Ares 1-X now on pad

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

"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

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

Brian

and shouldnt be doing it today. total waste of bucks and time

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

Fred J. McCall wrote:

Launching something they've already launched but that is made to LOOK
like the new vehicle build confidence?

If that were the case with the 1-X, you'd have a point.

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

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

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

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
Brian Thorn wrote:
: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.

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

True. I write engineering softare for a living and could tell you about
dozens of cases where customers have changed seemingly small things in a
design only to find out that the overall design doesn't work anymore. Of
course, we sign NDA's for everything we do, so I can't openly talk about any
specifics.

In laymen's terms, just because Ares I-X may fly successfully doesn't mean
that Ares I won't be problem free. The two designs just aren't similar
enough to extrapolate much from Ares I-X and be confident that it will work
for Ares I.

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

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:07:36 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:


They do better to build a scale model and run time in a hypersonic
wind tunnel. At least that way they'd get a decent first
approximation of the flow fields around the vehicle. I honestly don't
see what this 'test shot' will tell them that they can actually use.

If one were to actually look, there has been a fairly extensive
aerodynamic database development program, which includes both wind
tunnel tests and CFD simulations over the flight trajectory.
Correlating/correcting sunstantially subscale wind tunnel data to full
scale flight data in itself is not necessarily a trivial exercise, nor
an exact science.

Does anyone remember the last new launch vehicle which NASA was even
remotely associated with? Exactly how did the ATK ALV-X1 preform, and
what were the findings of the ATK accident investigation?

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:48:36 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:


But it does require that you actually fly the real vehicle to do it.

Which is NOT what they're doing here...

What makes you think they haven't developed models all the way through
a trajectory for 1-X itself?

If 1-X is your goal vehicle, that's all well and good. �If it's not,
you're spending a lot of money for nothing useful.


nasa is excellent and wasting money...........