New NASA Rocket - Why is is spinning?

When the booster separated both it and the front section started
breakdancing but they seem to have stayed intact. The NASA folks seem
to have thought it was OK.

Some sort of "tumble motor firing" was mentioned on the live feed on
FOX. Was this to tumble the rear booster or tumble the front section
so it could slow down and parachute back?

On Oct 28, 11:39*am, "David E. Powell"
wrote:
When the booster separated both it and the front section started
breakdancing but they seem to have stayed intact. The NASA folks seem
to have thought it was OK.

Some sort of "tumble motor firing" was mentioned on the live feed on
FOX. Was this to tumble the rear booster or tumble the front section
so it could slow down and parachute back?

The local sources, Brevard County, FL, say it was to be a two-minute
flight and when the booster burned out it was to be parachuted,
receovered for study.

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video0...est=latestnews

"David E. Powell" wrote:

When the booster separated both it and the front section started
breakdancing but they seem to have stayed intact. The NASA folks seem
to have thought it was OK.

Some sort of "tumble motor firing" was mentioned on the live feed on
FOX. Was this to tumble the rear booster or tumble the front section
so it could slow down and parachute back?

The tumble motors were intended to tumble the first stage for
recovery. The second stage is currently thought (by third party
observers) to have tumbled either because the seperation wasn't clean
or because there was recontact between the stages post seperation.

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
...
"David E. Powell" wrote:

When the booster separated both it and the front section started
breakdancing but they seem to have stayed intact. The NASA folks seem
to have thought it was OK.

Some sort of "tumble motor firing" was mentioned on the live feed on
FOX. Was this to tumble the rear booster or tumble the front section
so it could slow down and parachute back?

The tumble motors were intended to tumble the first stage for
recovery. The second stage is currently thought (by third party
observers) to have tumbled either because the seperation wasn't clean
or because there was recontact between the stages post seperation.

Yes that certainly appears to be the case. During the press conference
following the flight, several questions were asked specifically about the
separation. So, those third party observers appear to include the press as
well as Usenet posters like myself.

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

Presumably in a real second stage, some gyro and thrusters system would be
installed to push away and stabilise the stage and then ignite the next
stage motor, and none of that messing around would occur then. Staging an
inert lump seems an odd way to do a test though, I'd have though a
rudimentary separation system could have been attached quite easily cobbled
together from another vehicle.
Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"David E. Powell" wrote:

When the booster separated both it and the front section started
breakdancing but they seem to have stayed intact. The NASA folks seem
to have thought it was OK.

Some sort of "tumble motor firing" was mentioned on the live feed on
FOX. Was this to tumble the rear booster or tumble the front section
so it could slow down and parachute back?

The tumble motors were intended to tumble the first stage for
recovery. The second stage is currently thought (by third party
observers) to have tumbled either because the seperation wasn't clean
or because there was recontact between the stages post seperation.

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

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

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

"Brian Gaff" wrote:

Presumably in a real second stage, some gyro and thrusters system would be
installed to push away and stabilise the stage and then ignite the next
stage motor, and none of that messing around would occur then. Staging an
inert lump seems an odd way to do a test though, I'd have though a
rudimentary separation system could have been attached quite easily cobbled
together from another vehicle.

The problem with that, is cobbling together a rudimentary system that
provides sufficient seperation force without otherwise requiring
stabilization strikes me as non trivial. (Mostly due to the size of
the 'inert lump'. There's gonna be a long lever arm there.)

The actual flight objective ('seperate and recover the first stage')
was met, despite the seperation issues. You also have to consider
that the seperation system/configuration used on the 1-X flight isn't
much like the final configuration, so drawing conclusions from it is
risky at best.

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

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

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

On Oct 29, 10:38 am, (Derek Lyons) wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote:
Presumably in a real second stage, some gyro and thrusters system would be
installed to push away and stabilise the stage and then ignite the next
stage motor, and none of that messing around would occur then. Staging an
inert lump seems an odd way to do a test though, I'd have though a
rudimentary separation system could have been attached quite easily cobbled
together from another vehicle.

The problem with that, is cobbling together a rudimentary system that
provides sufficient seperation force without otherwise requiring
stabilization strikes me as non trivial. (Mostly due to the size of
the 'inert lump'. There's gonna be a long lever arm there.)

The actual flight objective ('seperate and recover the first stage')
was met, despite the seperation issues. You also have to consider
that the seperation system/configuration used on the 1-X flight isn't
much like the final configuration, so drawing conclusions from it is
risky at best.

Ok, however, a separation was planned, did it go as planned?
I won't expect the separation event to do damage to the 1st
stage in the test, so I would expect a planned 'clean' separation.
That may require data analysis and patience (for heavens sake),
ugh patience ... to verify.

D.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

Cheers
Ken

On Oct 29, 3:01*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Oct 29, 10:38 am, (Derek Lyons) wrote:



"Brian Gaff" wrote:
Presumably in a real second stage, some gyro and thrusters system would be
installed to push away and stabilise the stage and then ignite the next
stage motor, and none of that messing around would occur then. Staging an
inert lump seems an odd way to do a test though, I'd have though a
rudimentary separation system could have been attached quite easily cobbled
together from another *vehicle.

