U.S. Manned Space programs

On 27/04/2012 8:34 AM, Brian Thorn wrote:

Pay no attention to the Delta IV-Heavy that lifted off on fire last
year...

You mean the one from Vandenberg? I've just looked at a couple of
Youtube vids and can't find anything wrong. Only a mention of
"inititial launch transients" within a few seconds after launch.

No mention of fire at all. Any references?

In article ,
says...

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 17:11:38 +1000, Alan Erskine
wrote:

The SSME was going to be mounted on the bottom of the first stage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares_V

This was before the vehicles were called Ares I and Ares V. They were
still CLV (Crew Launch Vehicle) and CaLV (Cargo Launch Vehicle). SSME
was to be the common engine to CLV's second stage and both CaLV
stages. When they realized restarting the SSME in flight was
insurmountable without enormous expense, they went with J-2X, and that
caused a domino effect which ended with SSME being dropped completely.
And that is when the CLV/CaLV architecture should have been dumped
completely in favor a DIRECT/SLS system, because switching to J-2X
forced development of both J-2X and the Five Segment SRB, and costs
and timeline went out of control almost immediately.

Ayup. This is when they really needed to step back and question where they
were headed.

You start with a basic set of assumptions: "oh let's use shuttle derived
parts to save dev costs, etc" 5 steps later you're using 1 bolt and washer
from STS and saying, "see, we're still shuttle derived."

It was a huge bait and switch, IMHO. Everyone who knew anything about
the SSME's knew they were *not* going to be "easy" to air start, despite
the initial assurances that they would be. Yet somehow upper management
(Mike Griffin and his cronies) got away with selling Ares I and Ares V
on that basis.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 00:00:02 +1000, Alan Erskine
wrote:


Pay no attention to the Delta IV-Heavy that lifted off on fire last
year...

You mean the one from Vandenberg? I've just looked at a couple of
Youtube vids and can't find anything wrong. Only a mention of
"inititial launch transients" within a few seconds after launch.

No mention of fire at all. Any references?

How about pictures?

http://spaceflightnow.com/delta/d352/launch/

I know, the insulation is there to protect the rocket. But is it
REALLY supposed to be on fire like that? The incident was downplayed
by ULA, but I still think they were damned lucky not to lose the
vehicle that day.

Brian

In article , bthorn64
@suddenlink.net says...

On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 00:00:02 +1000, Alan Erskine
wrote:


Pay no attention to the Delta IV-Heavy that lifted off on fire last
year...

You mean the one from Vandenberg? I've just looked at a couple of
Youtube vids and can't find anything wrong. Only a mention of
"inititial launch transients" within a few seconds after launch.

No mention of fire at all. Any references?

How about pictures?

http://spaceflightnow.com/delta/d352/launch/

I know, the insulation is there to protect the rocket. But is it
REALLY supposed to be on fire like that? The incident was downplayed
by ULA, but I still think they were damned lucky not to lose the
vehicle that day.

From what I understand, the insulation is primarily there to prevent
boil-off of the cryogenics while sitting on the pad. After ignition,
boil-off isn't really an issue anymore.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:10:13 -0400, Jeff Findley
wrote:


I know, the insulation is there to protect the rocket. But is it
REALLY supposed to be on fire like that? The incident was downplayed
by ULA, but I still think they were damned lucky not to lose the
vehicle that day.

From what I understand, the insulation is primarily there to prevent
boil-off of the cryogenics while sitting on the pad.

Not entirely. Like on the Shuttle's ET, the insulation also serves to
protect against aerodynamic heating during ascent. Delta IV is famous
for fireballs at ignition and liftoff, and ULA has always said
essentially, "that's why we have the insulation on it." But the
Vandenberg Delta IV-Heavy event (the first Heavy from VAFB) was far
beyond what we've seen at the Cape, and the first time the damned
thing was still burning away well past tower clear.

