Re: ...Ares1-X FAILURE...N KOREA Offers NASA Technical Advice~
Brian Gaff
First test launch of Ares.
Low speed stabilisation needs better algorithm to stop drift and rotation
immediately after launch
Upper stage should be released in a different way to stop spasmodic
afterburning of booster from creating a collision with upper stage
More work on parachute reliability after burn out and clearance of upper
stages needed.
Now maybe all of these things are pretty simple to fix, I don't know, but
surely this means another launch to test they have been fixed?
Brian
--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Jonathan" <Ho...@Again.net> wrote in message
news:38KdncmLapUBonfX...@giganews.com...
>
> Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.
>
> As I listened to the radio at work, to my great relief and joy
> the good news came about the highly anticipated Ares1-X
> launch, our new manned booster for the future.
> ..and I QUOTE.....
>
> ...."The rocket performed as expected".
>
> So, I just now went over to NASA TV to watch and enjoy
> the successful launch. Happy knowing such a significant
> event went so very well. Yet, to my laymen's eyes I witness
> a couple of rather p e c u l i a r things . Little details
> the jubilant press release seemed to have l e f t o u t.
>
> Minor details!
>
> Like watching this rocket make it's first turn before it
> even clears HALF the tower. And watching the booster
> slam headlong into the payload sending it careening into
> OBLIVION with no hope of a safe abort.
>
> A payload meant for our PEOPLE btw.
> The quotation marks below are mine.
>
> NASA's Ares I-X Rocket Completes "Successful" Flight Test
> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/ares/index.html
>
> Hmm, I thought to myself, they EXPECTED that to happen?
> WOW! Like I said, truth is stranger than fiction, read below
> for proof of this please...I mean...gawd! Someone pinch me!
>
> Doublethink
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink
>
>
> Now we see what happens as a result of the wrong kind of
> space-race. A race meant to hurry up and spend an unpopular
> Moon project into existence. A race to see which gets "fired" first
> former NASA chief Griffin or ...Ares1-X Moon Rocket?
>
> Mercifully, for his sake, Griffin was fired first.
>
> NASA's manned space flight program is hereby officially a
> Train Wreck in slow motion. Tumbling aimlessly towards
> an inevitable fate, just like that payload.
>
> Let's just pretend the last fifty years never happened...OK?
> Announce a Do-Over! With something useful, like below.
> so someday endless clean energy ...falls from the sky...
> as our TV and phone calls do now.
>
> NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER EXPLORATORY
> RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY (SERT) PROGRAM
> http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
>
> s
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Jeff Findley
"Brian Gaff" <Bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:doBGm.3189$5w5....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> Yes, though not actually seen it, I suspect the following is more
> truthful..
>
> First test launch of Ares.
> Low speed stabilisation needs better algorithm to stop drift and rotation
> immediately after launch
> Upper stage should be released in a different way to stop spasmodic
> afterburning of booster from creating a collision with upper stage
> More work on parachute reliability after burn out and clearance of upper
> stages needed.
>
> Now maybe all of these things are pretty simple to fix, I don't know, but
> surely this means another launch to test they have been fixed?
The next flight, Ares I-Y, is scheduled for March 2014. We'll be waiting
quite a long time and pouring billions of dollars into this program before
we have any real indication that progress is being made. Ares I-X didn't
instill any confidence in the design because it's not representative of
flight hardware.
Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon
Brian Gaff
they expect to get is that on vibration, and it will be that which dictates
whether its best to carry on or not.
I was listening to some of the astronaut interviews last evening, and
reading between the lines I feel that they all want an upgraded shuttle
rather than a tin can to ride in,
Brian
--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Jeff Findley" <jeff.f...@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote in message
news:2daa0$4aeafb7c$927a2cda$15...@FUSE.NET...
David Spain
> "Brian Gaff" <Bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:doBGm.3189$5w5....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> Yes, though not actually seen it, I suspect the following is more
>> truthful..
>>
>> First test launch of Ares.
>> Low speed stabilisation needs better algorithm to stop drift and rotation
>> immediately after launch
>> Upper stage should be released in a different way to stop spasmodic
>> afterburning of booster from creating a collision with upper stage
animations I have seen of what was expected had the upper stage in rotation.
Would it be correct to assume that rotation was induced by the collision with
the lower stage?
Would ignition of the J2-X on the upper stage be enough to guarantee clearance
from the lower solid stage regardless of 'spasmodic afterburning?' Maybe release
the upper stage a little sooner before the solid stage attains burn-out?
>> More work on parachute reliability after burn out and clearance of upper
>> stages needed.
>>
>> Now maybe all of these things are pretty simple to fix, I don't know, but
>> surely this means another launch to test they have been fixed?
>
> The next flight, Ares I-Y, is scheduled for March 2014. We'll be waiting
> quite a long time and pouring billions of dollars into this program before
> we have any real indication that progress is being made. Ares I-X didn't
> instill any confidence in the design because it's not representative of
> flight hardware.
What is supposed to be the configuration for Ares 1-Y? Full operative
upper stage and Orion capsule? What are the mission goals? Are they expecting
a full-up orbital mission with automated capsule recovery?
Dave
David Spain
> Would ignition of the J2-X on the upper stage be enough to guarantee
> clearance
> from the lower solid stage regardless of 'spasmodic afterburning?' Maybe
> release
> the upper stage a little sooner before the solid stage attains burn-out?
>
>
> What is supposed to be the configuration for Ares 1-Y? Full operative
> upper stage and Orion capsule? What are the mission goals? Are they
> expecting
> a full-up orbital mission with automated capsule recovery?
>
> Dave
There have been a lot of posts in different threads and in different groups
about this. Makes me wish back for the simpler times when there was only
sci.space to post within. As such most of my questions have already been
answered elsewhere.
Dave
Derek Lyons
>Jeff Findley wrote:
>> "Brian Gaff" <Bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:doBGm.3189$5w5....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>> Yes, though not actually seen it, I suspect the following is more
>>> truthful..
>>>
>>> First test launch of Ares.
>>> Low speed stabilisation needs better algorithm to stop drift and rotation
>>> immediately after launch
>>> Upper stage should be released in a different way to stop spasmodic
>>> afterburning of booster from creating a collision with upper stage
It should be pointed out (again) that 'spasmodic afterburning',
'recontact' and 'collision' are assumptions, not facts.
>As was pointed out elsewhere (in a different thread?) none of the NASA
>animations I have seen of what was expected had the upper stage in rotation.
>Would it be correct to assume that rotation was induced by the collision with
>the lower stage?
NASA is now stating in an article on Spaceflightnow that a) no
recontact occurred, and b) the spin was not entirely unexpected due to
the CG of the USS being well aft.
http://spaceflightnow.com/ares1x/091030recovery/
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
John Doe
> NASA is now stating in an article on Spaceflightnow that a) no
> recontact occurred, and b) the spin was not entirely unexpected due to
> the CG of the USS being well aft.
To be pedantic, NASA says that they did not see recontact. They don't
state there was no recontact.
When I watched the video, the feeling I got is that the first stage
started to flip during a period where second stage had been unlatched
but still being accelerated by first stage. And when first stage started
to flip, it induced that movement only to the base of the second stage
which then started to separate and flip as well.
But I am puzzled:
##
The booster's roll control system also functioned perfectly, spinning
the rocket 90 degrees a few seconds after liftoff and keeping the
vehicle stable throughout the flight.
#
I can understand the shuttle needing to change it orientation so the
wings and control surfaces are in the right orientation.
But for a symetrically round rocket, why would it need to rotate 90� ?
What does that achieve ? Why not place it in the right orientation on
the pad to begin with if it needs to be in a specific roll orientation ?
Brian Gaff
another controversay brewing here as with Challengetr? I hope not. I'm just
wondering quite what was expected and unexpected and why they bothered at
all if it was all expected, as I'd have waiting till a bit more of the
expected unexpected stuff was sorted out before I threw it into the air and
showed what a heap of bits and pieces it all was at the moment.
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!
"Derek Lyons" <fair...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4aecef27.3215853562@news.supernews.com...
Derek Lyons
>But I am puzzled:
>
>##
>The booster's roll control system also functioned perfectly, spinning
>the rocket 90 degrees a few seconds after liftoff and keeping the
>vehicle stable throughout the flight.
>#
>
>I can understand the shuttle needing to change it orientation so the
>wings and control surfaces are in the right orientation.
>
>But for a symetrically round rocket, why would it need to rotate 90� ?
>What does that achieve ? Why not place it in the right orientation on
>the pad to begin with if it needs to be in a specific roll orientation ?
Because the pad is fixed - while a vehicle launched from it may depart
on any number of different azimuths. Therefore the vehicle rolls to
align the vehicles various axes with the with the trajectory. This
also helps ensure communications with the vehicle as various antenna
are pointed in the proper direction.
John Doe
> Because the pad is fixed - while a vehicle launched from it may depart
> on any number of different azimuths. Therefore the vehicle rolls to
> align the vehicles various axes with the with the trajectory. This
> also helps ensure communications with the vehicle as various antenna
> are pointed in the proper direction.
Since this is a round cylinder, why not just place the rocket on the pad
in the right roll orientation to begin with ? I realise this may require
some planning, such as ensuring whatever connections to the tower are
placed accordingly (as well as placing the payload (Orion) in such a way
that its door faces the access arm).
So , what is the reason they couldn't orient the rocket on the pad to
remove the need for a 90� roll ?
Derek Lyons
Because you have various and sundry connections between the vehicle
and the launch pad that can't be moved without extensive renovations
to the pad and extensive design changes to the vehicles - for each and
every flight.
It's much easier to roll.
Jorge R. Frank
> John Doe <jd...@doe.org> wrote:
>
>> Derek Lyons wrote:
>>
>>> Because the pad is fixed - while a vehicle launched from it may depart
>>> on any number of different azimuths. Therefore the vehicle rolls to
>>> align the vehicles various axes with the with the trajectory. This
>>> also helps ensure communications with the vehicle as various antenna
>>> are pointed in the proper direction.
>> Since this is a round cylinder, why not just place the rocket on the pad
>> in the right roll orientation to begin with ? I realise this may require
>> some planning, such as ensuring whatever connections to the tower are
>> placed accordingly (as well as placing the payload (Orion) in such a way
>> that its door faces the access arm).
