Ares1-X failure - new information

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 21:41:35 -0500, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:

Can you document any statement saying that launch pad
was never to be used again dated ....before.... the launch?

No, I can't find such a document because that's not what I said. I said the
TOWER is not to be used again. There's quite a few mentions of this. And
LC-39B is designated for Ares-I with LC-39A as primary for Ares-V and a
backup to Ares-I.

And here's a 2007 artist's concept of Ares I on the pad, with the
Shuttle-era FSS and RSS long gone...

http://www.skycontrol.net/UserFiles/...ellation-4.jpg

So scrapping the old tower has clearly been planned for years.

Brian

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 21:41:35 -0500, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:

Can you document any statement saying that launch pad
was never to be used again dated ....before.... the launch?

No, I can't find such a document because that's not what I said. I said the
TOWER is not to be used again. There's quite a few mentions of this. And
LC-39B is designated for Ares-I with LC-39A as primary for Ares-V and a
backup to Ares-I.

And here's a 2007 artist's concept of Ares I on the pad, with the
Shuttle-era FSS and RSS long gone...

http://www.skycontrol.net/UserFiles/...ellation-4.jpg

So scrapping the old tower has clearly been planned for years.

The point was that from what I can gather, the damage to the launch pad
means the new tower, which was planned for the same site, will have
to be redesigned. Look at the launch again, it came off the pad sideways
or already pitching over.

Really, the whole point here is that we shouldn't have to figure this stuff
our ourselves. This is taxpayer money and we should have honest and
open flow of information from NASA. We're not getting that, we're getting
silence and outright lies. I mean when at first NASA admits there might've
been a problem with staging, then retracts that because no one
can prove it, not because they have evidence either way, but because there's
a /lack of evidence/ either way, they conclude what they want to....Success!

It's bull****.

This is what is meant by the term politicizing science. When the scientific
results are skewed (releasing only good news) in order to further
a political goal, which is saving the Moon shot and the Vision.






Brian

Jonathan wrote:

The point was that from what I can gather, the damage to the launch pad
means the new tower, which was planned for the same site, will have
to be redesigned. Look at the launch again, it came off the pad sideways
or already pitching over.

Is it confirmed that the damage to the pad was due to the immediate
"tilting" of the rocket ?


Would the lack of SSMEs and another SRB have caused the exhaust of the
one SRB to be different ?

For instance, with an SSME next to an SRB, would the SSME exhaust cause
some "vaccum" to be created between the 2 exhausts which would help
direct the SRB exhaust towards the SSME exhaust ? Or are the forces so
strong that this would be irrelevant ?


And in terms of a final configuration, will Ares-I always be attached to
a shuttle SRB attach point ? Or will they eventually modify the launch
platform to place the Ares-1 more to the centre of the launch platform ?

"John Doe" wrote in message
...
Jonathan wrote:

The point was that from what I can gather, the damage to the launch pad
means the new tower, which was planned for the same site, will have
to be redesigned. Look at the launch again, it came off the pad sideways
or already pitching over.

Is it confirmed that the damage to the pad was due to the immediate
"tilting" of the rocket ?


All I know is from this quote below, which states the damage was
caused by the 'pad avoidance maneuver'. I would be vey surprised
if this is what they mean by "behaved as expected". Wouldn't the
idea of such a maneuver to be to prevent damage?

Pad damage

"Approximately two hours after launch of Ares I-X, safing crews
entering pad LC-39B reported a small cloud of residual
nitrogen tetroxide leaking from an obsolete shuttle oxidizer line...
At 8:40am on October 29, 2009, a hydrazine leak was detected
on the 95-foot-level...."

"Due to the Pad Avoidance Maneuver performed by Ares I-X,
shortly after liftoff, the Fixed Service Structure at LC-39B
received significantly more direct rocket exhaust than occurs
during a normal Space Shuttle launch. The resulting damage
has been reported as "substantial," with both pad elevators
rendered inoperable, all communication lines between the pad
and launch control destroyed and all outdoor megaphones melted.
The vehicle-facing portions of the Fixed Service Structure appear
to have suffered extreme heat damage and scorching, as do the
hinge columns supporting the Rotating Service Structure.[19]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares_I-X





Would the lack of SSMEs and another SRB have caused the exhaust of the
one SRB to be different ?

For instance, with an SSME next to an SRB, would the SSME exhaust cause
some "vaccum" to be created between the 2 exhausts which would help
direct the SRB exhaust towards the SSME exhaust ? Or are the forces so
strong that this would be irrelevant ?


From what I've heard they expected Ares would tend to jump off
the pad at some angle, not as straight as a shuttle. So reading between
the lines all I can guess is this 'pad avoidance maneuver' was meant
to deal with that. But the extensive damage to the pad just seems
to contradict their early statements of success. I mean from what I
could see of the launch, the thing looked to be hiking over some 15 deg
before it even clears the tower. I doubt that's what they intended
especially if it leaves behind a scorched pad.

That just doesn't make any sense.





And in terms of a final configuration, will Ares-I always be attached to
a shuttle SRB attach point ? Or will they eventually modify the launch
platform to place the Ares-1 more to the centre of the launch platform ?


