He told the facts you failed to read. Under low airload it should slowly
begin to spin and go faster.

Um, that's an assumption (and an incorrect one) rather than a fact.

its very basic physics. If a momentum acts to a free body it slowly
begins to spin and gets faster. In this case, an aerodynamic unstable
body, the momentum increases as more angle deviation you got. The
max mommentum for such a body may reached at 90 deg. Until that position
the spin gets faster. But we all saw it fast from the 0 deg on.

No, this isn't basic physics - it's a mish mash of nonsense that, to
the uneducated and ignorant, resembles basic physics... but actually
isn't.

It ignore the fact that, with an extreme aft CG, any force acting on
the nose is going to be greatly multiplied via the lever law. Or,
more simply, once it starts to diverge it's going to ramp up very
quickly. It doesn't matter if the force is aerodynamic or transmitted
structurally.

It does much. An aerodynamic force increases as it diverges. But a
structurally transmitted force is a push and let the upperstage
spin suddenly. That is what a lot of observers saw and mentioned.
It was never realy denied by NASA. What you wrote at 1st Nov.:

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/

was by a) simply not true. It was told to you here that they only
reported the result of first analysis of the tracking cameras. But
you know a camera 100 km away can never see any recontact within
some inches.

And b) is well true but may only account for some seconds after
seperation, not in the first second. So with your silly rhetorics
it is obvious that you just want to support a NASA PR stand to
save the Ares 1.

You also ignore the fact that high tip-off forces (via
poor design of the seperation system) can explain the spin equally
well. As can poor timing in the seperation and BDM/BTM firing
sequences.

I could suggest even more. Maybe the whole thing finaly broke apart.
But why was recontact here (and elesewhere) the first thought?

The question of recontact came not up out of the blue. It was well
expected as critical test issue. About a year ago there were reports
that Ares 1 may need more powerfule solid rocket motors (SRMs) to
break the first stage so that it can safely seperate from the upperstage.
All because of the expected unclean thrust termination those SRBs have.

I saw than a new NASA graphic of the Ares 1 with a lot of breaking, upward
firing, SRMs at the base. This Ares 1 looked almost like a Delta. But
the Ares 1-X looked much less like and the question came up before the
launch whether it will get recontact problems or not. Till now we have
no deffinitiv statemant of NASA about it.


You're probably not even aware of the potential discrepancy between
the published burnout timeline and the observed burnout timeline.
Difficult to resolve with the limited information available to us, but
definetly a possibility.

You've made the classic mistake of starting with a conclusion (there
was recontact) and then working backwards creating evidence in favor
of the conclusion as you go. New information? You discard it as
irrelvant because you already have a conclusion.

D.

Derek, like I know you well from the past ("Apollo 13 final report"),
your main effort here is to spread silly rhetorics to defend almost
any NASA PR problem. By the time now NASA has well the recorded sensor
data analysed and knows whether a recontact had happend or not or what
went wrong. Instead they are still touting the horn how good all went
and you joined them. Your job as "expert citizen" would be to ask, not
to applaude. Applauding they are doing enough themself.


SENECA

## CrossPoint v3.12d R ##