JF Mezei wrote on Fri, 5 Jul 2019
14:58:50 -0400:

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?


Well, the front bit IS where you get peak aerodynamic pressure. I
would have thought that was so obvious as to not need clarification.
Note that this is why Max Q for Falcon 9 with a capsule is different
from Falcon 9 with a payload fairing.


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 ?


Depends on what you substituted the booster with.


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 ?


Except nothing was 'real' on that test except the escape system
itself. The booster was obviously different and the capsule was
instrumented boilerplate and not a real Orion capsule. They didn't
even test that the parachute system would work on such an abort
because there was no parachute system installed.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn