View Single Post
  #30  
Old November 5th 09, 04:38 PM posted to sci.space.policy,alt.politics,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,999
Default Ares1-X failure - new information

wrote:


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. 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.

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.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL