 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Space - Shuttle Forum » Ares, do not get it..... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Brian Gaff... |
 Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:43 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Surely, they should have flown a five segment solid and n upper stage with
at least some stabilisation. This test seems to be just a Shuttle solid, a
dummy section and a lump of old metal made to be the right shape. All it
proves is that a giant firework can be guided roughly in the right direction
and some explosive bolts work.
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! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| bob haller safety advocate... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:43 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 30, 4:43�am, "Brian Gaff" <bria... at (no spam) blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
[quote]Surely, they should have flown a five segment solid �and n upper stage with
at least some stabilisation. This test seems to be just a Shuttle solid, a
dummy section and a lump of old metal made to be the right shape. All it
proves is that a giant firework can be guided roughly in the right direction
and some explosive bolts work.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - bria... 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!
[/quote]
appears even you lofty goas werent fully met............
parachute failure and other problems |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jeff Findley... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 8:40 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Brian Gaff" <briang1 at (no spam) blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:qGxGm.3125$5w5.1784 at (no spam) text.news.virginmedia.com...
[quote]Surely, they should have flown a five segment solid and n upper stage
with at least some stabilisation. This test seems to be just a Shuttle
solid, a dummy section and a lump of old metal made to be the right shape.
All it proves is that a giant firework can be guided roughly in the right
direction and some explosive bolts work.
[/quote]
I've been saying the same thing since NASA came up with the Ares I-X idea.
It's a stunt meant to show "progress" to the uninformed (i.e. Congress and
the Senate so they'll keep funding the program). The next test, which
should be much more representative of flight hardware, isn't scheduled until
March of 2014. That's *quite* a long time from the beginning of the Ares I
program to have to wait to fly hardware which has any sane resemblance to
flight hardware.
This is especially troubling since NASA and ATK kept claiming that this
solution would be "safe, simple, and soon". It's abundantly clear that it's
none of these.
Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| bob haller safety advocate... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 12:40 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 30, 4:38�pm, "Jeff Findley" <jeff.find... at (no spam) ugs.nojunk.com>
wrote:
[quote]"Derek Lyons" <fairwa... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4aed3bef.3104436250 at (no spam) news.supernews.com...
"Jeff Findley" <jeff.find... at (no spam) ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
"Brian Gaff" <bria... at (no spam) blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:qGxGm.3125$5w5.1784 at (no spam) text.news.virginmedia.com...
Surely, they should have flown a five segment solid �and n upper stage
with at least some stabilisation. This test seems to be just a Shuttle
solid, a dummy section and a lump of old metal made to be the right
shape.
All it proves is that a giant firework can be guided roughly in the
right
direction and some explosive bolts work.
I've been saying the same thing since NASA came up with the Ares I-X idea.
Despite being shown where are wrong, you've continued to say the same
thing. �You're more interested in dogma than facts.
It demonstrated that a vehicle of that nature could be controlled.
True, given a lose definition of "vehicle of that nature". �This one data
point showed that a four segment shuttle SRB, with a shuttle thrust profile,
could be flown on a flight profile somewhat similar to Ares I's five segment
SRB. �But, the flight profile of Ares I will be different in a number of
different ways.
Things that are different, just aren't the same.
It
demonstrated that the basic aerodynamics worked.
For a similar, but not identical, flight profile.
It demonstrated that
the parachutes (currently) don't work. �It demonstrated that LC 39 can
reasonably be expected to support the vehicle. �Etc... Etc...
For the wind conditions that day. �I'd still think the flight vehicle will
have some significant cross-wind restrictions given its flight dynamics.
One could quite convincingly argue that the cost was too great, but to
arge that it accomplished nothing is to fly in the face of reality.
One could easily argue that for the cost, it achieved too little.
It's a stunt meant to show "progress" to the uninformed (i.e. Congress and
the Senate so they'll keep funding the program). �The next test, which
should be much more representative of flight hardware, isn't scheduled
until
March of 2014. �That's *quite* a long time from the beginning of the Ares
I
program to have to wait to fly hardware which has any sane resemblance to
flight hardware.
