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

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?

"Brian Gaff" <Briang1 at (no spam) blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:doBGm.3189$5w5.2347 at (no spam) 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" <Briang1 at (no spam) blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:doBGm.3189$5w5.2347 at (no spam) 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
As was pointed out elsewhere (in a different thread?) none of the NASA

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.

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?


[snip]

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

Jeff Findley wrote:
"Brian Gaff" <Briang1 at (no spam) blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:doBGm.3189$5w5.2347 at (no spam) 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

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?

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

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: briang1 at (no spam) blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________


"Jeff Findley" <jeff.findley at (no spam) ugs.nojunk.com> wrote in message
news:2daa0$4aeafb7c$927a2cda$15404 at (no spam) FUSE.NET...

"Brian Gaff" <Briang1 at (no spam) blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:doBGm.3189$5w5.2347 at (no spam) 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

David Spain <nospam at (no spam) 127.0.0.1> wrote:

Jeff Findley wrote:
"Brian Gaff" <Briang1 at (no spam) blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:doBGm.3189$5w5.2347 at (no spam) 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

"Derek Lyons" <fairwater at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4aecef27.3215853562 at (no spam) 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.

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.

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

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.

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.