| Science Forum Index » Space - Shuttle Forum » Ares 1X Launch results... |
|
Page 1 of 4 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Derek Lyons... |
 Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 9:44 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Lots of self congratulation going on - even though no word of whether
or not it was 100% sucessful. No word on splashdown.
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 |
|
|
|
| Derek Lyons... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 9:45 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
fairwater at (no spam) gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote:
[quote]Lots of self congratulation going on - even though no word of whether
or not it was 100% sucessful. No word on splashdown.
D.
[/quote]
And of couse just as I hit 'send' word came in that the recovery
vessels confirm the stage has been sighted on the surface and intact.
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 |
|
|
|
| Greg D. Moore (Strider)... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 10:21 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Derek Lyons" <fairwater at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ae8665a.2918685906 at (no spam) news.supernews.com...
[quote]Lots of self congratulation going on - even though no word of whether
or not it was 100% sucessful. No word on splashdown.
[/quote]
Definitely a lot of self-congratulations. Let's see what's actually
learned. Other than tribo rule sticks around.
If so, that's going to make Ares-I a really sucky launch vehicle.
--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Cyberia... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 10:43 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_delet3th1s at (no spam) greenms.com> wrote in message
news:H6idnfROso3Z8nXXnZ2dnUVZ_tSdnZ2d at (no spam) earthlink.com...
[quote]"Derek Lyons" <fairwater at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ae8665a.2918685906 at (no spam) news.supernews.com...
Lots of self congratulation going on - even though no word of whether
or not it was 100% sucessful. No word on splashdown.
Definitely a lot of self-congratulations. Let's see what's actually
learned. Other than tribo rule sticks around.
If so, that's going to make Ares-I a really sucky launch vehicle.
[/quote]
It looked to me like the business end of the first stage came *awfully*
close to the various service arms of the pad. I read the SRM was supposed to
gimbal such that it flew away from the pad. The video looks as though the
opposite took place. The aft end approached the pad. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Derek Lyons... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 11:12 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_delet3th1s at (no spam) greenms.com> wrote:
[quote]"Derek Lyons" <fairwater at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ae8665a.2918685906 at (no spam) news.supernews.com...
Lots of self congratulation going on - even though no word of whether
or not it was 100% sucessful. No word on splashdown.
Definitely a lot of self-congratulations. Let's see what's actually
learned. Other than tribo rule sticks around.
If so, that's going to make Ares-I a really sucky launch vehicle.
[/quote]
AIUI: The actual Ares-I will not be as constrained - the
vulnerability to tribo can be vastly mitigated but NASA elected not to
spend the money to do so for this unique one-off launch. You have to
specially certify the coatings used on the vehicle and the electrical
bonding between stages and components (to prevent currents flowing
along the skin and arcing amongst vehicle components).
"Cyberia" <n3wz at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
[quote]It looked to me like the business end of the first stage came *awfully*
close to the various service arms of the pad. I read the SRM was supposed to
gimbal such that it flew away from the pad. The video looks as though the
opposite took place. The aft end approached the pad.
[/quote]
The SRM gimbals to direct the vehicles flight path away from the
tower, not to direct the vehicle away from the tower per se.
If you look at the video frame-by-frame, you can plainly see the
exhaust cloud behind the service arm - the closeness of approach was a
trick of perspective.
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 |
|
|
|
| Greg D. Moore (Strider)... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 11:32 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Derek Lyons" <fairwater at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ae879ee.2923697109 at (no spam) news.supernews.com...
[quote]"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_delet3th1s at (no spam) greenms.com> wrote:
"Derek Lyons" <fairwater at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ae8665a.2918685906 at (no spam) news.supernews.com...
Lots of self congratulation going on - even though no word of whether
or not it was 100% sucessful. No word on splashdown.
Definitely a lot of self-congratulations. Let's see what's actually
learned. Other than tribo rule sticks around.
If so, that's going to make Ares-I a really sucky launch vehicle.
AIUI: The actual Ares-I will not be as constrained - the
vulnerability to tribo can be vastly mitigated but NASA elected not to
spend the money to do so for this unique one-off launch. You have to
specially certify the coatings used on the vehicle and the electrical
bonding between stages and components (to prevent currents flowing
along the skin and arcing amongst vehicle components).
