|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Ares1-X failure - new information
Robert Clark wrote:
"Zionist Nazi" That's quite a combination! Ever heard of Palestine? How about Gaza? The Warsaw Ghetto of the Middle East. Now, let's talk about innocent people imprisoned at Gitmo. Let's talk about routine CIA torture of people denied Habeas Corpus. Wasn't an innocent man executed in Texas recently? Now, let's talk about Ares I retards. Retards, you just gotta love em. Because JESUS said so! |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Ares1-X failure - new information
"Jonathan" wrote:
"Derek Lyons" wrote in message ... 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. That's not correct, they said.... "We did not see any recontact between the upper stage and the first stage." That's not the same thing as no contact occured. That is NASA-speak for the age old political tactic called 'plausible deniability'. No one can prove there was contact, so they can deny it. If nobody can prove there was recontact, then there wasn't any recontact. But we all saw the distance open up and close again just before the upper stage ...immediately...started spinning. I don't care where the CG was, it started spinning far too quickly, contact is the only plausible explanation to start something that massive spinning so suddenly. In other words, facts need not apply. You've got your opinions, and you don't care what they facts are. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Ares1-X failure - new information
"Jonathan" wrote:
As I documented earlier, the maneuver shortly after lift off was called a 'pad avoidance maneuver. That's kinda like documenting the sun coming up. In other words, don't break your arm patting yourself on the back for 'documenting' what everyone else already knew. Since the pad was substantially damaged, far more that from a shuttle flight with ...two...such solids, the question becomes did this maneuver work as intended.....obviously not. Since the manuver wasn't meant to mitigate damage to the pad, you're talking out your ass. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Ares1-X failure - new information
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. That's not correct, they said.... "We did not see any recontact between the upper stage and the first stage." That's not the same thing as no contact occured. That is NASA-speak for the age old political tactic called 'plausible deniability'. No one can prove there was contact, so they can deny it. If nobody can prove there was recontact, then there wasn't any recontact. But we all saw the distance open up and close again just before the upper stage ...immediately...started spinning. I don't care where the CG was, it started spinning far too quickly, contact is the only plausible explanation to start something that massive spinning so suddenly. In other words, facts need not apply. You've got your opinions, and you don't care what they facts are. D. He told the facts you failed to read. Under low airload it should slowly begin to spin and go faster. Instead it got a sudden spin just after seperation. That only happens by a big none axial force. Recontact is the most plausible. And a low amplitude thrust oscilation at burn out is a good reason. NASA should have some data on it. That could happen by long "grain" pipes and may be worse in a 5.5 segmented Ares I. Maybe they gambled this time and hoped for clean cut off. Or it was age related. This SRB was with 8 years older then allowed for Shuttle operations (5 years). Once it gets public Ares I gets hanged. Let the critter RIP. ## CrossPoint v3.12d R ## |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Ares1-X failure - new information
"Jonathan" wrote in message
... Since the pad was substantially damaged, far more that from a shuttle flight with ...two...such solids, the question becomes did this maneuver work as intended.....obviously not. Wrong conclusion. The better conclusion is one that's already been made. Remove the tower and build a specific Ares tower. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Ares1-X failure - new information
Jonathan wrote:
They need to come clean and soon. The problem, Jonathan, is LC39A and LC39B are fantastically expensive to maintain and operate, and will take billions even just to decommission. If they want to launch out there, they'll have to revert to the VAB as a four bay (one per side) with small lightweight reusable cores, and run them out there on a small dolly and launch like the Russians do it. I can see them processed horizontally, then vertically in the high bays, and then set horizontal for the ride out to the pad, and then erected. That way any old perch on the exhaust duct will do, and they can tear down all that crap, and then they won't have to maintain it anymore! What they need to do is commercialize their side of the river. Not a new pad, just stipped down 39 A and B with multiple perches. No crawlers or non of that ****, heavy lift just ain't happening. They can commercialize the SSMEs they have until they get some new engines, commercialized Russian hydrocarbon engines for the boosters, and then get started on a second generation engine program for real. That should keep JSC, MSFC, Stennis and Michoud busy for years. That's what they want, right? Screw exploration, we want LEO! |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Ares1-X failure - new information
"Jonathan" wrote in message
... "Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message ... "Jonathan" wrote in message ... Since the pad was substantially damaged, far more that from a shuttle flight with ...two...such solids, the question becomes did this maneuver work as intended.....obviously not. Wrong conclusion. The better conclusion is one that's already been made. Remove the tower and build a specific Ares tower. 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. -- Greg Moore Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Ares1-X failure - new information
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. That's not correct, they said.... "We did not see any recontact between the upper stage and the first stage." That's not the same thing as no contact occured. That is NASA-speak for the age old political tactic called 'plausible deniability'. No one can prove there was contact, so they can deny it. If nobody can prove there was recontact, then there wasn't any recontact. But we all saw the distance open up and close again just before the upper stage ...immediately...started spinning. I don't care where the CG was, it started spinning far too quickly, contact is the only plausible explanation to start something that massive spinning so suddenly. In other words, facts need not apply. You've got your opinions, and you don't care what they facts are. D. 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. SENECA ## CrossPoint v3.12d R ## |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Ares1-X failure - new information
wrote:
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. 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. 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. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NASA Ames explores possible collaboration with South Korea (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee[_1_] | News | 0 | February 7th 08 05:35 AM |
Technical / Procedural Advice for Film | Joseph | Policy | 45 | March 31st 04 02:21 AM |
Technical / Procedural Advice for Film | Joseph | SETI | 39 | March 31st 04 02:21 AM |