Ares1-X failure - new information

He told the facts you failed to read. Under low airload it should slowly
begin to spin and go faster.

Um, that's an assumption (and an incorrect one) rather than a fact.

its very basic physics. If a momentum acts to a free body it slowly
begins to spin and gets faster. In this case, an aerodynamic unstable
body, the momentum increases as more angle deviation you got. The
max mommentum for such a body may reached at 90 deg. Until that position
the spin gets faster. But we all saw it fast from the 0 deg on.

No, this isn't basic physics - it's a mish mash of nonsense that, to
the uneducated and ignorant, resembles basic physics... but actually
isn't.

It ignore the fact that, with an extreme aft CG, any force acting on
the nose is going to be greatly multiplied via the lever law. Or,
more simply, once it starts to diverge it's going to ramp up very
quickly. It doesn't matter if the force is aerodynamic or transmitted
structurally.

It does much. An aerodynamic force increases as it diverges. But a
structurally transmitted force is a push and let the upperstage
spin suddenly. That is what a lot of observers saw and mentioned.
It was never realy denied by NASA. What you wrote at 1st Nov.:

NASA is now stating in an article on Spaceflightnow that a) no
recontact occurred, and b) the spin was not entirely unexpected
due to the CG of the USS being well aft.
http://spaceflightnow.com/ares1x/091030recovery/

was by a) simply not true. It was told to you here that they only
reported the result of first analysis of the tracking cameras. But
you know a camera 100 km away can never see any recontact within
some inches.

And b) is well true but may only account for some seconds after
seperation, not in the first second. So with your silly rhetorics
it is obvious that you just want to support a NASA PR stand to
save the Ares 1.

You also ignore the fact that high tip-off forces (via
poor design of the seperation system) can explain the spin equally
well. As can poor timing in the seperation and BDM/BTM firing
sequences.

I could suggest even more. Maybe the whole thing finaly broke apart.
But why was recontact here (and elesewhere) the first thought?

The question of recontact came not up out of the blue. It was well
expected as critical test issue. About a year ago there were reports
that Ares 1 may need more powerfule solid rocket motors (SRMs) to
break the first stage so that it can safely seperate from the upperstage.
All because of the expected unclean thrust termination those SRBs have.

I saw than a new NASA graphic of the Ares 1 with a lot of breaking, upward
firing, SRMs at the base. This Ares 1 looked almost like a Delta. But
the Ares 1-X looked much less like and the question came up before the
launch whether it will get recontact problems or not. Till now we have
no deffinitiv statemant of NASA about it.


You're probably not even aware of the potential discrepancy between
the published burnout timeline and the observed burnout timeline.
Difficult to resolve with the limited information available to us, but
definetly a possibility.

You've made the classic mistake of starting with a conclusion (there
was recontact) and then working backwards creating evidence in favor
of the conclusion as you go. New information? You discard it as
irrelvant because you already have a conclusion.

D.

Derek, like I know you well from the past ("Apollo 13 final report"),
your main effort here is to spread silly rhetorics to defend almost
any NASA PR problem. By the time now NASA has well the recorded sensor
data analysed and knows whether a recontact had happend or not or what
went wrong. Instead they are still touting the horn how good all went
and you joined them. Your job as "expert citizen" would be to ask, not
to applaude. Applauding they are doing enough themself.


SENECA

## CrossPoint v3.12d R ##

wrote:

It ignore the fact that, with an extreme aft CG, any force acting on
the nose is going to be greatly multiplied via the lever law. Or,
more simply, once it starts to diverge it's going to ramp up very
quickly. It doesn't matter if the force is aerodynamic or transmitted
structurally.

It does much. An aerodynamic force increases as it diverges. But a
structurally transmitted force is a push and let the upperstage
spin suddenly. That is what a lot of observers saw and mentioned.
It was never realy denied by NASA.

At lot of observers *think* they saw a push. But even so, with an
extreme aft CG a minor push again translates into what seems to be a
faster spin.

