvia.
Matt Wiser
alternative other than the unbuilt and untested SpaceX), and second, he's a
troll. Killfile him ASAP.
"Me" <charlie...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e27cdbea-76b4-4388...@e7g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
Brian Gaff
guess in the Shuttle you have an ever lightening load as you are burning
fuel from the main tank all the time you are burning the propellant in the
srb. In Ares, you are lifting a fixed dead weight all the way to sep.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"gaetanomarano" <ma...@gaetanomarano.it> wrote in message
news:3d33ca1f-b1de-41e6...@m11g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
Jorge R. Frank
>
> If the motor's not pointed through the c-of-g then you get a torque,
> whose affects are integrated until the motor is centred.
>
> They said that the motor will be gymbaled 1 degree, not that that would
> be the extend of the change in orientation of the craft.
Bingo!
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
news:u36qh5ldqk9os49rp...@4ax.com...
> "Brian Gaff" <bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> :Well, if that is really the case, how could they get the sums so wrong. I
> :guess in the Shuttle you have an ever lightening load as you are burning
> :fuel from the main tank all the time you are burning the propellant in
> the
> :srb. In Ares, you are lifting a fixed dead weight all the way to sep.
>
> Uh, the fuel burns just like it does in any other rocket. The mass of
> a solid rocket changes as it burns, too.
I understood Brian to be referring ot the mass of the upperstage here, which
didn't change.
Still, I don't think there was a problem and if there was, it's still not an
issue.
>
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
> territory."
> --G. Behn
--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.
Brian Gaff
depending on what was supposed to happen!
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Jorge R. Frank" <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> wrote in message
news:1_WdnQCP3ZIoiYDW...@giganews.com...
Jonathan
"Matt Wiser" <MattWi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Ks2Tm.52250$X01....@newsfe07.iad...
> Two reasons: first, he's anti-Ares (though he's never suggested any
> alternative other than the unbuilt and untested SpaceX),
Yes I am anti Ares. But I've never mentioned spacex that I
recall, and I've ranted about the replacement I want, Space
Solar Power, probably a thousand times and at length.
Are you sure you have the right guy?
>and second, he's a
> troll.
A troll is someone that tries to make fools of others
just for the fun of it, mean spirited practical jokes.
I am none of that. Perhaps you should look up what
words mean before you use them. I am certainly
bombastic, persistent and single-minded, but I'm
no troll. People tend to use that label for anyone
that whoops their ass in a debate. Which I do
regularly around here.
>Killfile him ASAP.
Why don't you leave?
Pat Flannery
For a really good example of that, watch these videos of the new Indian
Brahmos ramjet missile, and how it's swung around its center of gravity
to a flat flight path and then stopped by sequentially firing two
small rockets in the nosecone covering the engine intake:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xB6R3NsD-yQ
Blowing the navy target ship in half with one hit doesn't exactly suck
either.
Pat
Rick Jones
> For a really good example of that, watch these videos of the new Indian
> Brahmos ramjet missile, and how it's swung around its center of gravity
> to a flat flight path and then stopped by sequentially firing two
> small rockets in the nosecone covering the engine intake:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xB6R3NsD-yQ
> Blowing the navy target ship in half with one hit doesn't exactly suck
> either.
Some of those targets looked like radar reflectors - I guess that
Indian defense contractors have taken some pages from their
counterparts in the West :) Also, I might not have watched closely
enough, but it looks like most of those ship "hits" have cut to an
animation for the impact, and we just see the aftermath, which is a
trifle, well, fishy :)
rick jones
--
I don't interest myself in "why." I think more often in terms of
"when," sometimes "where;" always "how much." - Joubert
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...
Jonathan
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:00984e2f$0$17140$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
I agree, but if you look carefully at the launch, it appeared to take
the plume towards the pad structure, not away from it.
Was their intention to point the nose away from the pad, or
the tail?
High-Definition Ares 1-x Launch Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tn-xza2m8so
And it's a bit too much of a coincidence that for the two
most worrisome events the camera shuts off. Just two
seconds before it leaves the pad, and two seconds
before staging the camera goes blank and completely
miss the two most critical events. If they have no video of those
events, how can they be so sure? If they do have video
what are they hiding? Also, the say this below is from
camera 1, but they clearly shift to a different camera
after staging.
And when the mission manager clearly indicates the staging
was an 'issue' in his words, then backtracks to say the spin
was 'one of many' predictions, then again backtracks
claiming it was the expected behavior, and now they say
they ....wanted it to spin...they designed it to spin
to dissipate energy. Come on! Which is it?
This reeks of either a cover-up or incompetence.
It would be irresponsible not to ask questions in
a situation like this.
Ares 1-x On Board Camera
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPDbW7Jbsog
In this high altitude video, at 1:35 you can see the initial
spin rate of the upper stage matches the lower stage.
That's too much of a coincidence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNaQzrXKhI0
Too many coincidences, too many unanswered questions.
Too many flat statements from NASA without providing
proof to back them up.
>
> Sylvia.
Sylvia Else
I suspect their goal was to avoid having the plume point at the same
place during the first few seconds.
Sylvia.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
The nose. To avoid recontact with the pad. Since the current pad structure
is being removed, some damage to the pad was ok, while recontact with the
pad by Ares-1X would have most certainly resulted in loss of vehicle,
something they'd obviously want to avoid.
Derek Lyons
>"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
>news:00984e2f$0$17140$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>
>> They said that the motor will be gymbaled 1 degree, not that that would be the
>> extend of the change in orientation of the craft.
>
>
>I agree, but if you look carefully at the launch, it appeared to take
>the plume towards the pad structure, not away from it.
Which is something nobody has debated, yet you continue to bring it
up.
>Was their intention to point the nose away from the pad, or
>the tail?
As you've been told multiple times before, the intention was to direct
the flight path away from the pad.
>Too many coincidences, too many unanswered questions.
>Too many flat statements from NASA without providing
>proof to back them up.
Too many examples of you making shit up. Too many examples of you
ignoring what you've been told. Too many examples of you repeating
the same dingbat bullshit.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Derek Lyons
>A troll is someone that tries to make fools of others
>just for the fun of it, mean spirited practical jokes.
Maybe in parallel universe where you reside. But here on planet
Earth, the accepted internet definition is contained in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet). (Since that comes
through mangled... try http://preview.tinyurl.com/2bjua8.)
>I am none of that. Perhaps you should look up what
>words mean before you use them. I am certainly
>bombastic, persistent and single-minded, but I'm
>no troll. People tend to use that label for anyone
>that whoops their ass in a debate. Which I do
>regularly around here.
ROTFLMAO. To "bombastic, persistent and single-minded" I'd add
"ignorant, deluded, and pompous".
Matt Wiser
the ass in describing the...creature.
"Derek Lyons" <fair...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b1f04fa....@news.supernews.com...
Sylvia Else
> "Jonathan" <Ho...@Again.net> wrote:
>
>> A troll is someone that tries to make fools of others
>> just for the fun of it, mean spirited practical jokes.
>
> Maybe in parallel universe where you reside. But here on planet
> Earth, the accepted internet definition is contained in:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet). (Since that comes
> through mangled... try http://preview.tinyurl.com/2bjua8.)
Though note should be taken of this heading within that article
Jonathan
> Derek, you forgot to add egotistic, self-centered, and all-around pain in
> the ass in describing the...creature.
> "Derek Lyons" <fair...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4b1f04fa....@news.supernews.com...
>> "Jonathan" <Ho...@Again.net> wrote:
>>
>> >A troll is someone that tries to make fools of others
>> >just for the fun of it, mean spirited practical jokes.
>>
>> Maybe in parallel universe where you reside. But here on planet
>> Earth, the accepted internet definition is contained in:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet). (Since that comes
>> through mangled... try http://preview.tinyurl.com/2bjua8.)
>>
According to Wiki....
" a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, extraneous,
or off-topic messages .....with the primary intent of provoking other
users into an emotional response[1]"
I am not here to provoke other posters, but the lame policies
and practices of a specific government agency. I'm sorry you
can't tell the difference and take my criticisms and opinions
personally, but that is your weakness, not mine.
And btw, childish name calling is a troll by your own definition, and
far off topic.
Jonathan
s
s
>