>>
>> So , what is the reason they couldn't orient the rocket on the pad to
>> remove the need for a 90� roll ?
>
> Because you have various and sundry connections between the vehicle
> and the launch pad that can't be moved without extensive renovations
> to the pad and extensive design changes to the vehicles - for each and
> every flight.
>
> It's much easier to roll.
>
> D.
Right. The SRB hold-down post configuration is not symmetric, either.
Structural considerations will dictate LV placement on the pad, dynamic
considerations will dictate LV flight attitude. The difference between
the two dictates the roll required. Simple as that.
Me
.
>
> But for a symetrically round rocket, why would it need to rotate 90° ?
> What does that achieve ? Why not place it in the right orientation on
> the pad to begin with if it needs to be in a specific roll orientation ?
Guidance system and Cockpit orientation.
hal...@aol.com
doesnt the shuttle fly a dogleg manuver to avoid overflying land areas
in some cases?
Brian Thorn
>> Because the pad is fixed - while a vehicle launched from it may depart
>> on any number of different azimuths. Therefore the vehicle rolls to
>> align the vehicles various axes with the with the trajectory. This
>> also helps ensure communications with the vehicle as various antenna
>> are pointed in the proper direction.
>
>Since this is a round cylinder, why not just place the rocket on the pad
>in the right roll orientation to begin with ?
In the case of the lunar missions, that orientation will change as the
Earth/Moon angle changes. So if you have to delay launch a month
because of a glitch or an astronaut is exposed to the measles, you'd
have to roll back to the VAB, destack the vehicle, restack at the new
orientation, and then roll back to the pad. A roll at liftoff just
needs the updated azimuth loaded into software.
>So , what is the reason they couldn't orient the rocket on the pad to
>remove the need for a 90� roll ?
It would require an all-new SRB design, and Ares I was chosen
specifically to avoid this. (Sure, the SRB is different, but it
fundamentally isn't that different. Its the same diameter with the
same MLP mounts as the Shuttle-version.)
You do know that Titan II (Gemini), Saturn IB (Apollo), and Saturn V
(Apollo) all rolled too, right? Easier to build the pad to be easiest
for ground crews and let the vehicle roll after liftoff, since the
vehicle has to be able to roll for stablization and guidance anyway.
Brian
BradGuth
> and then all you have to deal with is the pitch and the pitch rate.
>
> I like to have pitch, pitch rate, altitude, velocity, acceleration and
> elapsed time numerically on my HUD, as well as the usual visual pitch
> and momentum vector targets. Of course, with a SINGLE high efficiency
> closed combustion cycle regeneratively cooled high performance space
> shuttle main engine for propulsion, you have to load the stack up with
> payload and use big hydrocarbon boosters in order to prevent exceeding
> your acceleration limits, and roll control is a definite problem that
> has to be dealt with, otherwise you might indeed spin out of control
> after you lose the boosters and really start to haul ass. That's why
> there are pairs of outboard ground started OMS engines idling along as
> roll control, and ready to do long deep throttling fuel settling and
> scavenging burns too, and orbital tweaking and final circularization.
>
> Once you achieve orbit and docking you just react or burn off your
> residual fuel to boost the tank farm, and let the space port workers
> handle to pesky details of dealing with the tank, payload and engines.
>
> Engine into the nosecone and back to the ocean for quick pickup, and the
> tank gets added to your vast orbiting space port and star trek vessels.
> Excess fuel quickly burnt off for electricity and heat, and then you
> drink and grow plants so that you don't need billion dollar resupply.
>
> Those SRBs are gonna set us back another couple of decades again. Unless
> you use them with a decent reusable hydrogen core, they just won't work.
>
> The canceled the Saturn V for a reason, and they didn't even use SRBs.
Saturn V was a Zionist Nazi accomplishment that's still more advanced
and more reliable than anything since, not to mention environmentally
greener.
~ BG
Robert Clark
"Zionist Nazi"
That's quite a combination!
Bob Clark
Derek Lyons
>
>"Derek Lyons" <fair...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:4aecef27.3215853562@news.supernews.com...
>
>> NASA is now stating in an article on Spaceflightnow that a) no
>> recontact occurred, and b) the spin was not entirely unexpected due to
>> the CG of the USS being well aft.
>
>
>That's not correct, they said....
>
>"We did not see any recontact between the upper stage and the first stage."
>
>That's not the same thing as no contact occured.
>That is NASA-speak for the age old political tactic
>called 'plausible deniability'. No one can prove there
>was contact, so they can deny it.
If nobody can prove there was recontact, then there wasn't any
recontact.
>But we all saw the distance open up and close again just
>before the upper stage ...immediately...started spinning.
>
>I don't care where the CG was, it started spinning far
>too quickly, contact is the only plausible explanation
>to start something that massive spinning so suddenly.
In other words, facts need not apply. You've got your opinions, and
you don't care what they facts are.
Derek Lyons
>As I documented earlier, the maneuver shortly after lift off
>was called a 'pad avoidance maneuver.
That's kinda like documenting the sun coming up. In other words,
don't break your arm patting yourself on the back for 'documenting'
what everyone else already knew.
>Since the pad was substantially damaged, far more that from
>a shuttle flight with ...two...such solids, the question becomes
>did this maneuver work as intended.....obviously not.
Since the manuver wasn't meant to mitigate damage to the pad, you're
talking out your ass.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
> Since the pad was substantially damaged, far more that from
> a shuttle flight with ...two...such solids, the question becomes
> did this maneuver work as intended.....obviously not.
>
Wrong conclusion. The better conclusion is one that's already been made.
Remove the tower and build a specific Ares tower.
SEN...@argo.rhein-neckar.de
> >> NASA is now stating in an article on Spaceflightnow that a) no
> >> recontact occurred, and b) the spin was not entirely unexpected due to
> >> the CG of the USS being well aft.
> >
> >
> >That's not correct, they said....
> >
> >"We did not see any recontact between the upper stage and the first stage."
> >
> >That's not the same thing as no contact occured.
> >That is NASA-speak for the age old political tactic
> >called 'plausible deniability'. No one can prove there
> >was contact, so they can deny it.
>
> If nobody can prove there was recontact, then there wasn't any
> recontact.
>
> >But we all saw the distance open up and close again just
> >before the upper stage ...immediately...started spinning.
> >
> >I don't care where the CG was, it started spinning far
> >too quickly, contact is the only plausible explanation
> >to start something that massive spinning so suddenly.
>
> In other words, facts need not apply. You've got your opinions, and
> you don't care what they facts are.
>
> D.
He told the facts you failed to read. Under low airload it should slowly
begin to spin and go faster. Instead it got a sudden spin just after
seperation. That only happens by a big none axial force. Recontact
is the most plausible. And a low amplitude thrust oscilation at burn
out is a good reason. NASA should have some data on it. That could happen
by long "grain" pipes and may be worse in a 5.5 segmented Ares I. Maybe
they gambled this time and hoped for clean cut off. Or it was age related.
This SRB was with 8 years older then allowed for Shuttle operations (5
years). Once it gets public Ares I gets hanged. Let the critter RIP.
## CrossPoint v3.12d R ##
Derek Lyons
>
>> >> NASA is now stating in an article on Spaceflightnow that a) no
>> >> recontact occurred, and b) the spin was not entirely unexpected due to
>> >> the CG of the USS being well aft.
>> >
>> >
>> >That's not correct, they said....
>> >
>> >"We did not see any recontact between the upper stage and the first stage."
>> >
>> >That's not the same thing as no contact occured.
>> >That is NASA-speak for the age old political tactic
>> >called 'plausible deniability'. No one can prove there
>> >was contact, so they can deny it.
>>
>> If nobody can prove there was recontact, then there wasn't any
>> recontact.
>>
>> >But we all saw the distance open up and close again just
>> >before the upper stage ...immediately...started spinning.
>> >
>> >I don't care where the CG was, it started spinning far
>> >too quickly, contact is the only plausible explanation
>> >to start something that massive spinning so suddenly.
>>
>> In other words, facts need not apply. You've got your opinions, and
>> you don't care what they facts are.
>>
>> D.
>
>He told the facts you failed to read. Under low airload it should slowly
>begin to spin and go faster.
Um, that's an assumption (and an incorrect one) rather than a fact.
>Instead it got a sudden spin just after
>seperation. That only happens by a big none axial force. Recontact
>is the most plausible.
It doesn't matter how plausible it is - to posit it *the* cause, you
have to produce evidence that it happened.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
>
> "Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_d...@greenms.com> wrote in
> message news:Gv-dnaWhNOg-GmzX...@earthlink.com...
> was never to be used again dated ....before.... the launch?
No, I can't find such a document because that's not what I said. I said the
TOWER is not to be used again. There's quite a few mentions of this. And
LC-39B is designated for Ares-I with LC-39A as primary for Ares-V and a
backup to Ares-I.
--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.
SEN...@argo.rhein-neckar.de
> >> >> NASA is now stating in an article on Spaceflightnow that a) no
> >> >> recontact occurred, and b) the spin was not entirely unexpected due to
> >> >> the CG of the USS being well aft.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >That's not correct, they said....
> >> >
> >> >"We did not see any recontact between the upper stage and the first
> >> >stage."
> >> >That's not the same thing as no contact occured.
> >> >That is NASA-speak for the age old political tactic
> >> >called 'plausible deniability'. No one can prove there
> >> >was contact, so they can deny it.
> >>
> >> If nobody can prove there was recontact, then there wasn't any
> >> recontact.
> >>
> >> >But we all saw the distance open up and close again just
> >> >before the upper stage ...immediately...started spinning.
> >> >
> >> >I don't care where the CG was, it started spinning far
> >> >too quickly, contact is the only plausible explanation
> >> >to start something that massive spinning so suddenly.
> >>
> >> In other words, facts need not apply. You've got your opinions, and
> >> you don't care what they facts are.
> >>
> >> D.
> >
> >He told the facts you failed to read. Under low airload it should slowly
> >begin to spin and go faster.