[/quote]
That makes a bit more sense. For a test vehicle, I can see not spending the
money on that.
[quote]
D.
[/quote]
--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jeff Findley... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 11:54 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Derek Lyons" <fairwater at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ae8665a.2918685906 at (no spam) news.supernews.com...
[quote]Lots of self congratulation going on - even though no word of whether
or not it was 100% sucessful. No word on splashdown.
[/quote]
The press conference following is giving some indication that the first
stage did recontact the upper stage simulator after separation, but they're
not outright admitting it yet. This is a problem with SRB's. The thrust
doesn't stop cleanly like a liquid engine. It slowly tails off. And with
the hammer head design of the vehicle, getting a clean separation will be a
challenge.
Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Cyberia... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 11:59 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Jeff Findley" <jeff.findley at (no spam) ugs.nojunk.com> wrote in message
news:d4060$4ae88561$927a2cda$21735 at (no spam) FUSE.NET...
[quote]
"Derek Lyons" <fairwater at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ae8665a.2918685906 at (no spam) news.supernews.com...
Lots of self congratulation going on - even though no word of whether
or not it was 100% sucessful. No word on splashdown.
The press conference following is giving some indication that the first
stage did recontact the upper stage simulator after separation, but
they're not outright admitting it yet. This is a problem with SRB's. The
thrust doesn't stop cleanly like a liquid engine. It slowly tails off.
And with the hammer head design of the vehicle, getting a clean separation
will be a challenge.
[/quote]
I guess that explains the counter-yaw rotation of the second stage at
separation? I know the second stage was unguided, but the sudden yaw seemed
to be a direct consequence of the induced tumble of the first stage, rather
than a random action. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Cyberia... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 12:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Derek Lyons" <fairwater at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ae879ee.2923697109 at (no spam) news.supernews.com...
[quote]"Cyberia" <n3wz at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
It looked to me like the business end of the first stage came *awfully*
close to the various service arms of the pad. I read the SRM was supposed
to
gimbal such that it flew away from the pad. The video looks as though the
opposite took place. The aft end approached the pad.
The SRM gimbals to direct the vehicles flight path away from the
tower, not to direct the vehicle away from the tower per se.
If you look at the video frame-by-frame, you can plainly see the
exhaust cloud behind the service arm - the closeness of approach was a
trick of perspective.
[/quote]
I'm not convinced. I don't know what video you are watching frame-by-frame,
but if you examine the replays you will see from several angles that the aft
end approaches the tower, and does not appear to deviate significantly in
any other direction *but* towards the tower. Perhaps this was intentional so
as to get the nose moving away from it, but in practice it appears to me
that it was the wrong way to go. Better to get the ass end away, cause the
nose and mid-section are already clear at this point.
I hope there is on-board video from vehicle cameras 1 & 2 that do not show
the breakup at liftoff that the downlinked ones did. Then this will perhaps
be more clearly determined. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Derek Lyons... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 12:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Cyberia" <n3wz at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
[quote]
"Derek Lyons" <fairwater at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ae879ee.2923697109 at (no spam) news.supernews.com...
"Cyberia" <n3wz at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
It looked to me like the business end of the first stage came *awfully*
close to the various service arms of the pad. I read the SRM was supposed
to
gimbal such that it flew away from the pad. The video looks as though the
opposite took place. The aft end approached the pad.
The SRM gimbals to direct the vehicles flight path away from the
tower, not to direct the vehicle away from the tower per se.
If you look at the video frame-by-frame, you can plainly see the
exhaust cloud behind the service arm - the closeness of approach was a
trick of perspective.
I'm not convinced. I don't know what video you are watching frame-by-frame,
[/quote]
NASA's VAB camera I believe.
[quote]but if you examine the replays you will see from several angles that the aft
end approaches the tower, and does not appear to deviate significantly in
any other direction *but* towards the tower. Perhaps this was intentional so
as to get the nose moving away from it, but in practice it appears to me
that it was the wrong way to go. Better to get the ass end away, cause the
nose and mid-section are already clear at this point.