What you wrote at 1st Nov.:

NASA is now stating in an article on Spaceflightnow that a) no
recontact occurred, and b) the spin was not entirely unexpected
due to the CG of the USS being well aft.
http://spaceflightnow.com/ares1x/091030recovery/

was by a) simply not true. It was told to you here that they only
reported the result of first analysis of the tracking cameras. But
you know a camera 100 km away can never see any recontact within
some inches.

If you have some evidence that a) is not true - then produce it. (And
no, "I thought I saw it on the video" is not evidence.) Otherwise,
you're talking out of your hat.

And b) is well true but may only account for some seconds after
seperation, not in the first second. So with your silly rhetorics
it is obvious that you just want to support a NASA PR stand to
save the Ares 1.

If you have evidence that b) is not true - then produce it.
Otherwise, you're talking out of your hat.

Or to put it more bluntly - you can't seem to differentiate between
opinion and fact. You have somewhere arrived at the delusion that all
you have to do is 'announce' a fact to make it so.

You also ignore the fact that high tip-off forces (via
poor design of the seperation system) can explain the spin equally
well. As can poor timing in the seperation and BDM/BTM firing
sequences.

I could suggest even more. Maybe the whole thing finaly broke apart.

Well, again, you're suggestion is at odds with reported facts. The
USS was seen to impact as a single unit - there is no evidence that it
broke apart.

But why was recontact here (and elesewhere) the first thought?

Two main reasons... The first being many people here are rather
exiteable and tend to leap to conclusions based on slim or no
evidence. Once having reached that conclusion, they then seek to
create justification for that conclusion.

The second, and key one, is an extreme bias against NASA - bias they
continue to hold even when the facts state otherwise, or other
possible interpretations exist.

The question of recontact came not up out of the blue. It was well
expected as critical test issue. About a year ago there were reports
that Ares 1 may need more powerfule solid rocket motors (SRMs) to
break the first stage so that it can safely seperate from the upperstage.
All because of the expected unclean thrust termination those SRBs have.

Well, duh. Anyone with actual knowledge of spaceflight history and
booster development and engineering knows that recontact is a
potential issue. But that doesn't justify leaping to the conclusions
that recontact must be *the* issue.

You're probably not even aware of the potential discrepancy between
the published burnout timeline and the observed burnout timeline.
Difficult to resolve with the limited information available to us, but
definetly a possibility.

You've made the classic mistake of starting with a conclusion (there
was recontact) and then working backwards creating evidence in favor
of the conclusion as you go. New information? You discard it as
irrelvant because you already have a conclusion.

D.

Derek, like I know you well from the past ("Apollo 13 final report"),
your main effort here is to spread silly rhetorics to defend almost
any NASA PR problem.

Which is a strange conclusion to reach, given that I have provided
facts and analysis - and you are the one providing rhetoric and
handwaving.

By the time now NASA has well the recorded sensor
data analysed and knows whether a recontact had happend or not or what
went wrong. Instead they are still touting the horn how good all went
and you joined them. Your job as "expert citizen" would be to ask, not
to applaude. Applauding they are doing enough themself.

When I applaud them, rather than analyzing the facts, you'll have a
point. Until then, once again, you are confusing assumption with
facts.

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

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

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

You also ignore the fact that high tip-off forces (via
poor design of the seperation system) can explain the spin equally
well. As can poor timing in the seperation and BDM/BTM firing
sequences.

I could suggest even more. Maybe the whole thing finaly broke apart.

Well, again, you're suggestion is at odds with reported facts. The
USS was seen to impact as a single unit - there is no evidence that it
broke apart.

Uh Derek, that was meant as a joke. If the steering of the SRB faild near
burnout, the whole rocket could get a high angle of attack and breaks
apart for "seperation". May look like the video but I dont realy
suggest it as recontact seems more likely.


But why was recontact here (and elesewhere) the first thought?

Two main reasons... The first being many people here are rather
exiteable and tend to leap to conclusions based on slim or no
evidence. Once having reached that conclusion, they then seek to
create justification for that conclusion.

What you call slim evidence is usually evidence that is not much
reported in the mainstream. Or even contradicting mainstream. Like
we had with the Apollo 13 "explosion" or other revealing things from Stuf4.

