 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Space Forum » Ares 1-X now on pad... |
|
Page 2 of 4 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| OM... |
 Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 1:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:26:07 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
<jeff.findley at (no spam) ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
[quote]...Hey, it's not *that* much more advanced than a Redstone when you
look at it. It's really more an aerodynamics test than a full-up
system test.
You're being *very* generous today.
[/quote]
....I was being a little more on the sarcastic side. I originally
wanted to say it was little more than a big bottle rocket.
OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jeff Findley... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:13 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Rick Jones" <rick.jones at (no spam) hp.com> wrote in message
news:hbnkkm$hbp$1 at (no spam) usenet01.boi.hp.com...
[quote]In sci.space.history Jeff Findley <jeff.findley at (no spam) ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
You're being *very* generous today.
Other than the SRB casings, this thing has very little in common
with the actual Ares I design. It's actually a shuttle SRB (four
segment) with a dummy SRB segment on top to "simulate" a five
segment SRB. Of course, everything above the first stage is also
dummy parts to "simulate" an upper stage and an Orion capsule.
Aren't you leaving-out the RCS (?) bits in place to keep the thing
from tumbling arse over teakettle?
[/quote]
The TVC on the first stage, the SRB, is the same as on shuttle. The RCS
could be the design they're planning on using for Ares I, but I seriously
doubt it. For this flight they only need roll control for first stage burn
since the SRB TVC will handle the rest. I'm not sure if Ares I will need
more than roll control on its RCS (for example, to keep the upper stage
pointed in the right direction between first stage separation and successful
start of the upper stage engine).
Actually, even the outer mold-lines of the Orion and its launch escape tower
is different than what is planned for Ares I. This whole Ares I-X flight
really is little more than a stunt. NASA management wanted to get something
flying SOON to "show progress". All other goals, like acquiring good data
for engineering Ares I, seem to be secondary priorities.
Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| hallerb at (no spam) aol.com... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 4:43 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 21, 9:02�pm, OM <o... at (no spam) sci.space.history> wrote:
[quote]On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 00:23:09 GMT, fairwa... at (no spam) gmail.com (Derek Lyons)
wrote:
Jeff isn't interested in honesty or integrity. �He's got an axe to
grind and an agenda to promote.
...Aren't you confusing Jeff with trolls like Elfnazi, "jonathan", Bbo
Hallr and their ilk?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �OM
--
� ]=====================================[
� ] � OMBlog -http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld� [
� ] � � � �Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* � � � � [
� ] � � � � �an obnoxious opinion in your day! � � � � � [
� ]=====================================[
[/quote]
I speak the truth OM and some others dont like this.
examples my prediction of another shuttle accident BEFORE coulmbia,
caused by schedule pressure and management failure.
or my questions before columbia, about a shuttle stuck at station.
i was called chicken little and laughed at, till columbia proved a
shuttle could get stuck at station.
the new manned launcher booster was unnecessary, and solids a very bad
idea.. the new manned launcher should of gone on a existing expendable. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jorge R. Frank... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:07 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Jeff Findley wrote:
[quote]"Rick Jones" <rick.jones at (no spam) hp.com> wrote in message
news:hbnkkm$hbp$1 at (no spam) usenet01.boi.hp.com...
In sci.space.history Jeff Findley <jeff.findley at (no spam) ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
You're being *very* generous today.
Other than the SRB casings, this thing has very little in common
with the actual Ares I design. It's actually a shuttle SRB (four
segment) with a dummy SRB segment on top to "simulate" a five
segment SRB. Of course, everything above the first stage is also
dummy parts to "simulate" an upper stage and an Orion capsule.
Aren't you leaving-out the RCS (?) bits in place to keep the thing
from tumbling arse over teakettle?
The TVC on the first stage, the SRB, is the same as on shuttle. The RCS
could be the design they're planning on using for Ares I, but I seriously
doubt it.
[/quote]
Same control algorithms, different RCS hardware (ICBM heritage, I think). |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Derek Lyons... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:23 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Rick Jones <rick.jones at (no spam) hp.com> wrote:
[quote]In sci.space.history Jeff Findley <jeff.findley at (no spam) ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
You're being *very* generous today.