I'm looking at this whole project from more of a political perspective.
And I think all these problems, from launch to staging, is the last
straw for an unpopular idea as returning men to the Moon.

I strongly doubt there will be another Ares launch at all.
I think between the LCROSS mission last month, which was
meant to find enough water on the Moon for a colony, apparently
failed to find any. And now the problems of Ares that's it.
Time to find another goal.


Executive Summary
NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER EXPLORATORY RESEARCH
AND TECHNOLOGY (SERT) PROGRAM
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1

"Jonathan" wrote:

Wouldn't the idea of such a maneuver to be to prevent damage?

No, the idea of the maneuver was not to prevent damage. You've been
told this on multiple occasions.

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

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

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

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Jonathan" wrote:

Wouldn't the idea of such a maneuver to be to prevent damage?

No, the idea of the maneuver was not to prevent damage. You've been
told this on multiple occasions.

The idea is to prevent Ares I from hitting the tower. That's why it's
called a pad avoidance maneuver. Since this wasn't an operational launch,
and it wasn't a proper Ares I tower, NASA's public facing side doesn't seem
to be worried at all by the damage. After all, it's not an obvious crew
safety problem. That said, the damage should give the engineers good data
which will help them harden the real Ares I tower. Ares I-Y won't fly until
2014 at the earliest, so NASA literally has years to come up with fixes to
keep the new Ares I pad from getting cooked and scoured on every launch.

Ares I has much bigger problems. So far, I have not heard of a viable fix
for the launch escape system not clearing the SRB fragmentation zone during
an abort near max-Q, which is a crew safety problem (the Orion parachutes
simply can't handle that environment).

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

On Nov 9, 8:27*pm, "Jonathan" wrote:

From what I've heard they expected Ares would tend to jump off
the pad at some angle, not as straight as a shuttle. So reading between
the lines all I can guess is this '' was meant
to deal with that. But the extensive damage to the pad just seems
to contradict their early statements of success. I mean from what I
could see of the launch, *the thing looked to be hiking over some 15 deg
before it even clears the tower. I doubt that's what they intended
especially if it leaves behind a scorched pad.

That just doesn't make any sense.

I'm looking at this whole project from more of a political perspective.
And I think all these problems, from launch to staging, is the last
straw for an unpopular idea as returning men to the Moon.


The pad avoidance maneuver keeps the vehicle from hitting the tower.
See Saturn V.

The shuttle does not go straight up. It "walks" across the pad in the
direction going from the orbiter to the ET. The pad takes this into
account.


There is no political fallout from the pad damage. Nor was there a
staging problem.

"Me" wrote in message
...

The shuttle does not go straight up. It "walks" across the pad in the
direction going from the orbiter to the ET. The pad takes this into
account.


There is no political fallout from the pad damage. Nor was there a
staging problem.

I can see you didn't watch the launch.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9e1_1256764383


How can you feel comfortable with such a tall rocket leaving
the pad at the steep angle we witnessed? The scorched pad
only helps confirm that this is a design issue, implying a serious
redesign (read delay) is likely.

And the staging was just as obviously flawed, and fatally so.
Watch carefully as the booster flames out, then separates and
just as the booster separation thrusters fired, the booster
flares up again sending it into the upper stage. This is the
only explanation for the fact that both stages started
tumbling at the exact moment the booster thrusters fired
Because the two were in contact when the separation
thrusters fired. That contact would have destroyed the
upper stage bell and the whole thing probably would
have exploded seconds after staging....killing everyone.

That is the clear visual evidence as it stands now.
NASA has yet to release any data or videos
that say otherwise.

All these problems and the time to fix means two things.
One, that Congress will probably cancel the whole program
in the next couple of months, if not sooner.
Two, that the military replacement for the shuttle is now
the front runner. Our efforts should move in that direction.
In the eight years or so before an Ares sees a manned
flight, we could have much lower cost to orbit in a
reusable and much more versatile vehicle.


U.S. Air Force Aims to Launch Space Plane Next Year

"As a reusable space plane, the intent of the craft is to
serve as a testbed for dozens of technologies in airframe,
propulsion and operation, and other items in the hopes
of making space transportation and operations significantly
more affordable. "
http://www.space.com/news/090602-x-37b-space-plane.html

On Nov 8, 6:30*am, "Jonathan" wrote:
"Brian Thorn" wrote in message

...



On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 21:41:35 -0500, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:

Can you document any statement saying that launch pad
was never to be used again dated ....before.... the launch?

No, I can't find such a document because that's not what I said. *I said the
TOWER is not to be used again. *There's quite a few mentions of this. *And
LC-39B is designated for Ares-I with LC-39A as primary for Ares-V and a
backup to Ares-I.

And here's a 2007 artist's concept of Ares I on the pad, with the
Shuttle-era FSS and RSS long gone...

http://www.skycontrol.net/UserFiles/.../200710/200710...

So scrapping the old tower has clearly been planned for years.

The point was that from what I can gather, the damage to the launch pad
means the new tower, which was planned for the same site, will have
to be redesigned. Look at the launch again, it came off the pad sideways
or already pitching over.


No, it doesn't. It is being built with this maneuver in mind. Th