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

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
Did did you hear about the damage to the Delta IV pad when the first
heavy flew?

In that case I did, although they were more concerned about damage to
the vehicle than the pad from the hydrogen explosion down in the blast
trench.

Or when the first 5 solid Atlas V flew?

They got pad damage on that one?
Here's stills and video of the Ares chutes malfunctioning BTW:
http://spaceflightnow.com/ares1x/091102video/

Pat

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:

There have also been tests done on the Orion capsule.

Which successfully demonstrated lithobraking on landing during the
parachute test. :-)

Pat

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:

As for the shot to the Moon, Apollo 4 flew unmanned, and 2 flights (of the
Saturn V) later, Apollo 8 was going to the Moon.

But weren't there a succession of Mercury and Gemini launches which
evolved into Apollo vehicles ?

I can understand that they may not have wanted to cannabalise the launch
pad until the end of shuttle was near enough (aka: now). So having the
first test launch now can be understood.

However, I would have expected that during those 5 years without a
launch pad, the vehicle would have progressed to be much closer to the
planned Ares product.

Taking a standard shuttle SRB and attaching a dummy top to it doesn't
seem like a whole lot of achievement, especially if they used
guidance/navigation software that won't even be used un the final
vehicle. At the very least, they should have used a 5 segment booster.


During the 1960s, it seems that 5 years gave a hell of a lot more progress.

On Nov 10, 1:50*pm, John Doe wrote:

But weren't there a succession of Mercury and Gemini launches which
evolved into Apollo vehicles ?


No, they were completely different vehicles.

x"John Doe" wrote in message
...
Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:

As for the shot to the Moon, Apollo 4 flew unmanned, and 2 flights (of
the
Saturn V) later, Apollo 8 was going to the Moon.

But weren't there a succession of Mercury and Gemini launches which
evolved into Apollo vehicles ?

Nope. Saturn V was a completely new vehicle.

In fact the Apollo capsule design was started in the early 60s and failed to
take advantage of some lessons learned from Gemini.

Apollo 1 didn't occur until 1967, over 5 years from the first discussion of
the Apollo program.


I can understand that they may not have wanted to cannabalise the launch
pad until the end of shuttle was near enough (aka: now). So having the
first test launch now can be understood.

However, I would have expected that during those 5 years without a
launch pad, the vehicle would have progressed to be much closer to the
planned Ares product.

If you ignore the testing that has been done, you'd be right. But there has
been mockups, boiler plates and testing done. The Orion capsule for example
has done some water recovery testing with Navy help.


Taking a standard shuttle SRB and attaching a dummy top to it doesn't
seem like a whole lot of achievement, especially if they used
guidance/navigation software that won't even be used un the final
vehicle. At the very least, they should have used a 5 segment booster.


During the 1960s, it seems that 5 years gave a hell of a lot more
progress.

John Doe wrote:

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:

As for the shot to the Moon, Apollo 4 flew unmanned, and 2 flights (of the
Saturn V) later, Apollo 8 was going to the Moon.

But weren't there a succession of Mercury and Gemini launches which
evolved into Apollo vehicles ?

No. Apollo design began as Mercury was starting to fly and was
largely frozen before Gemini flew.

During the 1960s, it seems that 5 years gave a hell of a lot more progress.

Only because you don't seem all that familiar with what actually
happened in the 1960's.

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

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

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

In sci.space.policy "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:
Nope. Saturn V was a completely new vehicle.

Even with the leverage from the Saturn I?

rick jones
--
Process shall set you free from the need for rational thought.
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

"Rick Jones" wrote in message
...
In sci.space.policy "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:
Nope. Saturn V was a completely new vehicle.

Even with the leverage from the Saturn I?

To be fair, you're right, there was some cross-over, but even the shared
parts had differences.

But the S-IC was obviously completely new.
As was the S-II.

The S-IVB was common, but even then, there were differences between the 200
and 500 series (the 200 being used for the Saturn IB). (The S-IV had further
differences, 6 engines vs. 1, this was used on the Saturn I).



rick jones
--
Process shall set you free from the need for rational thought.
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...


--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

"John Doe" wrote in message
...
Jeff Findley wrote:

The idea is to prevent Ares I from hitting the tower. That's why it's
called a pad avoidance maneuver.

Shouldn't "don't burn the tower to a crisp" also have fairly high priority
?

Why? NASA wasn't intending to use that tower anymore anyway.

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

This is a "paperwork" problem since the likely hood of this system being
needed is low. However, damaging the tower after every launch would
severely restrict launch rate. Remember that Ares I will be used to go
to and from the space station. (about its only use). So being able to do
3-4 launches per year would be desirable.

It's not a "paperwork" problem to have a "black zone" in your launch
trajectory. This is especially true since Ares I was supposed to be one of
the safest crew launch options studied. Obviously this isn't the case if
the "black zone" can't be gotten rid of completely. No amount of
"paperwork" will do that.

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

"John Doe" wrote in message
...
Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:

As for the shot to the Moon, Apollo 4 flew unmanned, and 2 flights (of
the
Saturn V) later, Apollo 8 was going to the Moon.

But weren't there a succession of Mercury and Gemini launches which
evolved into Apollo vehicles ?

Not really. Maybe you should read some actual space history.

During the 1960s, it seems that 5 years gave a hell of a lot more
progress.

NASA had a blank check during the 60's due to the Cold War. Look at a graph
of NASA funding adjusted for inflation (Google it). It's very enlightening.

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