On 7/5/2019 2:58 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
On 2019-07-02 09:33, David Spain wrote:

IMHO: I'd characterize it as kind of a piece-wise method of testing
rather than an "all-up" scenario. Given the cost of SLS I can understand
the approach. Understand doesn't necessarily mean I agree. I'd need more
data.

Is Max-Q defioned by the topmost component? aka, maximum aerodynamic
pressure on Orion?

Already answered by Fred.


If you substitude the booster, is it realitively easy to get the capsule
to reach the Max-Q speed at the right altitude to reproduce the Max Q it
would experience with an SLS ?



Well yes. I think they would have designed the test so that the SR118
engine would get the test article within that regime.

If they can get Orion to same speed/altitude as the MaxQ would bve
experienced with SLS, doesn t the abort test then properly reprodiuce
the Orion's ability to "take off" from its booster ?


Yes this was the point of this test. To that end I'm assuming the "test
article" aka the capsule replica was a mass equivalent to the Orion. It
was a shape equivalent on the exterior according to what I've read. But
object of the test was the LAS itself. Not the recovery mechanisms for
the Orion, since this was not an Orion that was flown.

Dave