Ares 1-X Recontact was given "Highest Risk Rating"...BEFORE LAUNCH...article
Jonathan
Notice this article was dated a couple months ...before...
the launch. This recontact issue has a certain odor about it...
DATE:08/02/09
SOURCE:Flight International
Stage recontact is Ares biggest performance threat
By Rob Coppinger
"NASA has concluded that the first and upper stages of its Ares I
crew launch vehicle could collide after separation and this problem's
impact on the Ares' development has been given the highest risk rating
by the US space agency, according to documents obtained by
Flight International.
This so-called recontact problem could end an Ares I mission
- possibly catastrophically - during ascent. Failure could come
seconds after firing of the separation pyrotechnics, if the upper stage's
J-2X engine does not provide enough power fast enough to stop it
from slowing down and colliding with the first stage and its motor,
which would still be providing residual thrust.
While the Ares I's first-stage oscillations and possible contact
between the rocket and its mobile launcher platform during lift-off
are problems that have received publicity, the stages' recontact issue
has not been made public.
But NASA has given stage recontact the highest possible risk ranking
for the Ares project's cost, schedule and safety in documents dated
28 October 2008. NASA was not available for comment.
NASA ranks risks in terms of likelihood and consequence in a matrix
table where one is the lowest risk and five the highest risk. The
consequences are broken down into the categories of safety,
performance (of the rocket in this case), schedule (maintaining it)
and project cost. The oscillation issue is ranked as five for likelihood
because it is a known motor characteristic, but is now
ranked zero for cost, schedule and safety.
The first and upper stage recontact is given a likelihood of two, but
it is ranked a five for all four consequences because finding a solution
to ensure it does not happen is a high risk for all the consequence
categories.
Of the eight top problems for Ares, only mobile launcher platform
contact comes close with three consequence category fives, while
the J-2X's development has a five for schedule."
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/02/08/322197/stage-recontact-is-ares-biggest-performance-threat.html
High-Definition Ares 1-x Launch Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tn-xza2m8so
Looks to me when the booster seperation rockets
fired, it was in contact and jack-knifed the upper stage.
The spin begins just too suddenly for aerodynamic forces
even with the lower altitude...imho.
Shame the video cuts out 2 seconds before staging~
Where are the videos that NASA 'says' proves there
isn't any contact??? Where are the post launch pics
of the upper portion of the booster, showing no
damage???
I can't find them.
I smell a cover-up!
Jonathan
s
Jonathan
"While the Ares I's first-stage oscillations and possible contact
between the rocket and its mobile launcher platform during lift-off
are problems that have received publicity, the stages' recontact issue
has not been made public."
The one thing they didn't want to talk about...before..the launch
is also the one thing they don't want to talk about...after...launch.
I just love coincidences~
s
Jonathan
> Shame the video cuts out 2 seconds before staging~
Ares 1-x On Board Camera
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPDbW7Jbsog
>
>
>
>
>
Me
> "While the Ares I's first-stage oscillations and possible contact
> between the rocket and its mobile launcher platform during lift-off
> are problems that have received publicity, the stages' recontact issue
> has not been made public."
>
>
> The one thing they didn't want to talk about...before..the launch
> is also the one thing they don't want to talk about...after...launch.
>
> I just love coincidences~
Another non problem. There was no recontact
Brian Gaff
light aircraft stabilised by gyros though?
As a matter of interest, how do the Indians, who I think use a solid as
their first stage counter this problem of not being able to just stop the
thrust?
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:6JmdnTmdScLYc4bW...@giganews.com...
Me
>
> High-Definition Ares 1-x Launch Videohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tn-xza2m8so
>
> Looks to me when the booster seperation rockets
> fired, it was in contact and jack-knifed the upper stage.
> The spin begins just too suddenly for aerodynamic forces
> even with the lower altitude...imho.
>
> Shame the video cuts out 2 seconds before staging~
>
> Where are the videos that NASA 'says' proves there
> isn't any contact??? Where are the post launch pics
> of the upper portion of the booster, showing no
> damage???
>
> I can't find them.
> I smell a cover-up!
>
> Jonathan
You just smell yourself. there is no issue
There was no recontact. Long range camera didn't show it, neither did
the onboard instrumentation.
If there was recontact, it would be a problem because the separation
conditions are completely different between Are I-X and Ares I. Ares
I dynamic pressure is 10 time less. Ares I upperstage will have ullage
rockets which provide additional separation
Brian Gaff
they are right. I imagine someone is beavering away some place trying to see
if all the apparently preventable things that happened can be prevented in
reality. I mean, wobbly launch, very close to structure, vibrations,
strange twisting or whatever its called, then recontact and chutes that
failed to work right. Should keep someone busy for a while.
