A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Shuttle
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

...Ares1-X FAILURE...N KOREA Offers NASA Technical Advice~



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old November 3rd 09, 05:48 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.shuttle
kT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,032
Default 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  
Old November 4th 09, 06:44 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,alt.politics
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,999
Default 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  
Old November 4th 09, 06:46 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.shuttle
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,999
Default 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  
Old November 4th 09, 02:45 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,alt.politics,sci.space.shuttle
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 224
Default 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  
Old November 4th 09, 02:56 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.shuttle
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)[_490_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default 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.



  #26  
Old November 5th 09, 01:56 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,alt.politics,sci.space.shuttle
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,999
Default Ares1-X failure - new information

wrote:


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.

Instead it got a sudden spin just after
seperation. That only happens by a big none axial force. Recontact
is the most plausible.


It doesn't matter how plausible it is - to posit it *the* cause, you
have to produce evidence that it happened.

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

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
  #27  
Old November 5th 09, 02:45 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.shuttle
kT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,032
Default 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  
Old November 5th 09, 03:41 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.shuttle
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)[_492_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default 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  
Old November 5th 09, 02:52 PM posted to sci.space.policy,alt.politics,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 224
Default 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  
Old November 5th 09, 05:38 PM posted to sci.space.policy,alt.politics,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,999
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 06:35 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.