>
> Um, that's an assumption (and an incorrect one) rather than a fact.
its very basic physics. If a momentum acts to a free body it slowly
begins to spin and gets faster. In this case, an aerodynamic unstable
body, the momentum increases as more angle deviation you got. The
max mommentum for such a body may reached at 90 deg. Until that position
the spin gets faster. But we all saw it fast from the 0 deg on.
SENECA
Derek Lyons
>
>> >He told the facts you failed to read. Under low airload it should slowly
>> >begin to spin and go faster.
>>
>> Um, that's an assumption (and an incorrect one) rather than a fact.
>
>its very basic physics. If a momentum acts to a free body it slowly
>begins to spin and gets faster. In this case, an aerodynamic unstable
>body, the momentum increases as more angle deviation you got. The
>max mommentum for such a body may reached at 90 deg. Until that position
>the spin gets faster. But we all saw it fast from the 0 deg on.
No, this isn't basic physics - it's a mish mash of nonsense that, to
the uneducated and ignorant, resembles basic physics... but actually
isn't.
It ignore the fact that, with an extreme aft CG, any force acting on
the nose is going to be greatly multiplied via the lever law. Or,
more simply, once it starts to diverge it's going to ramp up very
quickly. It doesn't matter if the force is aerodynamic or transmitted
structurally. You also ignore the fact that high tip-off forces (via
poor design of the seperation system) can explain the spin equally
well. As can poor timing in the seperation and BDM/BTM firing
sequences.
You're probably not even aware of the potential discrepancy between
the published burnout timeline and the observed burnout timeline.
Difficult to resolve with the limited information available to us, but
definetly a possibility.
You've made the classic mistake of starting with a conclusion (there
was recontact) and then working backwards creating evidence in favor
of the conclusion as you go. New information? You discard it as
irrelvant because you already have a conclusion.
SEN...@argo.rhein-neckar.de
> >> >He told the facts you failed to read. Under low airload it should slowly
> >> >begin to spin and go faster.
> >>
> >> Um, that's an assumption (and an incorrect one) rather than a fact.
> >
> >its very basic physics. If a momentum acts to a free body it slowly
> >begins to spin and gets faster. In this case, an aerodynamic unstable
> >body, the momentum increases as more angle deviation you got. The
> >max mommentum for such a body may reached at 90 deg. Until that position
> >the spin gets faster. But we all saw it fast from the 0 deg on.
>
> No, this isn't basic physics - it's a mish mash of nonsense that, to
> the uneducated and ignorant, resembles basic physics... but actually
> isn't.
>
> It ignore the fact that, with an extreme aft CG, any force acting on
> the nose is going to be greatly multiplied via the lever law. Or,
> more simply, once it starts to diverge it's going to ramp up very
> quickly. It doesn't matter if the force is aerodynamic or transmitted
> structurally.
It does much. An aerodynamic force increases as it diverges. But a
structurally transmitted force is a push and let the upperstage
spin suddenly. That is what a lot of observers saw and mentioned.
It was never realy denied by NASA. What you wrote at 1st Nov.:
NASA is now stating in an article on Spaceflightnow that a) no
recontact occurred, and b) the spin was not entirely unexpected
due to the CG of the USS being well aft.
http://spaceflightnow.com/ares1x/091030recovery/
was by a) simply not true. It was told to you here that they only
reported the result of first analysis of the tracking cameras. But
you know a camera 100 km away can never see any recontact within
some inches.
And b) is well true but may only account for some seconds after
seperation, not in the first second. So with your silly rhetorics
it is obvious that you just want to support a NASA PR stand to
save the Ares 1.
>You also ignore the fact that high tip-off forces (via
> poor design of the seperation system) can explain the spin equally
> well. As can poor timing in the seperation and BDM/BTM firing
> sequences.
I could suggest even more. Maybe the whole thing finaly broke apart.
But why was recontact here (and elesewhere) the first thought?
The question of recontact came not up out of the blue. It was well
expected as critical test issue. About a year ago there were reports
that Ares 1 may need more powerfule solid rocket motors (SRMs) to
break the first stage so that it can safely seperate from the upperstage.
All because of the expected unclean thrust termination those SRBs have.
I saw than a new NASA graphic of the Ares 1 with a lot of breaking, upward
firing, SRMs at the base. This Ares 1 looked almost like a Delta. But
the Ares 1-X looked much less like and the question came up before the
launch whether it will get recontact problems or not. Till now we have
no deffinitiv statemant of NASA about it.
>
> You're probably not even aware of the potential discrepancy between
> the published burnout timeline and the observed burnout timeline.
> Difficult to resolve with the limited information available to us, but
> definetly a possibility.
>
> You've made the classic mistake of starting with a conclusion (there
> was recontact) and then working backwards creating evidence in favor
> of the conclusion as you go. New information? You discard it as
> irrelvant because you already have a conclusion.
>
> D.
Derek, like I know you well from the past ("Apollo 13 final report"),
your main effort here is to spread silly rhetorics to defend almost
any NASA PR problem. By the time now NASA has well the recorded sensor
data analysed and knows whether a recontact had happend or not or what
went wrong. Instead they are still touting the horn how good all went
and you joined them. Your job as "expert citizen" would be to ask, not
to applaude. Applauding they are doing enough themself.
Brian Thorn
<mooregr_d...@greenms.com> wrote:
>> Can you document any statement saying that launch pad
>> was never to be used again dated ....before.... the launch?
>
>No, I can't find such a document because that's not what I said. I said the
>TOWER is not to be used again. There's quite a few mentions of this. And
>LC-39B is designated for Ares-I with LC-39A as primary for Ares-V and a
>backup to Ares-I.
And here's a 2007 artist's concept of Ares I on the pad, with the
Shuttle-era FSS and RSS long gone...
http://www.skycontrol.net/UserFiles/Image/Aerospace_img/200710/200710nasa-host-constellation-4.jpg
So scrapping the old tower has clearly been planned for years.
Brian
Derek Lyons
>> It ignore the fact that, with an extreme aft CG, any force acting on
>> the nose is going to be greatly multiplied via the lever law. Or,
>> more simply, once it starts to diverge it's going to ramp up very
>> quickly. It doesn't matter if the force is aerodynamic or transmitted
>> structurally.
>
>It does much. An aerodynamic force increases as it diverges. But a
>structurally transmitted force is a push and let the upperstage
>spin suddenly. That is what a lot of observers saw and mentioned.
>It was never realy denied by NASA.
At lot of observers *think* they saw a push. But even so, with an
extreme aft CG a minor push again translates into what seems to be a
faster spin.
>What you wrote at 1st Nov.:
>
> NASA is now stating in an article on Spaceflightnow that a) no
> recontact occurred, and b) the spin was not entirely unexpected
> due to the CG of the USS being well aft.
> http://spaceflightnow.com/ares1x/091030recovery/
>
>was by a) simply not true. It was told to you here that they only
>reported the result of first analysis of the tracking cameras. But
>you know a camera 100 km away can never see any recontact within
>some inches.
If you have some evidence that a) is not true - then produce it. (And
no, "I thought I saw it on the video" is not evidence.) Otherwise,
you're talking out of your hat.
>And b) is well true but may only account for some seconds after
>seperation, not in the first second. So with your silly rhetorics
>it is obvious that you just want to support a NASA PR stand to
>save the Ares 1.
If you have evidence that b) is not true - then produce it.
Otherwise, you're talking out of your hat.
Or to put it more bluntly - you can't seem to differentiate between
opinion and fact. You have somewhere arrived at the delusion that all
you have to do is 'announce' a fact to make it so.
>> You also ignore the fact that high tip-off forces (via
>> poor design of the seperation system) can explain the spin equally
>> well. As can poor timing in the seperation and BDM/BTM firing
>> sequences.
>
>I could suggest even more. Maybe the whole thing finaly broke apart.
Well, again, you're suggestion is at odds with reported facts. The
USS was seen to impact as a single unit - there is no evidence that it
broke apart.
>But why was recontact here (and elesewhere) the first thought?
Two main reasons... The first being many people here are rather
exiteable and tend to leap to conclusions based on slim or no
evidence. Once having reached that conclusion, they then seek to
create justification for that conclusion.
The second, and key one, is an extreme bias against NASA - bias they
continue to hold even when the facts state otherwise, or other
possible interpretations exist.
>The question of recontact came not up out of the blue. It was well
>expected as critical test issue. About a year ago there were reports
>that Ares 1 may need more powerfule solid rocket motors (SRMs) to
>break the first stage so that it can safely seperate from the upperstage.
>All because of the expected unclean thrust termination those SRBs have.
Well, duh. Anyone with actual knowledge of spaceflight history and
booster development and engineering knows that recontact is a
potential issue. But that doesn't justify leaping to the conclusions
that recontact must be *the* issue.
>> You're probably not even aware of the potential discrepancy between
>> the published burnout timeline and the observed burnout timeline.
>> Difficult to resolve with the limited information available to us, but
>> definetly a possibility.
>>
>> You've made the classic mistake of starting with a conclusion (there
>> was recontact) and then working backwards creating evidence in favor
>> of the conclusion as you go. New information? You discard it as
>> irrelvant because you already have a conclusion.
>>
>> D.
>
>Derek, like I know you well from the past ("Apollo 13 final report"),
>your main effort here is to spread silly rhetorics to defend almost
>any NASA PR problem.
Which is a strange conclusion to reach, given that I have provided
facts and analysis - and you are the one providing rhetoric and
handwaving.
>By the time now NASA has well the recorded sensor
>data analysed and knows whether a recontact had happend or not or what
>went wrong. Instead they are still touting the horn how good all went
>and you joined them. Your job as "expert citizen" would be to ask, not
>to applaude. Applauding they are doing enough themself.
When I applaud them, rather than analyzing the facts, you'll have a
point. Until then, once again, you are confusing assumption with
facts.
Me
> Yes, though not actually seen it, I suspect the following is more truthful..
>
> First test launch of Ares.
> Low speed stabilisation needs better algorithm to stop drift and rotation
> immediately after launch
No such thing. This is SOP and nothing is wrong
Damon Hill
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 10:48:59 -0800 (PST), Me <charlie...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>No such thing. This is SOP and nothing is wrong
>
> Like you'd know?
>
Yes. Prove otherwise.
--Damon
Jorge R. Frank
>
He would, actually.
