Ares 1-X now on pad

Actually, even the outer mold-lines of the Orion and its launch escape tower
is different than what is planned for Ares I. � This whole Ares I-X flight
really is little more than a stunt. �NASA management wanted to get something
flying SOON to "show progress". �All other goals, like acquiring good data
for engineering Ares I, seem to be secondary priorities.

Jeff

probably done to avoid the nasty vibration issues on the first
launch.........

On Oct 21, 7:28*am, " wrote:
Frankly a nice on pad EXLOSION is needed to help KILL this useless
launcher......

nice big vibrant embarasing fireball taking out pad too...........

Unfortunately, beginners luck it'll probably run even better than
hoped. Then the special insider deals get made, along with sloppy
workmanship kicking in (fear of death if caught whistle-blowing), and
we start with killing off its payload of clowns we call astronauts, as
well as vaporizing launch pads and thoroughly traumatizing most of
everything else within a 10 km radii.

~ BG

Jeff Findley wrote:
"Rick Jones" wrote in message
...
In sci.space.history Jeff Findley wrote:

You're being *very* generous today.
Other than the SRB casings, this thing has very little in common
with the actual Ares I design. It's actually a shuttle SRB (four
segment) with a dummy SRB segment on top to "simulate" a five
segment SRB. Of course, everything above the first stage is also
dummy parts to "simulate" an upper stage and an Orion capsule.
Aren't you leaving-out the RCS (?) bits in place to keep the thing
from tumbling arse over teakettle?

The TVC on the first stage, the SRB, is the same as on shuttle. The RCS
could be the design they're planning on using for Ares I, but I seriously
doubt it.

Same control algorithms, different RCS hardware (ICBM heritage, I think).

Rick Jones wrote:

In sci.space.history Jeff Findley wrote:

You're being *very* generous today.

Other than the SRB casings, this thing has very little in common
with the actual Ares I design. It's actually a shuttle SRB (four
segment) with a dummy SRB segment on top to "simulate" a five
segment SRB. Of course, everything above the first stage is also
dummy parts to "simulate" an upper stage and an Orion capsule.

Aren't you leaving-out the RCS (?) bits in place to keep the thing
from tumbling arse over teakettle?

Jeff isn't interested in honesty or integrity. He's got an axe to
grind and an agenda to promote.

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

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

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

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:13:51 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:

Actually, even the outer mold-lines of the Orion and its launch escape tower
is different than what is planned for Ares I. This whole Ares I-X flight
really is little more than a stunt.

Then so was the first Saturn I launch. The engines and tankage were
all flight-proven, everything above Stage 1 was dummy, and the payload
mockup didn't share Apollo's outer moldline.

No one calls SA-1 a stunt.

Brian

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:43:34 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

the new manned launcher booster was unnecessary, and solids a very bad
idea.. the new manned launcher should of gone on a existing expendable.

Bob, I wish you'd take a remedial english class. "Should of"? That
should be "should have". And I suppose the fine points like "on an
existing..." rather than "on a existing..." are too much to ask.

Not that any of this hasn't been pointed out 1000 times before

That being said, 1-X is an impressive bit of trying to get something
up before it gets axed. I'm almost rooting for them.

Dale

On Oct 22, 3:10�am, Dale Carlson wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:43:34 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
the new manned launcher booster was unnecessary, and solids a very bad
idea.. the new manned launcher should of gone on a existing expendable.

Bob, I wish you'd take a remedial english class. "Should of"? That
should be "should have". And I suppose the fine points like "on an
existing..." rather than "on a existing..." are too much to ask.

Not that any of this hasn't been pointed out 1000 times before

That being said, 1-X is an impressive bit of trying to get something
up before it gets axed. I'm almost rooting for them.

Dale

so your rooting for a obvious waste of money and time? how do you
justify this?

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:13:51 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:

Actually, even the outer mold-lines of the Orion and its launch escape
tower
is different than what is planned for Ares I. This whole Ares I-X flight
really is little more than a stunt.

Then so was the first Saturn I launch. The engines and tankage were
all flight-proven, everything above Stage 1 was dummy, and the payload
mockup didn't share Apollo's outer moldline.

No one calls SA-1 a stunt.

True, but in that case NASA needed to launch the Saturn I first stage for
the first time as a flight test. Cluster's last stand needed to prove
itself a bit before trusting it with an upper stage and an Apollo CSM.

Shuttle SRB's have flown many times. The question of Ares I-X is how much
will be learned from this flight which will be applicable to Ares I? I
suppose the jury is still out on that and we'll have to wait and see how the
flight goes and what is learned from the data gathered.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:00:24 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:

No one calls SA-1 a stunt.

True, but in that case NASA needed to launch the Saturn I first stage for
the first time as a flight test. Cluster's last stand needed to prove
itself a bit before trusting it with an upper stage and an Apollo CSM.

One could also argue that the extreme height/width ratio of Ares I
needs to be proven a bit before trusting it with an upper stage and
Orion CSM. Lord knows, we've been hearing "it will be impossible to
control!" and "the wind will blow it into the tower" often enough for
the last four years.

Shuttle SRB's have flown many times. The question of Ares I-X is how much
will be learned from this flight which will be applicable to Ares I? I
suppose the jury is still out on that and we'll have to wait and see how the
flight goes and what is learned from the data gathered.

I see it as a confidence exercise for an agency that hasn't fielded a
new launch vehicle since 1981.

Brian

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:11:40 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

But until you've got real engines and real structure test flights
won't tell you anything about controllability or potential resonant
frequencies.

Sure it will, it will verify NASA's modeling tools. If 1X behaves the
way the modeling says it will, they can be much more comfortable that
the modeling for the fullscale Ares I will be accurate as well.

Conversly, if 1X goes out of control, crashes into the tower, or
shakes itself to pieces, don't you think that might be a good
indication not to move forward with Ares I?

Launching something they've already launched but that is made to LOOK
like the new vehicle build confidence? They DO have problems at NASA,
then.

You're just figuring this out *now*? :-)

Brian