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:_NKdneuxtMkjcobW...@giganews.com...
Me
> the launch. This recontact issue has a certain odor about it...
>
> DATE:08/02/09
> SOURCE:Flight International
>
> Stage recontact is Ares biggest performance threat
> By Rob Coppinger
Not a reliable source. Flight International is the grocery store
checkout line newspaper of aerospace
Brian Gaff
devided. It was close, very close but then there was not thrust and surely
this is the crux of the matter. As has been said, can you reliably say the
engine will work and will it work fast enough when an erratic firework is
chasing you with a huge mass behind it.
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:SfednTPorsJhZ4bW...@giganews.com...
Jonathan
"Me" <charlie...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:63348d62-f85b-4555...@h2g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
There was no recontact. Long range camera didn't show it, neither did
the onboard instrumentation.
If there was recontact, it would be a problem because the separation
conditions are completely different between Are I-X and Ares I. Ares
I dynamic pressure is 10 time less. Ares I upperstage will have ullage
rockets which provide additional separation
..................
NASA states with certainty there was no contact.
I don't see anything that backs that certainty up.
All I'm saying is ...show me the proof.
s
Me
> I don't see anything that backs that certainty up.
> All I'm saying is ...show me the proof.
No, show evidence that there was contact
gaetanomarano
why STILL talk about the X-fake-version of a DEAD rocket???
http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts2/058ares1dead.html
.
Pat Flannery
> As a matter of interest, how do the Indians, who I think use a solid as
> their first stage counter this problem of not being able to just stop the
> thrust?
Blow out panels to vent the stage like is done on solid-fueled missiles?
Pat
Matt Wiser
Toss in the fact the poor sod is anti-Ares, a troll (and a useless one at
that), and paranoid. Killfile him and put him out of your misery.
"Me" <charlie...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:63348d62-f85b-4555...@h2g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
John Doe
Could they not fire the separation bolts at the same time as the second
stage engines light up ? Wouldn't this prevent recontact since at the
time of separation, the second stage would be getting greater
acceleration than the remaining thust from nearly spent SRB ?
Or must they really find a way to separate the 2 parts by a sufficient
amount so that thrust from second stage won't damage the SRB ?
How much of a "show stopper" would it be if they conclude that they
cannot re-use SRBs because of the damage caused by second stage engines?
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
news:00cc26cf$0$27966$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
> Out of curiosity,
>
> Could they not fire the separation bolts at the same time as the second
> stage engines light up ? Wouldn't this prevent recontact since at the
> time of separation, the second stage would be getting greater
> acceleration than the remaining thust from nearly spent SRB ?
There's several things they will do for the actual Ares-1 vehicle (assuming
it's built).
Ares-1X does not really replicate the 2nd stage seperation
>
> Or must they really find a way to separate the 2 parts by a sufficient
> amount so that thrust from second stage won't damage the SRB ?
>
> How much of a "show stopper" would it be if they conclude that they
> cannot re-use SRBs because of the damage caused by second stage engines?
--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.
bob haller safety advocate
<mooregr_delet3t...@greenms.com> wrote:
> "John Doe" <j...@doe.org> wrote in message
cost of reusing solids saves no money.
add parachute system, recovery crew, haul back for rebuilding, and
cases get damaged by all this.
reusing just sounds nice, nasa has stated it saves no bucks.
but getting a look at the solids joints is a good thing. if they pay
attention to whats happening
Me
> Out of curiosity,
>
> Could they not fire the separation bolts at the same time as the second
> stage engines light up ? Wouldn't this prevent recontact since at the
> time of separation, the second stage would be getting greater
> acceleration than the remaining thust from nearly spent SRB ?
>
> Or must they really find a way to separate the 2 parts by a sufficient
> amount so that thrust from second stage won't damage the SRB ?
>
It is not the SRB they are worried about it is aft of the second stage
which would be exposed to hot gases from firing to close to the SRB
Pat Flannery
> It is not the SRB they are worried about it is aft of the second stage
> which would be exposed to hot gases from firing to close to the SRB
They could use the Soviet technique and join the two stages by trusswork
rather than a solid interstage fairing - Titan II also used this
technique; in both cases it allowed the second stage to be ignited just
as the first stage was shutting down to avoid the use of ullage motors
to seat the second stage propellants by keeping them under acceleration
during the whole staging process.
The Soviet N-1 used them between both the first and second and second
and third stages:
http://www.capcomespace.net/dossiers/espace_sovietique/programme_lunaire/N1%20rollout.jpg
One of the Ares-1 design evolution illustrations on this page shows it
with such a interstage structure:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ares_I_Evolution.jpg
Making it look even more like the core stage of a Soyuz booster.
Pat