This was a planned tower avoidance maneuver. Saturn V did the same thing.
somefools
news:38KdncmLapUBonfX...@giganews.com:
>
> Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.
>
> As I listened to the radio at work, to my great relief and joy
> the good news came about the highly anticipated Ares1-X
> launch, our new manned booster for the future.
> ..and I QUOTE.....
>
> ...."The rocket performed as expected".
And it did.
All those "problems" you say you witnessed are normal behavior.
Next you be telling us it was a failure because the payload didn't make
into orbit...
The only anomaly I saw was with one of the chutes for the booster
splashdown that didn't open, but I'm sure they have seen that before and
only 2 of the 3 are needed for a safe recovery of the booster.
SEN...@argo.rhein-neckar.de
> >> You also ignore the fact that high tip-off forces (via
> >> poor design of the seperation system) can explain the spin equally
> >> well. As can poor timing in the seperation and BDM/BTM firing
> >> sequences.
> >
> >I could suggest even more. Maybe the whole thing finaly broke apart.
>
> Well, again, you're suggestion is at odds with reported facts. The
> USS was seen to impact as a single unit - there is no evidence that it
> broke apart.
Uh Derek, that was meant as a joke. If the steering of the SRB faild near
burnout, the whole rocket could get a high angle of attack and breaks
apart for "seperation". May look like the video but I dont realy
suggest it as recontact seems more likely.
> >But why was recontact here (and elesewhere) the first thought?
>
> Two main reasons... The first being many people here are rather
> exiteable and tend to leap to conclusions based on slim or no
> evidence. Once having reached that conclusion, they then seek to
> create justification for that conclusion.
What you call slim evidence is usually evidence that is not much
reported in the mainstream. Or even contradicting mainstream. Like
we had with the Apollo 13 "explosion" or other revealing things from Stuf4.
One of the last such examples I remember was by William Mook. While all
media ranted on the North Korean rocket test, he mentioned a similar South
Korean rocket program near launch preparation. That was an interesting
info bit. Thats was usenet at his best and the reason I`m here sometimes.
But he got badly beaten afterwards by some regulars here. Former guys
from the US military like you. Even his private adress and phone was
here published. After that attack he was brocken and I never read
anything from him again.
Or look at the piece "kt" found on China`s von Braun. It was an
excellent info worth a lot of discussion in ssh. I copied some there.
Most here will not like kt by his sometimes brutal style. But he may
have better a chance to survive here then the more civil William Mook.
>
> The second, and key one, is an extreme bias against NASA - bias they
> continue to hold even when the facts state otherwise, or other
> possible interpretations exist.
Some may, but some have expierence from the past. Sometimes NASA is
big in covering up and distorting facts. Challenger`s O-rings we got
from the press while NASA was very tight hiding. Columbia was even
worse in hiding and distorting. On that road NASA PR got a lot of
support by several users and sci.space regulars. It was rather the
opposite you claim.
You did not accuse me of bias against NASA. Well, you may know my
view. It is not a big secret that there is an internal war inside
NASA for quite some time. On one side astronauts and rocketeers
("manned spaceflight") and scientists on the other. The later are
the real big success story of NASA after Apollo. Even in the last
10 years they got breathtaking results from Mars and Saturn.
If you take a modern book about the solar system and related astronomy,
90% of the pictures are from NASA and thats no bias. Almost all are
from unmanned probes. But this programms get only a small budget fraction
compared to the manned side. And they get poor NASA PR to keep it that
way.
The best images of the Mars rovers were only put in poor versions to
the press. One of the first MER images went to CNN in the worst way I
ever saw. Instead of near visual they put to CNN a deeeep red IR image.
I know IR and multispectral images but never saw such an ugly thing before.
I know what the MER people uses, never such likes. Usualy the images
they have at the monitors never went to the broad public. Only crude ones.
As NASA PAO published MOC results of very recent liquid water on Mars,
it got no wide impact. Instead even BBC quoted unnamed scientists, that
it could be from liquid CO2. No counter from NASA PAO. Strangely, few
years later one sci.space regular (Pat, former USAF) declared water
and heat on Mars a NASA PR stand and invented his liquid CO2 Mars and
no one here opposed. Instead he got even support! I was outraged.
It is obviuos that any manned spaceflight has a much better PR on all
levels then science missions. But now NASA is at crossroads. The whole
Ares program will not offer any substantial sci results worth the bugs.
You cant do manned Mars with any Ares. Moon brings nothing new and NEO is
for unmanned far better suited. The rocketeer faction of NASA will
just screw on unwanted rockets for its own sake. To get men in space
anyway what purpose.
But there is an option to end this war. To develop a big rocket for
a permanent scientific settelment on Mars. Only a few astronauts
with enough equipment. Resupply missions for every open launch window
all 26 months. No return. More crew may be send if scientific and
other goals require it.
What I wrote last days about the Sea Dragon rocket is for real. I
heard that part of this NASA study may still be classified. But the
unclassified reports are very clear. With such rather simple
technology, once developed, 550 to several 1000 tons LEO payloads
are possible. The cost of each rocket may not exceed a few Ares V.
It is worth to think about it. We may get big science for the bugs.
Derek Lyons
> [nothing of importance]
Handwaving twaddle and self important smoke screen noted, along with
the inability or unwillingness to adress the points raised.
Jonathan
"Brian Thorn" <btho...@suddenlink.net> wrote in message
news:hbn8f590ec6jlemvt...@4ax.com...
The point was that from what I can gather, the damage to the launch pad
means the new tower, which was planned for the same site, will have
to be redesigned. Look at the launch again, it came off the pad sideways
or already pitching over.
Really, the whole point here is that we shouldn't have to figure this stuff
our ourselves. This is taxpayer money and we should have honest and
open flow of information from NASA. We're not getting that, we're getting
silence and outright lies. I mean when at first NASA admits there might've
been a problem with staging, then retracts that because no one
can prove it, not because they have evidence either way, but because there's
a /lack of evidence/ either way, they conclude what they want to....Success!
It's bullshit.
This is what is meant by the term politicizing science. When the scientific
results are skewed (releasing only good news) in order to further
a political goal, which is saving the Moon shot and the Vision.
>
> Brian
Jonathan
"somefools" <fa...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CBBBB1D234CEs...@216.168.3.70...
If they 'expected' the launch pad to be scorched, why was the
obsolete shuttle fuel lines still full of hydrazine, which leaked
out after launch causing a safety issue for those that had to
go out and cap the leaks?
If they expected that damage at at launch, why the talk of a
redesign to the new pad?
And we all witnessed the gap at staging open, then close, sending the
second stage quickly tumbling. If that was expected why
didn't they say so right away? Instead of first admitting there
was an 'issue', then backtracking to say all is fine?
And if the second stage was full of fuel and ready to ignite
what would that recontact do to the second stage nczzle?
Anyone could see a fully operational manned launch would've
exploded at staging without hope.
Remember the first shuttle launch? Would they be high fiving if
that launch had similar results...destroying the pad, exploding
at staging....?
I'm just saying that labeling that launch as a success and 'as expected'
is bullshit. They are releasing only good new, and hiding the bad news.
Which is technically referred to as politicizing science.
Which turns science into bullshit, as the ends justify the results.
>
SEN...@argo.rhein-neckar.de
>Handwaving twaddle and self important smoke screen noted, along with
>the inability or unwillingness to adress the points raised.
Derek, that is exactly how I see your postings in the last few years
and specially in this thread. Everyone here is free to take his own
conclusion.
John Doe
> The point was that from what I can gather, the damage to the launch pad
> means the new tower, which was planned for the same site, will have
> to be redesigned. Look at the launch again, it came off the pad sideways
> or already pitching over.
Is it confirmed that the damage to the pad was due to the immediate
"tilting" of the rocket ?
Would the lack of SSMEs and another SRB have caused the exhaust of the
one SRB to be different ?
For instance, with an SSME next to an SRB, would the SSME exhaust cause
some "vaccum" to be created between the 2 exhausts which would help
direct the SRB exhaust towards the SSME exhaust ? Or are the forces so
strong that this would be irrelevant ?
And in terms of a final configuration, will Ares-I always be attached to
a shuttle SRB attach point ? Or will they eventually modify the launch
platform to place the Ares-1 more to the centre of the launch platform ?
Me
> "Brian Thorn" <bthor...@suddenlink.net> wrote in message
>
> news:hbn8f590ec6jlemvt...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 21:41:35 -0500, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
> > <mooregr_delet3t...@greenms.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Can you document any statement saying that launch pad
> >>> was never to be used again dated ....before.... the launch?
>
> >>No, I can't find such a document because that's not what I said. I said the
> >>TOWER is not to be used again. There's quite a few mentions of this. And
> >>LC-39B is designated for Ares-I with LC-39A as primary for Ares-V and a
> >>backup to Ares-I.
>
> > And here's a 2007 artist's concept of Ares I on the pad, with the
> > Shuttle-era FSS and RSS long gone...
>
>
> > So scrapping the old tower has clearly been planned for years.
>
> The point was that from what I can gather, the damage to the launch pad
> means the new tower, which was planned for the same site, will have
> to be redesigned. Look at the launch again, it came off the pad sideways
> or already pitching over.
>
No, it doesn't. It is being built with this maneuver in mind. Th
Me
1. > If they 'expected' the launch pad to be scorched, why was the
> obsolete shuttle fuel lines still full of hydrazine, which leaked
> out after launch causing a safety issue for those that had to
> go out and cap the leaks?
>
2. > If they expected that damage at at launch, why the talk of a
> redesign to the new pad?
>
3. > And we all witnessed the gap at staging open, then close,
sending the
> second stage quickly tumbling. If that was expected why
> didn't they say so right away? Instead of first admitting there
> was an 'issue', then backtracking to say all is fine?
>
You are seeing things that are not there. There is no misleading
1. Because:
A: up until this summer, the pad was still active for the shuttle
B. It takes a lot to clean, purge and passive all the lines on the
pad. This was going be done later when the pad is going thru full
deactivation
2. There is no talk of redesign
3. There is no problem here, because the upperstage simulator did not
have ullage rockets which would increase the separation
Derek Lyons
>
>>Handwaving twaddle and self important smoke screen noted, along with
>>the inability or unwillingness to adress the points raised.