[/quote]
If you steer the tail away from the tower, you're steering the
midsection and nose *towards* the tower. Hence, it's better to steer
the tail towards in order to direct the flight path away and onto the
proper trajectory.
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 |
|
|
|
| Derek Lyons... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 12:32 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Jeff Findley" <jeff.findley at (no spam) ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
[quote]
"Derek Lyons" <fairwater at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ae8665a.2918685906 at (no spam) news.supernews.com...
Lots of self congratulation going on - even though no word of whether
or not it was 100% sucessful. No word on splashdown.
The press conference following is giving some indication that the first
stage did recontact the upper stage simulator after separation, but they're
not outright admitting it yet. This is a problem with SRB's.
[/quote]
It's not an insoluble one though. Polaris A1 had serious recontact
problems between the (thrust terminated) second stage and the warhead.
It's a matter of getting the timing right.
[quote]The thrust doesn't stop cleanly like a liquid engine. It slowly tails
off.
[/quote]
Liquid engines doesn't stop cleanly either - they tail off as
propellant in the pumps and lines vent into the engine bell. This is
what caused the failure of the third flight of Falcon I.
ISTR seeing a film from an early Thor launch where the booster
recontacted the payload after seperation as well.
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 |
|
|
|
| Greg D. Moore (Strider)... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 12:55 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Derek Lyons" <fairwater at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4aeb8c0c.2928335000 at (no spam) news.supernews.com...
[quote]"Jeff Findley" <jeff.findley at (no spam) ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
"Derek Lyons" <fairwater at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ae8665a.2918685906 at (no spam) news.supernews.com...
Lots of self congratulation going on - even though no word of whether
or not it was 100% sucessful. No word on splashdown.
The press conference following is giving some indication that the first
stage did recontact the upper stage simulator after separation, but
they're
not outright admitting it yet. This is a problem with SRB's.
It's not an insoluble one though. Polaris A1 had serious recontact
problems between the (thrust terminated) second stage and the warhead.
It's a matter of getting the timing right.
[/quote]
An interesting question will be how the timing and other factors change with
a full 5-segment SRB.
[quote]
D.
[/quote]
--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jeff Findley... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 1:32 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_delet3th1s at (no spam) greenms.com> wrote in message
news:ucadnWjYHNvIDnXXnZ2dnUVZ_uOdnZ2d at (no spam) earthlink.com...
[quote]An interesting question will be how the timing and other factors change
with a full 5-segment SRB.
[/quote]
There will need to be real Ares I test flights to prove that this concept is
going to work. Hopefully they'll be unmanned test flights because a first
stage separation like we saw with Ares I-X would most definitely trigger the
launch escape system for Orion, which most certainly carries risks of its
own.
Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Derek Lyons... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 1:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_delet3th1s at (no spam) greenms.com> wrote:
[quote]"Derek Lyons" <fairwater at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4aeb8c0c.2928335000 at (no spam) news.supernews.com...
"Jeff Findley" <jeff.findley at (no spam) ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
The press conference following is giving some indication that the first
stage did recontact the upper stage simulator after separation, but
they're not outright admitting it yet. This is a problem with SRB's.
It's not an insoluble one though. Polaris A1 had serious recontact
problems between the (thrust terminated) second stage and the warhead.
It's a matter of getting the timing right.
An interesting question will be how the timing and other factors change with
a full 5-segment SRB.
[/quote]
Yep. And this is also exactly why you fly test flights.
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 |
|
|
|
| John Doe... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 2:59 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Jeff Findley wrote:
The thrust
[quote]doesn't stop cleanly like a liquid engine. It slowly tails off. And with
the hammer head design of the vehicle, getting a clean separation will be a
challenge.
[/quote]
Should they actually launch a real vehicle, wouldn't the second stage
ignite at the same time as separation to ensure it doesn't start to
thumble and lose its orientation and also to ensure it doesn't
collide/recontact with the first stage ?
For this prototype test flight, was it normal that the fake second stage
immediatly lost its attitude and started to thumble at separation
(aka: was there still enough air resistance to cause that) ?
Once there is a real second stage, would its mass be significantly
higher than the fake one and give it more time in the proper attitude
before air resistance would start to cause it to thumble ? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
