David Spain wrote:

Jeff Findley wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
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