>
>Derek, that is exactly how I see your postings in the last few years
>and specially in this thread. Everyone here is free to take his own
>conclusion.
ROTFLMAO.
Jonathan
"John Doe" <jd...@doe.org> wrote in message
news:00732a93$0$26887$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
> Jonathan wrote:
>
>> The point was that from what I can gather, the damage to the launch pad
>> means the new tower, which was planned for the same site, will have
>> to be redesigned. Look at the launch again, it came off the pad sideways
>> or already pitching over.
>
> Is it confirmed that the damage to the pad was due to the immediate
> "tilting" of the rocket ?
All I know is from this quote below, which states the damage was
caused by the 'pad avoidance maneuver'. I would be vey surprised
if this is what they mean by "behaved as expected". Wouldn't the
idea of such a maneuver to be to prevent damage?
Pad damage
"Approximately two hours after launch of Ares I-X, safing crews
entering pad LC-39B reported a small cloud of residual
nitrogen tetroxide leaking from an obsolete shuttle oxidizer line...
At 8:40am on October 29, 2009, a hydrazine leak was detected
on the 95-foot-level...."
"Due to the Pad Avoidance Maneuver performed by Ares I-X,
shortly after liftoff, the Fixed Service Structure at LC-39B
received significantly more direct rocket exhaust than occurs
during a normal Space Shuttle launch. The resulting damage
has been reported as "substantial," with both pad elevators
rendered inoperable, all communication lines between the pad
and launch control destroyed and all outdoor megaphones melted.
The vehicle-facing portions of the Fixed Service Structure appear
to have suffered extreme heat damage and scorching, as do the
hinge columns supporting the Rotating Service Structure.[19]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares_I-X
>
>
> Would the lack of SSMEs and another SRB have caused the exhaust of the
> one SRB to be different ?
>
> For instance, with an SSME next to an SRB, would the SSME exhaust cause
> some "vaccum" to be created between the 2 exhausts which would help
> direct the SRB exhaust towards the SSME exhaust ? Or are the forces so
> strong that this would be irrelevant ?
From what I've heard they expected Ares would tend to jump off
the pad at some angle, not as straight as a shuttle. So reading between
the lines all I can guess is this 'pad avoidance maneuver' was meant
to deal with that. But the extensive damage to the pad just seems
to contradict their early statements of success. I mean from what I
could see of the launch, the thing looked to be hiking over some 15 deg
before it even clears the tower. I doubt that's what they intended
especially if it leaves behind a scorched pad.
That just doesn't make any sense.
>
>
> And in terms of a final configuration, will Ares-I always be attached to
> a shuttle SRB attach point ? Or will they eventually modify the launch
> platform to place the Ares-1 more to the centre of the launch platform ?
I'm looking at this whole project from more of a political perspective.
And I think all these problems, from launch to staging, is the last
straw for an unpopular idea as returning men to the Moon.
I strongly doubt there will be another Ares launch at all.
I think between the LCROSS mission last month, which was
meant to find enough water on the Moon for a colony, apparently
failed to find any. And now the problems of Ares that's it.
Time to find another goal.
Executive Summary
NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER EXPLORATORY RESEARCH
AND TECHNOLOGY (SERT) PROGRAM
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1
Derek Lyons
>Wouldn't the idea of such a maneuver to be to prevent damage?
No, the idea of the maneuver was not to prevent damage. You've been
told this on multiple occasions.
Jeff Findley
"Derek Lyons" <fair...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4af9ef88....@news.supernews.com...
> "Jonathan" <Ho...@Again.net> wrote:
>
>>Wouldn't the idea of such a maneuver to be to prevent damage?
>
> No, the idea of the maneuver was not to prevent damage. You've been
> told this on multiple occasions.
The idea is to prevent Ares I from hitting the tower. That's why it's
called a pad avoidance maneuver. Since this wasn't an operational launch,
and it wasn't a proper Ares I tower, NASA's public facing side doesn't seem
to be worried at all by the damage. After all, it's not an obvious crew
safety problem. That said, the damage should give the engineers good data
which will help them harden the real Ares I tower. Ares I-Y won't fly until
2014 at the earliest, so NASA literally has years to come up with fixes to
keep the new Ares I pad from getting cooked and scoured on every launch.
Ares I has much bigger problems. So far, I have not heard of a viable fix
for the launch escape system not clearing the SRB fragmentation zone during
an abort near max-Q, which is a crew safety problem (the Orion parachutes
simply can't handle that environment).
Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon
John Doe
> The idea is to prevent Ares I from hitting the tower. That's why it's
> called a pad avoidance maneuver.
Shouldn't "don't burn the tower to a crisp" also have fairly high priority ?
And the question beckons: Did NAS engineers predict this damage ? (or
the risk of damage) ? Or were they told that damage to the tower was
inconsequential since it is to be torn down anyways (and perhaps
garantees the tower isn't returned to shuttle service.)
In terms of the launch platform, shouldn't the rocket wait a few seconds
before tilting so that its exhaust remains aimed at the flame trench
below as long as possible instead of aiming the exhaust at the surface
of the MLP once tilted ?
Once tilted, it is possible that the exhaust hit the surface of the MLP
(instead of going down the trench) and was then deflected towards the
tower causing the damage ?
Just how difficult would it be to modify the MLP so that the rocket
would be in the middle (where SSMEs were) and having a wider hole to
allow the exhaust to still go down the trench even after an immediate
tilt ? Since they nwo have 4-5 years before the next launch, wouldn't
they have plenty of time to do this ?
> Ares I has much bigger problems. So far, I have not heard of a viable fix
> for the launch escape system not clearing the SRB fragmentation zone during
> an abort near max-Q, which is a crew safety problem
This is a "paperwork" problem since the likely hood of this system being
needed is low. However, damaging the tower after every launch would
severely restrict launch rate. Remember that Ares I will be used to go
to and from the space station. (about its only use). So being able to do
3-4 launches per year would be desirable.
Me
> 1. Shouldn't "don't burn the tower to a crisp" also have fairly high priority ?
>
> 2. And the question beckons: Did NAS engineers predict this damage ? (or
> the risk of damage) ? Or were they told that damage to the tower was
> inconsequential since it is to be torn down anyways (and perhaps
> garantees the tower isn't returned to shuttle service.)
>
> 3. In terms of the launch platform, shouldn't the rocket wait a few seconds
> before tilting so that its exhaust remains aimed at the flame trench
> below as long as possible instead of aiming the exhaust at the surface
> of the MLP once tilted ?
>
> 4. Once tilted, it is possible that the exhaust hit the surface of the MLP
> (instead of going down the trench) and was then deflected towards the
> tower causing the damage ?
>
> 5. Just how difficult would it be to modify the MLP so that the rocket
> would be in the middle (where SSMEs were) and having a wider hole to
> allow the exhaust to still go down the trench even after an immediate
> tilt ? Since they nwo have 4-5 years before the next launch, wouldn't
> they have plenty of time to do this ?
>
1. Not for the one time only Ares I-X. The pad configuration is
different for Ares I
2. Both
3. No, it needs to clear the tower in case of a gust of wind. Saturn
V did the same thing.
4. That was some of the cause, but most was direct impingement.
5. There is a new MLP being built right now to negate this issue.
I don't know why you are getting into a tizzy over this. There is no
problem. This was a one time only test and the fix has been a
standard practice.
Also, this was a NASA mission which has more publicity and is more
visible to the public.
Did did you hear about the damage to the Delta IV pad when the first
heavy flew? Or when the first 5 solid Atlas V flew?
Me
> From what I've heard they expected Ares would tend to jump off
> the pad at some angle, not as straight as a shuttle. So reading between
> the lines all I can guess is this '' was meant
> to deal with that. But the extensive damage to the pad just seems
> to contradict their early statements of success. I mean from what I
> could see of the launch, the thing looked to be hiking over some 15 deg
> before it even clears the tower. I doubt that's what they intended
> especially if it leaves behind a scorched pad.
>
> That just doesn't make any sense.
> I'm looking at this whole project from more of a political perspective.
> And I think all these problems, from launch to staging, is the last
> straw for an unpopular idea as returning men to the Moon.
The pad avoidance maneuver keeps the vehicle from hitting the tower.
See Saturn V.
The shuttle does not go straight up. It "walks" across the pad in the
direction going from the orbiter to the ET. The pad takes this into
account.
There is no political fallout from the pad damage. Nor was there a
staging problem.
Pat Flannery
> 2014 at the earliest, so NASA literally has years to come up with fixes to
> keep the new Ares I pad from getting cooked and scoured on every launch.
Ares 1-Y isn't going to fly at all, at least with a live upper stage:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/Flighttest110409.xml&headline=NASA%20Drops%20Ares%20I-Y%20Flight%20Test
Pat
John Doe
> 3. No, it needs to clear the tower in case of a gust of wind. Saturn
> V did the same thing.
How/when is the titling calculated ? Does mission control look at wind
patterns and calculate the tilting amount/direction based on current
wing peaks ? Average wind speed ? Or does the rocket have direct
connection to an an�mometer to calculate tilt at the very last second
before liftoff ?
> 5. There is a new MLP being built right now to negate this issue.
Ah, this is smarter. I take it that access arms between tower and rocket
will be much longer than for the shuttle system ? Will the new MLP be
generally the same size concept with just the top platform being
different, or is is a radical redesign with very few systems/rooms inside ?
Would they be simplifying connections between pad and MLP and between
MLP and rocket with "network" connectors (such as ethernet or 1553 (or
whatever the number is) instead of having special connectors with a
gazillion pins ?
> I don't know why you are getting into a tizzy over this.
This isn't a tizzy. Just trying to understand the context of the results
of that flight.
The shot to the moon seemed to have a whole lot of tests one after the
other to evolve the rockets and really advance things. This Ares thing
seems to have stalled since 2004 and not gone anywhere, and this
Ares-1-X was the first sign of any deliverable and it wasn't imporessive
considering it was just a standard Shuttle SRB that was cannabalised.
Was the big achievement the flight management software ? Was this all
new ? Or did they recycle code from other rockets ? Will this software
work on the real McCoy, or will they need to make major modifications
for the real rocket ?