Brian

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:10:13 -0400, Jeff Findley
wrote:


I know, the insulation is there to protect the rocket. But is it
REALLY supposed to be on fire like that? The incident was downplayed
by ULA, but I still think they were damned lucky not to lose the
vehicle that day.

From what I understand, the insulation is primarily there to prevent
boil-off of the cryogenics while sitting on the pad.

Not entirely. Like on the Shuttle's ET, the insulation also serves to
protect against aerodynamic heating during ascent. Delta IV is famous
for fireballs at ignition and liftoff, and ULA has always said
essentially, "that's why we have the insulation on it." But the
Vandenberg Delta IV-Heavy event (the first Heavy from VAFB) was far
beyond what we've seen at the Cape, and the first time the damned
thing was still burning away well past tower clear.


Yeah. I have a hard time believing, "Oh, we meant it to do that" after
looking at those photos.

I definitely get the feeling that they had better be careful not to accept,
"well last flight it happened and it was ok so..."


Brian



--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 23:23:59 -0400, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
wrote:


I definitely get the feeling that they had better be careful not to accept,
"well last flight it happened and it was ok so..."

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Brian

On Apr 27, 10:00*pm, Alan Erskine wrote:

I know, the insulation is there to protect the rocket. But is it
REALLY supposed to be on fire like that? The incident was downplayed
by ULA, but I still think they were damned lucky not to lose the
vehicle that day.

Yes, it is thick enough to handle the fire issues.
And it was nowhere close to being an issue (it was classified as a
flight observation and not an anomaly) , much less "lucky not to lose
the vehicle"

just some clueless internet key pounders making much ado about nothing

"Me" wrote in message
...

On Apr 27, 10:00 pm, Alan Erskine wrote:

I know, the insulation is there to protect the rocket. But is it
REALLY supposed to be on fire like that? The incident was downplayed
by ULA, but I still think they were damned lucky not to lose the
vehicle that day.

Yes, it is thick enough to handle the fire issues.
And it was nowhere close to being an issue (it was classified as a
flight observation and not an anomaly) , much less "lucky not to lose
the vehicle"


And this is exactly the sort of attitude I'm talking about. The fact that
"it's thick enough to handle the fire issues" is besides the point.

The point is, the original design did NOT include "on fire after it's
cleared the launch pad". What you're doing is redefining the issue.

This is exactly what lead to the breakup of Challenger and Columbia.
Essentially, "well it wasn't designed for that, but it was safe before and
should continue to be safe."


just some clueless internet key pounders making much ado about nothing




--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

In article ,
says...

"Me" wrote in message
...

On Apr 27, 10:00 pm, Alan Erskine wrote:

I know, the insulation is there to protect the rocket. But is it
REALLY supposed to be on fire like that? The incident was downplayed
by ULA, but I still think they were damned lucky not to lose the
vehicle that day.

Yes, it is thick enough to handle the fire issues.
And it was nowhere close to being an issue (it was classified as a
flight observation and not an anomaly) , much less "lucky not to lose
the vehicle"


And this is exactly the sort of attitude I'm talking about. The fact that
"it's thick enough to handle the fire issues" is besides the point.

The point is, the original design did NOT include "on fire after it's
cleared the launch pad". What you're doing is redefining the issue.

This is exactly what lead to the breakup of Challenger and Columbia.
Essentially, "well it wasn't designed for that, but it was safe before and
should continue to be safe."


just some clueless internet key pounders making much ado about nothing

If the engineers at ULA have looked at the issue in detail, and not just
dismissed it out of hand, then it really isn't an issue. I'm guessing
that they have looked at it in detail, given that their customers' first
reaction would be similar to yours.

The problem with Challenger was that the engineers did recommend that
the flight be put on hold. They were overruled.

The problem with Columbia was that it was assumed that the RCC was
"tougher" than the silica tiles. There was no test data to back up that
assumption. In that case, the engineers really were taken by surprise.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker