 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Space Forum » ...Ares1-X FAILURE...N KOREA Offers NASA Technical... |
|
Page 1 of 7 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Jonathan... |
 Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 11:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
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 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Brian Gaff... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
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
--
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
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Jonathan" <Home at (no spam) Again.net> wrote in message
news:38KdncmLapUBonfXnZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
[quote]
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
[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jeff Findley... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 8:43 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Brian Gaff" <Briang1 at (no spam) blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:doBGm.3189$5w5.2347 at (no spam) text.news.virginmedia.com...
[quote]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?
[/quote]
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 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Brian Gaff... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 3:12 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
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...
[quote]
"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
[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Fred J. McCall... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 3:33 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Brian Gaff" <Briang1 at (no spam) 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.
:
They're not even going to get that. Given that it's not anything like
what the real thing will be, all the vibration modes will be
different.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| David Spain... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 10:08 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Jeff Findley wrote:
[quote]"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[/quote]
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?
[quote]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.
[/quote]
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 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| David Spain... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 11:27 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
David Spain wrote:
[quote]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][/quote]
[quote]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
[/quote]
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 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Fred J. McCall... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 3:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
David Spain <nospam at (no spam) 127.0.0.1> wrote:
:David Spain wrote:
:>
:> 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?
:>
:
: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.
:
Yeah, that's the one down side to us deciding to split sci.space up.
At the time it made sense and there was more than sufficient traffic
to keep all the newsgroups that resulted pretty busy with posts that
were actually appropriate for each one. I've pretty much devolved to
only reading sci.space.policy and treating that as if it is sci.space,
but it's not the same.
--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Derek Lyons... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 9:20 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
David Spain <nospam at (no spam) 127.0.0.1> wrote:
[quote]Jeff Findley wrote:
"Brian Gaff" <Briang1 at (no spam) blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:doBGm.3189$5w5.2347 at (no spam) text.news.virginmedia.com...
Yes, though not actually seen it, I suspect the following is more
truthful..
First test launch of Ares.
Low speed stabilisation needs better algorithm to stop drift and rotation
immediately after launch
Upper stage should be released in a different way to stop spasmodic
afterburning of booster from creating a collision with upper stage
[/quote]
It should be pointed out (again) that 'spasmodic afterburning',
'recontact' and 'collision' are assumptions, not facts.
[quote]As was pointed out elsewhere (in a different thread?) none of the NASA
animations I have seen of what was expected had the upper stage in rotation.
Would it be correct to assume that rotation was induced by the collision with
the lower stage?
[/quote]
NASA is now stating in an article on Spaceflightnow that a) no
recontact occurred, and b) the spin was not entirely unexpected due to
the CG of the USS being well aft.
http://spaceflightnow.com/ares1x/091030recovery/
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jonathan... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 11:04 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Brian Gaff" <Briang1 at (no spam) blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tcTGm.159$Ym4.62 at (no spam) text.news.virginmedia.com...
[quote]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,
[/quote]
I think this is the direction we should be going...
Small shuttles launched on top of a conventional
booster for now, maybe SSTO down the road.
U.S. Air Force Aims to Launch Space Plane
Next Year
http://www.space.com/news/090602-x-37b-space-plane.html
In any event, it doesn't look like Ares will be helping
keep the ISS fully staffed with US astronauts
any time soon.
Looks like the Russians might be holding the pink slip
on the ISS pretty soon, while we're still making the payments.
s
[quote]
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
[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Doe... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 2:37 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Derek Lyons wrote:
[quote]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.
[/quote]
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 ? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Brian Gaff... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 5:02 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Hmm, well, I have only others appreciation of this of course, so do I smell
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 - briang1 at (no spam) 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" <fairwater at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4aecef27.3215853562 at (no spam) news.supernews.com...
[quote]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[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Derek Lyons... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 1:12 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
John Doe <jdoe at (no spam) doe.org> wrote:
[quote]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 ?
[/quote]
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.
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: Sun Nov 01, 2009 2:57 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Derek Lyons wrote:
[quote]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.
[/quote]
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 ? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Derek Lyons... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 4:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
John Doe <jdoe at (no spam) doe.org> wrote:
[quote]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 ?
[/quote]
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.
--
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:35 am
|
|