 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Space Forum » ...Ares1-X FAILURE...N KOREA Offers NASA Technical... |
|
Page 2 of 7 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| kT... |
 Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 7:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
John Doe 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]
That's what I do, orient it straight east with the proper roll preset,
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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jorge R. Frank... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 8:38 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Derek Lyons wrote:
[quote]John Doe <jdoe at (no spam) 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.
[/quote]
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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Me... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 7:28 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 2:37 am, John Doe <j... at (no spam) doe.org> wrote:
..
[quote]
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]
Guidance system and Cockpit orientation. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| hallerb at (no spam) aol.com... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 12:28�pm, Me <charliexmur... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 1, 2:37�am, John Doe <j... at (no spam) doe.org> wrote:
.
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.
[/quote]
doesnt the shuttle fly a dogleg manuver to avoid overflying land areas
in some cases? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Brian Thorn... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 14:57:46 -0500, John Doe <jdoe at (no spam) doe.org> 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.
Since this is a round cylinder, why not just place the rocket on the pad
in the right roll orientation to begin with ?
[/quote]
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.
[quote]So , what is the reason they couldn't orient the rocket on the pad to
remove the need for a 90° roll ?
[/quote]
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 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| BradGuth... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:56 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 4:05 pm, kT <cos... at (no spam) lifeform.org> wrote:
[quote]John Doe 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 ?
That's what I do, orient it straight east with the proper roll preset,
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.
[/quote]
Saturn V was a Zionist Nazi accomplishment that's still more advanced
and more reliable than anything since, not to mention environmentally
greener.
~ BG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Robert Clark... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:21 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 1:56 am, BradGuth <bradg... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 1, 4:05 pm, kT <cos... at (no spam) lifeform.org> wrote:
John Doe 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 ?
That's what I do, orient it straight east with the proper roll preset,
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
[/quote]
"Zionist Nazi"
That's quite a combination!
Bob Clark |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| kT... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Robert Clark wrote:
[quote]"Zionist Nazi"
That's quite a combination!
[/quote]
Ever heard of Palestine?
How about Gaza? The Warsaw Ghetto of the Middle East.
Now, let's talk about innocent people imprisoned at Gitmo.
Let's talk about routine CIA torture of people denied Habeas Corpus.
Wasn't an innocent man executed in Texas recently?
Now, let's talk about Ares I retards.
Retards, you just gotta love em.
Because JESUS said so! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jonathan... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 12:04 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Jorge R. Frank" <jrfrank at (no spam) ibm-pc.borg> wrote in message
news:iPidnb9_BL-4pXPXnZ2dnUVZ_odi4p2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
[quote]Derek Lyons wrote:
John Doe <jdoe at (no spam) 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.
[/quote]
As I documented earlier, the maneuver shortly after lift off
was called a 'pad avoidance maneuver.
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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jonathan... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 12:04 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Derek Lyons" <fairwater at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4aecef27.3215853562 at (no spam) news.supernews.com...
[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]
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.
[quote]
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: Wed Nov 04, 2009 12:44 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Jonathan" <Home at (no spam) Again.net> wrote:
[quote]
"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.
[/quote]
If nobody can prove there was recontact, then there wasn't any
recontact.
[quote]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.
[/quote]
In other words, facts need not apply. You've got your opinions, and
you don't care what they facts are.
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 Nov 04, 2009 12:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Jonathan" <Home at (no spam) Again.net> wrote:
[quote]As I documented earlier, the maneuver shortly after lift off
was called a 'pad avoidance maneuver.
[/quote]
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.
[quote]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.
[/quote]
Since the manuver wasn't meant to mitigate damage to the pad, you're
talking out your ass.
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 |
|
|
|
| ... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:45 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[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.
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.
[/quote]
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 ## |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Greg D. Moore (Strider)... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Jonathan" <Home at (no spam) Again.net> wrote in message
news:to-dnfxKwfpuR23XnZ2dnUVZ_jadnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
[quote]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.
[/quote]
Wrong conclusion. The better conclusion is one that's already been made.
Remove the tower and build a specific Ares tower. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Derek Lyons... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:56 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
SENECA at (no spam) argo.rhein-neckar.de 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.
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.
[/quote]
Um, that's an assumption (and an incorrect one) rather than a fact.
[quote]Instead it got a sudden spin just after
seperation. That only happens by a big none axial force. Recontact
is the most plausible.
[/quote]
It doesn't matter how plausible it is - to posit it *the* cause, you
have to produce evidence that it happened.
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 Sat Nov 28, 2009 2:45 am
|
|