Me
1. > How/when is the titling calculated ? Does mission control look
at wind
> patterns and calculate the tilting amount/direction based on current
> wing peaks ? Average wind speed ? Or does the rocket have direct
> connection to an anémometer to calculate tilt at the very last second
> before liftoff ?
>
2. > Ah, this is smarter. I take it that access arms between tower and
rocket
> will be much longer than for the shuttle system ? Will the new MLP be
> generally the same size concept with just the top platform being
> different, or is is a radical redesign with very few systems/rooms inside ?
>
3. Would they be simplifying connections between pad and MLP and
between
> MLP and rocket with "network" connectors (such as ethernet or 1553 (or
> whatever the number is) instead of having special connectors with a
> gazillion pins ?
>
4. > Was the big achievement the flight management software ? Was
this all
> new ? Or did they recycle code from other rockets ? Will this software
> work on the real McCoy, or will they need to make major modifications
> for the real rocket ?
1. It flies the same profile for each mission and the trajectory is
base on worse case conditions
2. The platform will be different but the same size
3. That is the plan
4. Ares I-X used Atlas V avionics. The algorithms will be the same
but Ares I will have different avionics and software
Go to NASASpaceflight.com
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
them.
That still doesn't validate Jonathan's pants bunching up quite so tightly.
"Me" <charlie...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:88059824-88ba-47d1...@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Also, this was a NASA mission which has more publicity and is more
visible to the public.
Did did you hear about the damage to the Delta IV pad when the first
heavy flew? Or when the first 5 solid Atlas V flew?
--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
>
> The shot to the moon seemed to have a whole lot of tests one after the
> other to evolve the rockets and really advance things. This Ares thing
> seems to have stalled since 2004 and not gone anywhere, and this
> Ares-1-X was the first sign of any deliverable and it wasn't imporessive
> considering it was just a standard Shuttle SRB that was cannabalised.
>
First sign only because you haven't been looking. Recall the 5 segment SRB
test done 2 months ago.
There have also been tests done on the Orion capsule.
As for the shot to the Moon, Apollo 4 flew unmanned, and 2 flights (of the
Saturn V) later, Apollo 8 was going to the Moon.
I'm not sure I'd say that's a whole lot of tests.
Pat Flannery
> Did did you hear about the damage to the Delta IV pad when the first
> heavy flew?
In that case I did, although they were more concerned about damage to
the vehicle than the pad from the hydrogen explosion down in the blast
trench.
Or when the first 5 solid Atlas V flew?
They got pad damage on that one?
Here's stills and video of the Ares chutes malfunctioning BTW:
http://spaceflightnow.com/ares1x/091102video/
Pat
Pat Flannery
>
Which successfully demonstrated lithobraking on landing during the
parachute test. :-)
Pat
John Doe
> As for the shot to the Moon, Apollo 4 flew unmanned, and 2 flights (of the
> Saturn V) later, Apollo 8 was going to the Moon.
But weren't there a succession of Mercury and Gemini launches which
evolved into Apollo vehicles ?
I can understand that they may not have wanted to cannabalise the launch
pad until the end of shuttle was near enough (aka: now). So having the
first test launch now can be understood.
However, I would have expected that during those 5 years without a
launch pad, the vehicle would have progressed to be much closer to the
planned Ares product.
Taking a standard shuttle SRB and attaching a dummy top to it doesn't
seem like a whole lot of achievement, especially if they used
guidance/navigation software that won't even be used un the final
vehicle. At the very least, they should have used a 5 segment booster.
During the 1960s, it seems that 5 years gave a hell of a lot more progress.
Me
> But weren't there a succession of Mercury and Gemini launches which
> evolved into Apollo vehicles ?
>
No, they were completely different vehicles.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
news:007244fa$0$1465$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
> Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
>
>> As for the shot to the Moon, Apollo 4 flew unmanned, and 2 flights (of
>> the
>> Saturn V) later, Apollo 8 was going to the Moon.
>
> But weren't there a succession of Mercury and Gemini launches which
> evolved into Apollo vehicles ?
Nope. Saturn V was a completely new vehicle.
In fact the Apollo capsule design was started in the early 60s and failed to
take advantage of some lessons learned from Gemini.
Apollo 1 didn't occur until 1967, over 5 years from the first discussion of
the Apollo program.
>
> I can understand that they may not have wanted to cannabalise the launch
> pad until the end of shuttle was near enough (aka: now). So having the
> first test launch now can be understood.
>
> However, I would have expected that during those 5 years without a
> launch pad, the vehicle would have progressed to be much closer to the
> planned Ares product.
If you ignore the testing that has been done, you'd be right. But there has
been mockups, boiler plates and testing done. The Orion capsule for example
has done some water recovery testing with Navy help.
Derek Lyons
>Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
>
>> As for the shot to the Moon, Apollo 4 flew unmanned, and 2 flights (of the
>> Saturn V) later, Apollo 8 was going to the Moon.
>
>But weren't there a succession of Mercury and Gemini launches which
>evolved into Apollo vehicles ?
No. Apollo design began as Mercury was starting to fly and was
largely frozen before Gemini flew.
>During the 1960s, it seems that 5 years gave a hell of a lot more progress.
Only because you don't seem all that familiar with what actually
happened in the 1960's.
Rick Jones
> Nope. Saturn V was a completely new vehicle.
Even with the leverage from the Saturn I?
rick jones
--
Process shall set you free from the need for rational thought.
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...
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"Rick Jones" <rick....@hp.com> wrote in message
news:hdclqi$aj4$1...@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
> In sci.space.policy "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
> <mooregr_d...@greenms.com> wrote:
>> Nope. Saturn V was a completely new vehicle.
>
> Even with the leverage from the Saturn I?
To be fair, you're right, there was some cross-over, but even the shared
parts had differences.
But the S-IC was obviously completely new.
As was the S-II.
The S-IVB was common, but even then, there were differences between the 200
and 500 series (the 200 being used for the Saturn IB). (The S-IV had further
differences, 6 engines vs. 1, this was used on the Saturn I).
>
> rick jones
> --
> Process shall set you free from the need for rational thought.
> 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...
Jeff Findley
> Jeff Findley wrote:
>
>> The idea is to prevent Ares I from hitting the tower. That's why it's
>> called a pad avoidance maneuver.
>
> Shouldn't "don't burn the tower to a crisp" also have fairly high priority
> ?
Why? NASA wasn't intending to use that tower anymore anyway.
>> Ares I has much bigger problems. So far, I have not heard of a viable
>> fix
>> for the launch escape system not clearing the SRB fragmentation zone
>> during
>> an abort near max-Q, which is a crew safety problem
>
> This is a "paperwork" problem since the likely hood of this system being
> needed is low. However, damaging the tower after every launch would
> severely restrict launch rate. Remember that Ares I will be used to go
> to and from the space station. (about its only use). So being able to do
> 3-4 launches per year would be desirable.
It's not a "paperwork" problem to have a "black zone" in your launch
trajectory. This is especially true since Ares I was supposed to be one of
the safest crew launch options studied. Obviously this isn't the case if
the "black zone" can't be gotten rid of completely. No amount of
"paperwork" will do that.
Jeff Findley
> Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
>
>> As for the shot to the Moon, Apollo 4 flew unmanned, and 2 flights (of
>> the
>> Saturn V) later, Apollo 8 was going to the Moon.
>
> But weren't there a succession of Mercury and Gemini launches which
> evolved into Apollo vehicles ?
Not really. Maybe you should read some actual space history.
> During the 1960s, it seems that 5 years gave a hell of a lot more
> progress.
NASA had a blank check during the 60's due to the Cold War. Look at a graph
of NASA funding adjusted for inflation (Google it). It's very enlightening.
Jeff Findley
"Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
news:d6mdnYxOA4zGFmTX...@posted.northdakotatelephone...
I've come to the conclusion that Ares I is full of FAIL.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
news:52de9$4af9e5aa$927a2cda$13...@FUSE.NET...
>
>
> I've come to the conclusion that Ares I is full of FAIL.
>
To quote a classic movie:
"Mr. McKittrick, after very careful consideration, sir, I've come to the
conclusion that your new defense system sucks. "
Jonathan
> The shuttle does not go straight up. It "walks" across the pad in the
> direction going from the orbiter to the ET. The pad takes this into
> account.
> There is no political fallout from the pad damage. Nor was there a
> staging problem.
I can see you didn't watch the launch.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9e1_1256764383
How can you feel comfortable with such a tall rocket leaving
the pad at the steep angle we witnessed? The scorched pad
only helps confirm that this is a design issue, implying a serious
redesign (read delay) is likely.
And the staging was just as obviously flawed, and fatally so.
Watch carefully as the booster flames out, then separates and
just as the booster separation thrusters fired, the booster
flares up again sending it into the upper stage. This is the
only explanation for the fact that both stages started
tumbling at the exact moment the booster thrusters fired
Because the two were in contact when the separation
thrusters fired. That contact would have destroyed the
upper stage bell and the whole thing probably would
have exploded seconds after staging....killing everyone.
That is the clear visual evidence as it stands now.
NASA has yet to release any data or videos
that say otherwise.
All these problems and the time to fix means two things.
One, that Congress will probably cancel the whole program
in the next couple of months, if not sooner.
Two, that the military replacement for the shuttle is now
the front runner. Our efforts should move in that direction.
In the eight years or so before an Ares sees a manned
flight, we could have much lower cost to orbit in a
reusable and much more versatile vehicle.
U.S. Air Force Aims to Launch Space Plane Next Year
"As a reusable space plane, the intent of the craft is to
serve as a testbed for dozens of technologies in airframe,
propulsion and operation, and other items in the hopes
of making space transportation and operations significantly
more affordable. "
http://www.space.com/news/090602-x-37b-space-plane.html
Derek Lyons
>x"John Doe" <jd...@doe.org> wrote in message
>news:007244fa$0$1465$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>> Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
>>
>>> As for the shot to the Moon, Apollo 4 flew unmanned, and 2 flights (of
>>> the
>>> Saturn V) later, Apollo 8 was going to the Moon.
>>
>> But weren't there a succession of Mercury and Gemini launches which
>> evolved into Apollo vehicles ?
>
>Nope. Saturn V was a completely new vehicle.