Yet pretty much everyone else fly flight hardware, with no flight
tests whatsover, on the *first* flight - and this passes without
comment.
So which is it? �It's OK to wait until the first full up flight, or
it's bad to wait for the first full up flight?
It's best to fly hardware which is similar to the actual flight hardware.
Not flying a real five segment SRB was the biggest blunder of Ares I-X. �As
designed and flown, the first stage was a success, but Ares I will never
again fly with a four segment SRB. �Problems could very well show up when
the first five segment SRB is flown, just as problems showed up with Falcon
I when it switched to the regen first stage engine.
It's the unknown unknowns that bite you in the at (no spam) $$.
This is especially troubling since NASA and ATK kept claiming that this
solution would be "safe, simple, and soon". �It's abundantly clear that
it's
none of these.
You state that as if it was a fact rather than an assumption. �There's
no evidence it is unsafe, or any more unsafe than currently deemed
acceptable. �As compared to any other vehicle, it is not notably more
complex. �(And anyone who expected the design-to-flight sequence to
proceed without the usual quantity of hitches and changes is
delusional.) �Nor do I find the rate of progress unusual for a program
starved of funds and lacking a clear cut priority.
I'm very against large segmented SRB's on a manned launcher. �When solids
fail, their failure modes are quite often catastrophic. �In previous
studies, NASA has ground ruled out EELV's with strap on solids for just
those sorts of safety concerns.
Even if you assume Ares I will be "safe", both "simple" and "soon" are
becoming obviously false the closer you look at the details of the design
(e.g. thrust oscillation mitigation) and the planned test schedule for Ares
I (Ares I-Y keeps slipping and is currently March of 2014).
Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
gee didnt we have a test flight of 2 solids without a shuttle orbiter
many years ago? the guidance came back and the solids flew fine till
range safety took them out..........
history?? challenger disaster. after the break up the solids
straightened up and continued flying |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Derek Lyons... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:38 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Jeff Findley" <jeff.findley at (no spam) ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
[quote]
"Brian Gaff" <briang1 at (no spam) blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:qGxGm.3125$5w5.1784 at (no spam) text.news.virginmedia.com...
Surely, they should have flown a five segment solid and n upper stage
with at least some stabilisation. This test seems to be just a Shuttle
solid, a dummy section and a lump of old metal made to be the right shape.
All it proves is that a giant firework can be guided roughly in the right
direction and some explosive bolts work.
I've been saying the same thing since NASA came up with the Ares I-X idea.
[/quote]
Despite being shown where are wrong, you've continued to say the same
thing. You're more interested in dogma than facts.
It demonstrated that a vehicle of that nature could be controlled. It
demonstrated that the basic aerodynamics worked. It demonstrated that
the parachutes (currently) don't work. It demonstrated that LC 39 can
reasonably be expected to support the vehicle. Etc... Etc...
One could quite convincingly argue that the cost was too great, but to
arge that it accomplished nothing is to fly in the face of reality.
[quote]It's a stunt meant to show "progress" to the uninformed (i.e. Congress and
the Senate so they'll keep funding the program). The next test, which
should be much more representative of flight hardware, isn't scheduled until
March of 2014. That's *quite* a long time from the beginning of the Ares I
program to have to wait to fly hardware which has any sane resemblance to
flight hardware.
[/quote]
Yet pretty much everyone else fly flight hardware, with no flight
tests whatsover, on the *first* flight - and this passes without
comment.
So which is it? It's OK to wait until the first full up flight, or
it's bad to wait for the first full up flight?
[quote]This is especially troubling since NASA and ATK kept claiming that this
solution would be "safe, simple, and soon". It's abundantly clear that it's
none of these.
[/quote]
You state that as if it was a fact rather than an assumption. There's
no evidence it is unsafe, or any more unsafe than currently deemed
acceptable. As compared to any other vehicle, it is not notably more
complex. (And anyone who expected the design-to-flight sequence to
proceed without the usual quantity of hitches and changes is
delusional.) Nor do I find the rate of progress unusual for a program
starved of funds and lacking a clear cut priority.