One of the last such examples I remember was by William Mook. While all
media ranted on the North Korean rocket test, he mentioned a similar South
Korean rocket program near launch preparation. That was an interesting
info bit. Thats was usenet at his best and the reason I`m here sometimes.
But he got badly beaten afterwards by some regulars here. Former guys
from the US military like you. Even his private adress and phone was
here published. After that attack he was brocken and I never read
anything from him again.

Or look at the piece "kt" found on China`s von Braun. It was an
excellent info worth a lot of discussion in ssh. I copied some there.
Most here will not like kt by his sometimes brutal style. But he may
have better a chance to survive here then the more civil William Mook.


The second, and key one, is an extreme bias against NASA - bias they
continue to hold even when the facts state otherwise, or other
possible interpretations exist.

Some may, but some have expierence from the past. Sometimes NASA is
big in covering up and distorting facts. Challenger`s O-rings we got
from the press while NASA was very tight hiding. Columbia was even
worse in hiding and distorting. On that road NASA PR got a lot of
support by several users and sci.space regulars. It was rather the
opposite you claim.

You did not accuse me of bias against NASA. Well, you may know my
view. It is not a big secret that there is an internal war inside
NASA for quite some time. On one side astronauts and rocketeers
("manned spaceflight") and scientists on the other. The later are
the real big success story of NASA after Apollo. Even in the last
10 years they got breathtaking results from Mars and Saturn.

If you take a modern book about the solar system and related astronomy,
90% of the pictures are from NASA and thats no bias. Almost all are
from unmanned probes. But this programms get only a small budget fraction
compared to the manned side. And they get poor NASA PR to keep it that
way.

The best images of the Mars rovers were only put in poor versions to
the press. One of the first MER images went to CNN in the worst way I
ever saw. Instead of near visual they put to CNN a deeeep red IR image.
I know IR and multispectral images but never saw such an ugly thing before.
I know what the MER people uses, never such likes. Usualy the images
they have at the monitors never went to the broad public. Only crude ones.

As NASA PAO published MOC results of very recent liquid water on Mars,
it got no wide impact. Instead even BBC quoted unnamed scientists, that
it could be from liquid CO2. No counter from NASA PAO. Strangely, few
years later one sci.space regular (Pat, former USAF) declared water
and heat on Mars a NASA PR stand and invented his liquid CO2 Mars and
no one here opposed. Instead he got even support! I was outraged.

It is obviuos that any manned spaceflight has a much better PR on all
levels then science missions. But now NASA is at crossroads. The whole
Ares program will not offer any substantial sci results worth the bugs.
You cant do manned Mars with any Ares. Moon brings nothing new and NEO is
for unmanned far better suited. The rocketeer faction of NASA will
just screw on unwanted rockets for its own sake. To get men in space
anyway what purpose.

But there is an option to end this war. To develop a big rocket for
a permanent scientific settelment on Mars. Only a few astronauts
with enough equipment. Resupply missions for every open launch window
all 26 months. No return. More crew may be send if scientific and
other goals require it.

What I wrote last days about the Sea Dragon rocket is for real. I
heard that part of this NASA study may still be classified. But the
unclassified reports are very clear. With such rather simple
technology, once developed, 550 to several 1000 tons LEO payloads
are possible. The cost of each rocket may not exceed a few Ares V.
It is worth to think about it. We may get big science for the bugs.


SENECA

## CrossPoint v3.12d R ##

wrote:

[nothing of importance]

Handwaving twaddle and self important smoke screen noted, along with
the inability or unwillingness to adress the points raised.

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

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

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

Handwaving twaddle and self important smoke screen noted, along with
the inability or unwillingness to adress the points raised.

Derek, that is exactly how I see your postings in the last few years
and specially in this thread. Everyone here is free to take his own
conclusion.


SENECA

## CrossPoint v3.12d R ##

wrote:


Handwaving twaddle and self important smoke screen noted, along with
the inability or unwillingness to adress the points raised.

Derek, that is exactly how I see your postings in the last few years
and specially in this thread. Everyone here is free to take his own
conclusion.

ROTFLMAO.

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

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

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