Not only was it a completely new vehicle - key components (like the
engines) were under development considerably before they decided to
build the Saturn V itself.
Initial work on what became the F1 dates back to (IIRC) 1956.
Rick Jones
> To quote a classic movie:
> "Mr. McKittrick, after very careful consideration, sir, I've come to
> the conclusion that your new defense system sucks. "
and to be certain, we could expect the Ares1 equivalent of
Mr. McKittrick to respond in a similar vein as in the movie:
McKittrick: I don't have to take that, you pig-eyed sack of sh**.
General Beringer: Oh, I was hoping for something a little better than
that from you, sir. A man of your education.
:)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086567/quotes
rick jones
--
No need to believe in either side, or any side. There is no cause.
There's only yourself. The belief is in your own precision. - Joubert
Derek Lyons
>How can you feel comfortable with such a tall rocket leaving
>the pad at the steep angle we witnessed?
Because I have an understanding of the issues involved, I'm easily
comfortable with it. It's those who can't be bothered that have
problems.
>The scorched pad only helps confirm that this is a design issue,
>implying a serious redesign (read delay) is likely.
Given that you continue to spread this falsehood - one can only
conclude you are either an idiot or a wilful liar.
>Watch carefully as the booster flames out, then separates and
>just as the booster separation thrusters fired, the booster
>flares up again sending it into the upper stage. This is the
>only explanation for the fact that both stages started
>tumbling at the exact moment the booster thrusters fired
No, it's not the only explanation. But it's not like you've ever let
small things like facts divert you from your trolling.
Brian Thorn
wrote:
I actually think Ares I-X Prime makes more sense anyway. Test the Five
Segment SRB, a real prototype Orion, the high-altitude abort system,
and the new MLP in 2012 instead of waiting on J-2X in 2013-14. If we
find out that the Five Segment SRB is a killer, or that Stage
Seperation is truly a serious problem, we find out two years sooner.
Brian
Brian Thorn
>> As for the shot to the Moon, Apollo 4 flew unmanned, and 2 flights (of the
>> Saturn V) later, Apollo 8 was going to the Moon.
>
>But weren't there a succession of Mercury and Gemini launches which
>evolved into Apollo vehicles ?
No, they were a succession of independent programs. In particular,
Apollo's design predated Gemini, which was initiated to get critical
experience Mercury was unable to provide and before Apollo would be
available. Gemini did evolve from Mercury (it started as Mercury
Mk.II) but Apollo did not (Mercury and Gemini were build by McDonnell,
Apollo by North American.) And the launch vehicles had nothing in
common.
Keep in mind that the U.S. is today also running three independent
manned space programs: Shuttle, Space Station, and Constellation, on a
small fraction of the 1960s budget.
>I can understand that they may not have wanted to cannabalise the launch
>pad until the end of shuttle was near enough (aka: now). So having the
>first test launch now can be understood.
And was intended to be many months ago, but Hubble went kaput in orbit
and the schedule changed.
>At the very least, they should have used a 5 segment booster.
Won't be ready until 2012.
>During the 1960s, it seems that 5 years gave a hell of a lot more progress.
At many times the budget.
Brian
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
> In sci.space.policy "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
> <mooregr_d...@greenms.com> wrote:
>> To quote a classic movie:
>
>> "Mr. McKittrick, after very careful consideration, sir, I've come to
>> the conclusion that your new defense system sucks. "
>
> and to be certain, we could expect the Ares1 equivalent of
> Mr. McKittrick to respond in a similar vein as in the movie:
>
> McKittrick: I don't have to take that, you pig-eyed sack of sh**.
>
> General Beringer: Oh, I was hoping for something a little better than
> that from you, sir. A man of your education.
I had forgotten the come back line. It is great.
Beringer was one of my favorite characters in that movie.
I also always wish that John Spencer's character (Leo McGarry) had made a
reference to his days as a missile silo officer. (Since his character did
mention he was a former Air Force officer.)
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
news:oj5kf5500hgsbqf7a...@4ax.com...
Yeah, my initial reaction is that this isn't that bad of an idea in several
ways.
Brian Thorn
>In terms of the launch platform, shouldn't the rocket wait a few seconds
> before tilting so that its exhaust remains aimed at the flame trench
>below as long as possible instead of aiming the exhaust at the surface
>of the MLP once tilted ?
Tower clear for Ares 1X was at almost exactly T+3 secs. Sort of
defeats the purpose of the tower avoidance maneuver if you wait to
initiate it until after Tower Clear...
Brian
Brian Thorn
<mooregr_d...@greenms.com> wrote:
>I also always wish that John Spencer's character (Leo McGarry) had made a
>reference to his days as a missile silo officer. (Since his character did
>mention he was a former Air Force officer.)
The other guy in the silo was Michael Madsen. A lot of later-famous
people in that movie!
Brian
Pat Flannery
> Initial work on what became the F1 dates back to (IIRC) 1956.
Yeah, its original development was started by the military, but even
they didn't know what exactly they were going to use a engine that
powerful for.
Probably Lunex or Horizon for the military bases on the Moon.
Pat
John Doe
>>At the very least, they should have used a 5 segment booster.
>
> Won't be ready until 2012.
Since they've already done a ground test of a 5 segment one, a 5 segment
version of Ares-1-X wouldn't be that far off, would it ?
In terms of structure, Does the 5 segment one use the same casings as a
4 segment one, or do they need to be seriously redesigned ?
Have they worked out how to lay the explosive/solid fuel inside the
casings to produce a sustainable thrust ? Or is that still a work in
progress that will require many more ground tests until they get it right ?
John Doe
> Tower clear for Ares 1X was at almost exactly T+3 secs. Sort of
> defeats the purpose of the tower avoidance maneuver if you wait to
> initiate it until after Tower Clear...
During just 3 seconds, how strong would the winds have to be to cause
the rocket to get uncomfortably close to the tower considering its mass ?
In terms of the "sail" effect, how does Ares1 compare against the
Shuttle ? Would the wind really accelerate it more than it does the
shuttle ? Does the rocket actually offer greater surface to the wind per
unit of mass than does the shuttle ?
Does Soyuz perform a similar procedure at liftoff ? It appears to be
straighter up. (but then, we don't have as many views of its launch as
we do the shuttle).
Pat Flannery
> I actually think Ares I-X Prime makes more sense anyway. Test the Five
> Segment SRB, a real prototype Orion, the high-altitude abort system,
> and the new MLP in 2012 instead of waiting on J-2X in 2013-14. If we
> find out that the Five Segment SRB is a killer, or that Stage
> Seperation is truly a serious problem, we find out two years sooner.
The more intermediate launches you stick between design and fully
operational form, the more money you spend and the more the program
drags out.
Pat
Jeff Findley
> In sci.space.policy "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
> <mooregr_d...@greenms.com> wrote:
>> Nope. Saturn V was a completely new vehicle.
>
> Even with the leverage from the Saturn I?
The Saturn I was a stop-gap measure which led to the Saturn IB. Not much on
the Saturn I was common with the Saturn V.
The only thing the Saturn IB had in common with the Saturn V was the upper
stage, and even that had minor differences between the Saturn IB and Saturn
V versions. Still, the Saturn IB flights did provide flight experience with
the upper stage.
The Saturn V second stage shared the J-2 engine with the Saturn IB upper
stage (Saturn V third stage), but the stages had little else in common. The
Saturn V first stage had close to nothing in common with anything on the
Saturn I.
Jeff Findley
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_d...@greenms.com> wrote in message
news:8_idna7Ha_fgQ2TX...@earthlink.com...
>
> "Rick Jones" <rick....@hp.com> wrote in message
> news:hdclqi$aj4$1...@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
>> In sci.space.policy "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
>> <mooregr_d...@greenms.com> wrote:
>>> Nope. Saturn V was a completely new vehicle.
>>
>> Even with the leverage from the Saturn I?
>
> To be fair, you're right, there was some cross-over, but even the shared
> parts had differences.
>
> But the S-IC was obviously completely new.
> As was the S-II.
>
> The S-IVB was common, but even then, there were differences between the
> 200 and 500 series (the 200 being used for the Saturn IB). (The S-IV had
> further differences, 6 engines vs. 1, this was used on the Saturn I).
Different types of engines as well. S-IV used six RL-10 engines and S-IVB
used one J-2. Flying S-IVB on Saturn IB did give flight experience with the
J-2, five of which were used on the S-II stage (which had little else in
common with the S-IVB).
The Saturn V program really was a crash program. In my opinion, there were
too few test flights, as evidenced by the fairly serious problems which
continued to crop up on the manned flights.
Unfortunately, such a "lean" test program is now seen as the norm in US
launch vehicle development. The Ares I program has precious few test
flights scheduled before NASA intends to fly astronauts on it.
Jeff Findley
Ares I will still drag out due to the J-2X engine development program.
Nothing can stop that short of an infusion of several billions of dollars,
and even then, there are limits to how much you can speed up engine
development.
NASA's shell game of claiming the J-2X would be simple to develop, since
it's based on the venerable J-2, is coming back to bite them in the @$$.
Engine development isn't simple. Too bad they couldn't have crammed enough
RL-10 engines on the Ares I upper stage to make it work. The RL-10 is one
workhorse of an upper stage engine, and it's still flying today.
Me
>
1. > In terms of the "sail" effect, how does Ares1 compare against
the
> Shuttle ? Would the wind really accelerate it more than it does the
> shuttle ? Does the rocket actually offer greater surface to the wind per
> unit of mass than does the shuttle ?
>
2. > Does Soyuz perform a similar procedure at liftoff ? It appears
to be
> straighter up. (but then, we don't have as many views of its launch as
> we do the shuttle).
1. Shuttle more. It is the length of the vehicle that is the issue.
2. No, it has a different pad design, unique to it
Me
1. > I can see you didn't watch the launch.http://www.liveleak.com/
view?i=9e1_1256764383
>
2. > How can you feel comfortable with such a tall rocket leaving
> the pad at the steep angle we witnessed?
3. The scorched pad
> only helps confirm that this is a design issue, implying a serious
> redesign (read delay) is likely.
>
4. > And the staging was just as obviously flawed, and fatally so.
> Watch carefully as the booster flames out, then separates and
> just as the booster separation thrusters fired, the booster
> flares up again sending it into the upper stage.