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 |
|
|
|
| Jeff Findley... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:38 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Derek Lyons" <fairwater at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4aed3bef.3104436250 at (no spam) news.supernews.com...
[quote]"Jeff Findley" <jeff.findley at (no spam) ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
"Brian Gaff" <briang1 at (no spam) blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:qGxGm.3125$5w5.1784 at (no spam) text.news.virginmedia.com...
Surely, they should have flown a five segment solid and n upper stage
with at least some stabilisation. This test seems to be just a Shuttle
solid, a dummy section and a lump of old metal made to be the right
shape.
All it proves is that a giant firework can be guided roughly in the
right
direction and some explosive bolts work.
I've been saying the same thing since NASA came up with the Ares I-X idea.
Despite being shown where are wrong, you've continued to say the same
thing. You're more interested in dogma than facts.
It demonstrated that a vehicle of that nature could be controlled.
[/quote]
True, given a lose definition of "vehicle of that nature". This one data
point showed that a four segment shuttle SRB, with a shuttle thrust profile,
could be flown on a flight profile somewhat similar to Ares I's five segment
SRB. But, the flight profile of Ares I will be different in a number of
different ways.
Things that are different, just aren't the same.
[quote]It
demonstrated that the basic aerodynamics worked.
[/quote]
For a similar, but not identical, flight profile.
[quote]It demonstrated that
the parachutes (currently) don't work. It demonstrated that LC 39 can
reasonably be expected to support the vehicle. Etc... Etc...
[/quote]
For the wind conditions that day. I'd still think the flight vehicle will
have some significant cross-wind restrictions given its flight dynamics.
[quote]One could quite convincingly argue that the cost was too great, but to
arge that it accomplished nothing is to fly in the face of reality.
[/quote]
One could easily argue that for the cost, it achieved too little.
[quote]It's a stunt meant to show "progress" to the uninformed (i.e. Congress and
the Senate so they'll keep funding the program). The next test, which
should be much more representative of flight hardware, isn't scheduled
until
March of 2014. That's *quite* a long time from the beginning of the Ares
I
program to have to wait to fly hardware which has any sane resemblance to
flight hardware.
Yet pretty much everyone else fly flight hardware, with no flight
tests whatsover, on the *first* flight - and this passes without
comment.
So which is it? It's OK to wait until the first full up flight, or
it's bad to wait for the first full up flight?
[/quote]
It's best to fly hardware which is similar to the actual flight hardware.
Not flying a real five segment SRB was the biggest blunder of Ares I-X. As
designed and flown, the first stage was a success, but Ares I will never
again fly with a four segment SRB. Problems could very well show up when
the first five segment SRB is flown, just as problems showed up with Falcon
I when it switched to the regen first stage engine.
It's the unknown unknowns that bite you in the at (no spam) $$.
[quote]This is especially troubling since NASA and ATK kept claiming that this
solution would be "safe, simple, and soon". It's abundantly clear that
it's
none of these.
You state that as if it was a fact rather than an assumption. There's
no evidence it is unsafe, or any more unsafe than currently deemed
acceptable. As compared to any other vehicle, it is not notably more
complex. (And anyone who expected the design-to-flight sequence to
proceed without the usual quantity of hitches and changes is
delusional.) Nor do I find the rate of progress unusual for a program
starved of funds and lacking a clear cut priority.
[/quote]
I'm very against large segmented SRB's on a manned launcher. When solids
fail, their failure modes are quite often catastrophic. In previous
studies, NASA has ground ruled out EELV's with strap on solids for just
those sorts of safety concerns.
Even if you assume Ares I will be "safe", both "simple" and "soon" are
becoming obviously false the closer you look at the details of the design
(e.g. thrust oscillation mitigation) and the planned test schedule for Ares
I (Ares I-Y keeps slipping and is currently March of 2014).
Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Dec 10, 2009 9:50 pm
|
|