And yet more Ares woes:

Do they even want to put it on the pad?:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...I-X%20Stacking

"One of the issues involves concerns by some engineers that the shaking
of the four-segment space shuttle solid-rocket booster that forms the
active portion of the Ares I-X stack will overwhelm the hydraulic
mechanism that drives the thrust vector control system that helps guide
the vehicle during powered flight.

Engineers also want more calculations on whether the vibrations would
disable the avionics box linking the flight termination system on the
vehicle with the range safety officers who would destroy it if it veers
off course. And they want extra analysis on whether any of the secondary
structures inside the steel boilerplate simulating the Ares I upper
stage - ladders, railings and the like - could shake loose during launch
and damage instrumentation or other hardware.
Shaking from the Ares I-X first stage isn't the same as that which is
driving the design of the final Ares I vehicle. In both cases, thrust
oscillation seen as the solid-fuel motor nears burnout sets up the
vibration, but on the Ares I the frequency is lower and the harmonics
into the crew compartment at the top of the stack is the main concern.
On the Ares I-X the expected frequency is about 15 hertz, versus 12 Hz
on the five-segment Ares I solid motor, and the concern is with command
receiver decoders that ride in an avionics box installed in the forward
skirt between the solid motor and the upper stage simulator.
If the box is knocked out, the range safety officer would not be able to
ignite a pyrotechnic charge designed to break open the motor's casing
longitudinally and halt the flight if it strays off course."

So, let's get this straight...it may go out of control on launch, then
start falling apart, and there will be no way to destroy it.
I love this gizmo.
It will bring back real excitement to a rocket launch, as the public can
cower in foxholes and watch it through those cheap cardboard periscopes
like they sold when we were kids. :-D

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote in
dakotatelephone:


It will bring back real excitement to a rocket launch, as the public
can cower in foxholes and watch it through those cheap cardboard
periscopes like they sold when we were kids. :-D

Gives "INCOMING!!" a whole new emphasis, eh?

Wonder if the flight termination system can be rigged to go off
automatically if it loses integrity. False positives could be a
problem...

--Damon

"Damon Hill" wrote in message
...
Pat Flannery wrote in
dakotatelephone:


It will bring back real excitement to a rocket launch, as the public
can cower in foxholes and watch it through those cheap cardboard
periscopes like they sold when we were kids. :-D

Gives "INCOMING!!" a whole new emphasis, eh?

Wonder if the flight termination system can be rigged to go off
automatically if it loses integrity. False positives could be a
problem...


There's a great way to destroy LC-39B.

It would make a Daisy Cutter look like a firecracker. :-/



--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

You mean NASA couldn't subcontract to the Navy for some Aegis ships to
second for range safety? I mean the Navy can shoot-down a killer
satellite filled with life-on-earth-threatening hydrazine, they could
take out some measly NASA rocket too right?-)

rick jones
--
denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance, rebirth...
where do you want to be today?
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

Damon Hill wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote in
dakotatelephone:



It will bring back real excitement to a rocket launch, as the public
can cower in foxholes and watch it through those cheap cardboard
periscopes like they sold when we were kids. :-D


Gives "INCOMING!!" a whole new emphasis, eh?

Wonder if the flight termination system can be rigged to go off
automatically if it loses integrity. False positives could be a
problem...


A "safety" system that if it suffers failure, blows up the vehicle?
That makes even the N-1's KORD system almost make sense. :-D
Sort of like a ejection seat that can go off all on its own if it
detects the aircraft isn't working right, like the Soviets used on the
Yak-38 "Forger" VTOL aircraft.

Pat

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:

There's a great way to destroy LC-39B.

It would make a Daisy Cutter look like a firecracker. :-/


It sure would be one hell of a grass fire, although that second N-1
launch attempt could probably beat it for overall damage.
Still, it beats having it go into the air out of control and come down
God knows how many miles away.
We don't need to see this on a giant scale:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/sl...906614_JPG.jpg
Even if all the fuel had been burnt, the weight of the casing could
really flatten things on impact.


Pat

When an N-1 blew on the pad, it was equal in blast and heat to a 2-KT
tactical nuclear weapon, and was picked up by U.S. satellites, and there was
some fear that a nuke had accidentally detonated.
"OM" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 23:45:50 -0500, Pat Flannery
wrote:

It sure would be one hell of a grass fire, although that second N-1
launch attempt could probably beat it for overall damage.

...Some have argued that the N-1 could top even a Saturn V explosion
in damage simply because it would have produced more shrapnel.

OM

--

]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

OM wrote:
...I keep having this vision of the damn thing doing an EPIC FAIL like
the one from "The Astronaut Farmer", only plowing through the VAB,
then a roadsign welcoming visitors to Cocoa Beach, then winding up
impaled in the side of a Wal-Mart.


I keep picturing it heading straight for mission control, and everyone
realizing in the last moments of their lives why they had that giant
pyramid-shaped concrete blast shelter with the periscopes sticking out
of the top for Apollo, rather than a entire glass wall facing the launch
pad.

Pat

Rick Jones wrote:
You mean NASA couldn't subcontract to the Navy for some Aegis ships to
second for range safety? I mean the Navy can shoot-down a killer
satellite filled with life-on-earth-threatening hydrazine, they could
take out some measly NASA rocket too right?-)


I imagine you could hit it with a Standard missile, but then it's going
to rain burning solid fuel all over the place.
Picture this vastly scaled up:
http://www.maniacworld.com/delta-II-...explosion.html
There are going to be flaming alligators climbing out of the nearby
swamps, biting everyone in sight in their death throws.

Pat

Wonder if the flight termination system can be rigged to go off
automatically if it loses integrity. False positives could be a
problem...

I believe that's the way the Ariane system works.

Jan