Other than the SRB casings, this thing has very little in common
with the actual Ares I design. It's actually a shuttle SRB (four
segment) with a dummy SRB segment on top to "simulate" a five
segment SRB. Of course, everything above the first stage is also
dummy parts to "simulate" an upper stage and an Orion capsule.
Aren't you leaving-out the RCS (?) bits in place to keep the thing
from tumbling arse over teakettle?
[/quote]
Jeff isn't interested in honesty or integrity. He's got an axe to
grind and an agenda to promote.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Brian Thorn... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:13:51 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
<jeff.findley at (no spam) ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
[quote]Actually, even the outer mold-lines of the Orion and its launch escape tower
is different than what is planned for Ares I. This whole Ares I-X flight
really is little more than a stunt.
[/quote]
Then so was the first Saturn I launch. The engines and tankage were
all flight-proven, everything above Stage 1 was dummy, and the payload
mockup didn't share Apollo's outer moldline.
No one calls SA-1 a stunt.
Brian |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| OM... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 00:23:09 GMT, fairwater at (no spam) gmail.com (Derek Lyons)
wrote:
[quote]Jeff isn't interested in honesty or integrity. He's got an axe to
grind and an agenda to promote.
[/quote]
....Aren't you confusing Jeff with trolls like Elfnazi, "jonathan", Bbo
Hallr and their ilk?
OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jeff Findley... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 1:00 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Brian Thorn" <bthorn64 at (no spam) suddenlink.net> wrote in message
news:8o9vd5lmmb0vokcvf0vigdo1o8ba6rfdkp at (no spam) 4ax.com...
[quote]On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:13:51 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
jeff.findley at (no spam) ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
Actually, even the outer mold-lines of the Orion and its launch escape
tower
is different than what is planned for Ares I. This whole Ares I-X flight
really is little more than a stunt.
Then so was the first Saturn I launch. The engines and tankage were
all flight-proven, everything above Stage 1 was dummy, and the payload
mockup didn't share Apollo's outer moldline.
No one calls SA-1 a stunt.
[/quote]
True, but in that case NASA needed to launch the Saturn I first stage for
the first time as a flight test. Cluster's last stand needed to prove
itself a bit before trusting it with an upper stage and an Apollo CSM.
Shuttle SRB's have flown many times. The question of Ares I-X is how much
will be learned from this flight which will be applicable to Ares I? I
suppose the jury is still out on that and we'll have to wait and see how the
flight goes and what is learned from the data gathered.
Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Brian Thorn... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 6:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:00:24 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
<jeff.findley at (no spam) ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
[quote]No one calls SA-1 a stunt.
True, but in that case NASA needed to launch the Saturn I first stage for
the first time as a flight test. Cluster's last stand needed to prove
itself a bit before trusting it with an upper stage and an Apollo CSM.
[/quote]
One could also argue that the extreme height/width ratio of Ares I
needs to be proven a bit before trusting it with an upper stage and
Orion CSM. Lord knows, we've been hearing "it will be impossible to
control!" and "the wind will blow it into the tower" often enough for
the last four years.
[quote]Shuttle SRB's have flown many times. The question of Ares I-X is how much
will be learned from this flight which will be applicable to Ares I? I
suppose the jury is still out on that and we'll have to wait and see how the
flight goes and what is learned from the data gathered.
[/quote]
I see it as a confidence exercise for an agency that hasn't fielded a
new launch vehicle since 1981.
Brian |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Fred J. McCall... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 7:11 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Brian Thorn <bthorn64 at (no spam) suddenlink.net> wrote:
:On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:00:24 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
:<jeff.findley at (no spam) ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
:
:>> No one calls SA-1 a stunt.
:>
:>True, but in that case NASA needed to launch the Saturn I first stage for
:>the first time as a flight test. Cluster's last stand needed to prove
:>itself a bit before trusting it with an upper stage and an Apollo CSM.
:
:One could also argue that the extreme height/width ratio of Ares I
:needs to be proven a bit before trusting it with an upper stage and
:Orion CSM. Lord knows, we've been hearing "it will be impossible to
:control!" and "the wind will blow it into the tower" often enough for
:the last four years.
:
But until you've got real engines and real structure test flights
won't tell you anything about controllability or potential resonant
frequencies.
:>Shuttle SRB's have flown many times. The question of Ares I-X is how much
:>will be learned from this flight which will be applicable to Ares I? I
:>suppose the jury is still out on that and we'll have to wait and see how the
:>flight goes and what is learned from the data gathered.
:
:I see it as a confidence exercise for an agency that hasn't fielded a
:new launch vehicle since 1981.
:
Launching something they've already launched but that is made to LOOK
like the new vehicle build confidence? They DO have problems at NASA,
then.
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Brian Thorn... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 10:07 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:11:40 -0700, Fred J. McCall
<fjmccall at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]But until you've got real engines and real structure test flights
won't tell you anything about controllability or potential resonant
frequencies.
[/quote]
Sure it will, it will verify NASA's modeling tools. If 1X behaves the
way the modeling says it will, they can be much more comfortable that
the modeling for the fullscale Ares I will be accurate as well.
Conversly, if 1X goes out of control, crashes into the tower, or
shakes itself to pieces, don't you think that might be a good
indication not to move forward with Ares I?
[quote]Launching something they've already launched but that is made to LOOK
like the new vehicle build confidence? They DO have problems at NASA,
then.
[/quote]
You're just figuring this out *now*? :-)
Brian |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| OM... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 12:37 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 23:07:52 -0500, Brian Thorn
<bthorn64 at (no spam) suddenlink.net> wrote:
[quote]Sure it will, it will verify NASA's modeling tools. If 1X behaves the
way the modeling says it will, they can be much more comfortable that
the modeling for the fullscale Ares I will be accurate as well.
[/quote]
....Funny thing is, Sy Liebergot basically gave a thumbs-down to that
sort of "on paper" modeling. Turns out that's what caused Skylab to
clusterfuck itself during ascent - they didn't do any serious wind
tunnel testing on how the solar panels would hold up as the stack
approached Max Q, all because the math said it would, and they could
save the money by not testing. Granted, today's computer modeling's at
least two levels more accurate than it was when AAP was dying, but
even though I want to see "The Stick Jr" a success, it won't surprise
me one iota if it EPIC FAILS.
Then again, did anyone notice that the paint job's really reminiscent
of a certain Jupiter-C? Or did it get lost amongst "jonathan's"
trollings?
OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Fred J. McCall... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 12:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Brian Thorn <bthorn64 at (no spam) suddenlink.net> wrote:
:On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:11:40 -0700, Fred J. McCall
:<fjmccall at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
:
:>But until you've got real engines and real structure test flights
:>won't tell you anything about controllability or potential resonant
:>frequencies.
:
:Sure it will, it will verify NASA's modeling tools. If 1X behaves the
:way the modeling says it will, they can be much more comfortable that
:the modeling for the fullscale Ares I will be accurate as well.
:
But since what they're launching bears pretty much no relationship to
the actual vehicle, how does it validate the accuracy of anything?
:
:Conversly, if 1X goes out of control, crashes into the tower, or
:shakes itself to pieces, don't you think that might be a good
:indication not to move forward with Ares I?
:
That's not going to happen and it not happening isn't going to prove
anything at all.
:>Launching something they've already launched but that is made to LOOK
:>like the new vehicle build confidence? They DO have problems at NASA,
:>then.
:
:You're just figuring this out *now*? 
:
I find it hard to believe the problems are THAT big.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Derek Lyons... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:43 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Fred J. McCall <fjmccall at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Launching something they've already launched but that is made to LOOK
like the new vehicle build confidence?
[/quote]
If that were the case with the 1-X, you'd have a point.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| hallerb at (no spam) aol.com... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 2:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote]I see it as a confidence exercise for an agency that hasn't fielded a
new launch vehicle since 1981.
Brian
[/quote]
and shouldnt be doing it today. total waste of bucks and time |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Dec 12, 2009 3:30 am
|
|