5. This is the
> only explanation for the fact that both stages started
> tumbling at the exact moment the booster thrusters fired
6. > Two, that the military replacement for the shuttle is now
> the front runner. Our efforts should move in that direction.
> In the eight years or so before an Ares sees a manned
> flight, we could have much lower cost to orbit in a
> reusable and much more versatile vehicle.
>
Wrong, wrong, wrong. I told before. Why do you make the same claims?
1. I was at the launch
2. Yes, because that is how tall rockets get launched. see Saturn V
3. No it doesn't. This was a one time test launch on a kludge launch
pad. This not the operational launcher
4. There was no contact. The real staging will occur higher up in
altitude, the separation plane will be different and there will be
ullage rockets on the upper stage.
5. Incorrect. The upperstage is unstable and moved on its own
6. Wrong again The X-37 is a spacecraft and not a test of a
launcher.
I am not a fan of Ares I and am against it. But I will always call
out wrong posts.
Brian Thorn
>Brian Thorn wrote:
>
>>>At the very least, they should have used a 5 segment booster.
>>
>> Won't be ready until 2012.
>
>Since they've already done a ground test of a 5 segment one, a 5 segment
>version of Ares-1-X wouldn't be that far off, would it ?
Yes. It was always targeted for availability in 2012, and is actually
pretty close to being on schedule (unlike J-2X.)
>In terms of structure, Does the 5 segment one use the same casings as a
>4 segment one, or do they need to be seriously redesigned ?
Same casings. The company that built the original casings has been
defunct for many years.
>Have they worked out how to lay the explosive/solid fuel inside the
>casings to produce a sustainable thrust ?
Same technique as Shuttle SRB.
>Or is that still a work in
>progress that will require many more ground tests until they get it right ?
Yes, but they're tweaking the pattern based on test firing data to get
the optimum thrust profile.
Brian
Brian Thorn
>> Tower clear for Ares 1X was at almost exactly T+3 secs. Sort of
>> defeats the purpose of the tower avoidance maneuver if you wait to
>> initiate it until after Tower Clear...
>
>During just 3 seconds, how strong would the winds have to be to cause
>the rocket to get uncomfortably close to the tower considering its mass ?
You have to protect against gusts, especially a half-mile from the
seashore.
>In terms of the "sail" effect, how does Ares1 compare against the
>Shuttle ?
Shuttle has more surface area and thus more 'sail', but it also has
widely-spaced SRBs and offset SSMEs that provide finer control and can
more easily counter the sail effect.
>Would the wind really accelerate it more than it does the
>shuttle ? Does the rocket actually offer greater surface to the wind per
>unit of mass than does the shuttle ?
Tall, thin, closely-arranged engine rockets (see also Saturn V) have
to pitch more dramatically in the tower-avoidance maneuver than short,
stubby rockets.
>Does Soyuz perform a similar procedure at liftoff ? It appears to be
>straighter up. (but then, we don't have as many views of its launch as
>we do the shuttle).
No, no tall launch tower at the Soyuz pad...
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Soyuz_TMA-3_launch.jpg
(See also Gemini Titan II.)
Brian
Brian Thorn
wrote:
>> I actually think Ares I-X Prime makes more sense anyway.
>The more intermediate launches you stick between design and fully
>operational form, the more money you spend and the more the program
>drags out.
This isn't an additional "intermediate launch" it is replacing one for
another. But we get it two years earlier. Then we test J-2X on the
fully operational form of Ares I instead of on Ares I-Y, not unlike
the first Saturn IB launch.
Brian
Me
> Brian Thorn wrote:
1. > In terms of structure, Does the 5 segment one use the same
casings as a
> 4 segment one, or do they need to be seriously redesigned ?
>
2. > Have they worked out how to lay the explosive/solid fuel inside
the
> casings to produce a sustainable thrust ? Or is that still a work in
> progress that will require many more ground tests until they get it right ?
1. the same
2. They have done one test firing already
John Doe
> Yes. It was always targeted for availability in 2012, and is actually
> pretty close to being on schedule (unlike J-2X.)
"always" is a bit of a misnomer. When Bush Jr announced this, test
flights were to begin in 2008 and first manned flight in 2010.
Now, it appears that first test flight of an Ares1 rocket will be 2012.
(Ares-1X wasn't really an "Ares" test flight, it was just a demo of a
standalone Shuttle SRB with mock payload on top).
Something just doesn't add up here. Since this is all pork stuff, what
is the Michoud plant going to be doing all those years since it has
stopped making shuttle tanks and there won't be some Ares5 for probably
a decade ? Will the people remain employed and just be sweeping floors
during all those years ?
What is ATK going to be doing if there are no more shuttle SRBs needed,
and Nasa will have a very slow test programme with just a couple of SRBs
needed ? Can all that infrastructure afford to keep all those people
employed when you have a test program going on at a turtle's pace ?
Cosnidering that under the original plan, those companies would be
entering full regular production by 2010 to launch multiple Ares rockets
each year.
Now, we're looking at what 2015 before Ares1 could enter production ? It
isn't just a 5 year gap for a few astronauts not able to get to space,
it is also a 5 year gap of the thousands of employees who were producing
shuttle stuff and will be iddled untiil Ares goes into production.
Pat Flannery
> The Saturn V second stage shared the J-2 engine with the Saturn IB upper
> stage (Saturn V third stage), but the stages had little else in common. The
> Saturn V first stage had close to nothing in common with anything on the
> Saturn I.
There were even fairly substantial differences between the mounting of
the eight H-1 engines on the first stage of the Saturn I versus the
Saturn IB regarding where the turbopump exhaust went.
What Saturn I did was give WvB's Saturn team some experience in building
a large rocket before they had to make a giant one.
Imagine having to go straight from Jupiter to Saturn V?
Korolev never got that stepping stone on the way to the N-1, as the
Saturn I equivalent Soviet rocket - Proton - was built by the competing
Chelomei design bureau, so all Korolev had to go on for practical
experience was his uprated R-7 and some ICBM designs.
Pat
Brian Thorn
>> Yes. It was always targeted for availability in 2012, and is actually
>> pretty close to being on schedule (unlike J-2X.)
>
>"always" is a bit of a misnomer. When Bush Jr announced this, test
>flights were to begin in 2008 and first manned flight in 2010.
Actually, Bush said, "Our second goal is to develop and test a new
spacecraft, the Crew Exploration Vehicle, by 2008, and to conduct the
first manned mission no later than 2014"
http://history.nasa.gov/Bush%20SEP.htm
That should read Bush SEP.htm
Arguably, we're still on schedule! We do have mockup Orions we're
testing... :-)
Bush also said...
"I will call upon Congress to increase NASA's budget by roughly a
billion dollars, spread out over the next five years."
...which never happened.
And of course, that Bush announcement in January 2004 didn't identify
what the booster would be like. The first hard plans came along with
the ESAS report in the summer of 2005, when CLV and CaLV were
announced as the chosen method. And it was another year before the CLV
adopted the Five Segment SRB. Since then, 2012 has been the baseline
"readiness" date for the Five Segment SRB.
>Something just doesn't add up here. Since this is all pork stuff, what
>is the Michoud plant going to be doing all those years since it has
>stopped making shuttle tanks and there won't be some Ares5 for probably
>a decade ? Will the people remain employed and just be sweeping floors
>during all those years ?
Building Ares I Upper Stage.
>Cosnidering that under the original plan, those companies would be
>entering full regular production by 2010 to launch multiple Ares rockets
>each year.
Nope, Bush gave them until 2014. And then didn't fund them.
Brian
tab...@intellex.com
<Bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Yup, its justa few odd bits cobbled together. I suspect the only ral data
>they expect to get is that on vibration, and it will be that which dictates
>whether its best to carry on or not.
>
>
>I was listening to some of the astronaut interviews last evening, and
>reading between the lines I feel that they all want an upgraded shuttle
>rather than a tin can to ride in,
>
>Brian
I suppose they could always mount an Apollo-type capsule on top the
the orange External Tank. At least they know the shuttle engines,
external tank, and solid rocket boosters work just fine.
And BTW, they should plan on taking that External Tank all the way
to orbit!!!
Yeah, I know, it will never happen, but it could if some
proper-thinking human being every took charge of NASA. It's still not
too late, although time is growing short.
Right now, they are phasing out the most successful launch system in
history (the shuttle launch system), and won't even have a way to
reach the space station without Russian help for years to come.
How pathetic is that.
Poor NASA, it could have been so good! You had and have all the
equipment and money you needed to do a space station program and a
Moon program and maybe even a Mars (well Phobos) program, and then
ignorant human beings got involved and mucked it all up.
Where's Pat when I need him?
TA
David E. Powell
The shift from Space Station Freedom to the ISS comes to mind.
Pat Flannery
What you are describing is very close to the Jupiter/DIRECT launch
vehicle that was proposed to replace both the Ares 1 and Ares V:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIRECT
The Augustine Commission however seemed to favor something like the old
Shuttle C concept with a capsule atop the cargo pod.
Jupiter/DIRECT was criticized as being too large for just taking Orion
into orbit, and too small for the Lunar mission via Earth orbital
rendezvous and docking.
Pat
Tom Abbott
wrote:
Pat!!! I'm so glad to see you are still around. I've been so
disgusted with the missed opportunities at NASA that I quit reading
the newsgroups for a while.
Yes, I saw that there had been another Augustine Commission, and I
said to myself: I should read it before coming back here, but I have
not had time, and dropped in and saw your name and had to comment a
little.
From your description above, maybe that poor ole External Tank and
the shuttle launch system can still be used like it should have been
used from the beginning.
At least the Augustine commissions have been consistent: they
recommend using the space shuttle launch system much more efficiently,
and as a heavy-lift cargo vehicle. The top people in the field
suggesting the same approach over and over, year after year, and NASA
refuses to pay attention, or at least that was the case in the past.
Perhaps Administrator Griffin will be different. I must say I am
*delighted* that NASA managed to get a repair mission to Hubble in the
mix of launches they have been doing. IMO, that is probably the most
important thing they have done in years.
Anyway, I'll read the Augustine Commission report and "I'll be
back"! as Arnold says :).
TA