The problem with that, is cobbling together a rudimentary system that
provides sufficient seperation force without otherwise requiring
stabilization strikes me as non trivial. *(Mostly due to the size of
the 'inert lump'. *There's gonna be a long lever arm there.)

The actual flight objective ('seperate and recover the first stage')
was met, despite the seperation issues. *You also have to consider
that the seperation system/configuration used on the 1-X flight isn't
much like the final configuration, so drawing conclusions from it is
risky at best.

Ok, however, a separation was planned, did it go as planned?
I won't expect the separation event to do damage to the 1st
stage in the test, so I would expect a planned 'clean' separation.
That may require data analysis and patience (for heavens sake),
ugh patience ... to verify.

D.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

Cheers
Ken

For once Wiki is useful, giving the mission objectives and the
configuartion. One point I had wondered about the fifth segment on the
first stage was a dummy. There were eight separation motors on the
first stage and four tumble motors. I watch from about 20 miles from
the 39B launch point and the flame looked a lot hotter than the
shuttle engines, which are identical, from that distance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares_I-X

On Oct 29, 12:16 pm, Jack Linthicum
wrote:
On Oct 29, 3:01 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:



On Oct 29, 10:38 am, (Derek Lyons) wrote:

"Brian Gaff" wrote:
Presumably in a real second stage, some gyro and thrusters system would be
installed to push away and stabilise the stage and then ignite the next
stage motor, and none of that messing around would occur then. Staging an
inert lump seems an odd way to do a test though, I'd have though a
rudimentary separation system could have been attached quite easily cobbled
together from another vehicle.

The problem with that, is cobbling together a rudimentary system that
provides sufficient seperation force without otherwise requiring
stabilization strikes me as non trivial. (Mostly due to the size of
the 'inert lump'. There's gonna be a long lever arm there.)

The actual flight objective ('seperate and recover the first stage')
was met, despite the seperation issues. You also have to consider
that the seperation system/configuration used on the 1-X flight isn't
much like the final configuration, so drawing conclusions from it is
risky at best.

Ok, however, a separation was planned, did it go as planned?
I won't expect the separation event to do damage to the 1st
stage in the test, so I would expect a planned 'clean' separation.
That may require data analysis and patience (for heavens sake),
ugh patience ... to verify.

D.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

Cheers
Ken

For once Wiki is useful, giving the mission objectives and the
configuartion. One point I had wondered about the fifth segment on the
first stage was a dummy. There were eight separation motors on the
first stage and four tumble motors. I watch from about 20 miles from
the 39B launch point and the flame looked a lot hotter than the
shuttle engines, which are identical, from that distance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares_I-X

Thanks for the ref Jack.
((We were lucky enough to get a causeway pass to see a shuttle
go off a few years back)).
It's tough to get a visual on exhaust temperature, but it could be
the guys added a bit more aluminum (Al) to the mix, the actual
shuttle engines burn H and O and that flame is near invisible.
Temperature of an exhaust has a queer formula, made up of
molecular velocity and weight.
Ken

On Oct 29, 5:18*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Oct 29, 12:16 pm, Jack Linthicum
wrote:



On Oct 29, 3:01 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

On Oct 29, 10:38 am, (Derek Lyons) wrote:

"Brian Gaff" wrote:
Presumably in a real second stage, some gyro and thrusters system would be
installed to push away and stabilise the stage and then ignite the next
stage motor, and none of that messing around would occur then. Staging an
inert lump seems an odd way to do a test though, I'd have though a
rudimentary separation system could have been attached quite easily cobbled
together from another *vehicle.

The problem with that, is cobbling together a rudimentary system that
provides sufficient seperation force without otherwise requiring
stabilization strikes me as non trivial. *(Mostly due to the size of
the 'inert lump'. *There's gonna be a long lever arm there.)

The actual flight objective ('seperate and recover the first stage')
was met, despite the seperation issues. *You also have to consider
that the seperation system/configuration used on the 1-X flight isn't
much like the final configuration, so drawing conclusions from it is
risky at best.

Ok, however, a separation was planned, did it go as planned?
I won't expect the separation event to do damage to the 1st
stage in the test, so I would expect a planned 'clean' separation.
That may require data analysis and patience (for heavens sake),
ugh patience ... to verify.

D.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

Cheers
Ken

For once Wiki is useful, giving the mission objectives and the
configuartion. One point I had wondered about the fifth segment on the
first stage was a dummy. There were eight separation motors on the
first stage and four tumble motors. I watch from about 20 miles from
the 39B launch point and the flame looked a lot hotter than the
shuttle engines, which are identical, from that distance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares_I-X

Thanks for the ref Jack.
((We were lucky enough to get a causeway pass to see a shuttle
go off a few years back)).
It's tough to get a visual on exhaust temperature, but it could be
the guys added a bit more aluminum (Al) to the mix, the actual
shuttle engines burn H and O and that flame is near *invisible.
Temperature of an exhaust has a queer formula, made up of
molecular velocity and weight.
Ken

The lack of a live fifth segment was part of the game they are
playing. I did a tour of several solid propellant plants years ago and
they all emphasized the need for a custom interior grain profile for
maximum use of the solid propellant. I suspect we will get at least
one failure where the fifth segment is the cause.