|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
...Ares1-X FAILURE...N KOREA Offers NASA Technical Advice~
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message ... Yes, though not actually seen it, I suspect the following is more truthful.. First test launch of Ares. Low speed stabilisation needs better algorithm to stop drift and rotation immediately after launch Upper stage should be released in a different way to stop spasmodic afterburning of booster from creating a collision with upper stage More work on parachute reliability after burn out and clearance of upper stages needed. Now maybe all of these things are pretty simple to fix, I don't know, but surely this means another launch to test they have been fixed? The next flight, Ares I-Y, is scheduled for March 2014. We'll be waiting quite a long time and pouring billions of dollars into this program before we have any real indication that progress is being made. Ares I-X didn't instill any confidence in the design because it's not representative of flight hardware. Jeff -- "Take heart amid the deepening gloom that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National Lampoon |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
...Ares1-X FAILURE...N KOREA Offers NASA Technical Advice~
Yup, its justa few odd bits cobbled together. I suspect the only ral data
they expect to get is that on vibration, and it will be that which dictates whether its best to carry on or not. I was listening to some of the astronaut interviews last evening, and reading between the lines I feel that they all want an upgraded shuttle rather than a tin can to ride in, Brian -- Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email. graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them Email: __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________ "Jeff Findley" wrote in message ... "Brian Gaff" wrote in message ... Yes, though not actually seen it, I suspect the following is more truthful.. First test launch of Ares. Low speed stabilisation needs better algorithm to stop drift and rotation immediately after launch Upper stage should be released in a different way to stop spasmodic afterburning of booster from creating a collision with upper stage More work on parachute reliability after burn out and clearance of upper stages needed. Now maybe all of these things are pretty simple to fix, I don't know, but surely this means another launch to test they have been fixed? The next flight, Ares I-Y, is scheduled for March 2014. We'll be waiting quite a long time and pouring billions of dollars into this program before we have any real indication that progress is being made. Ares I-X didn't instill any confidence in the design because it's not representative of flight hardware. Jeff -- "Take heart amid the deepening gloom that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National Lampoon |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
...Ares1-X FAILURE...N KOREA Offers NASA Technical Advice~
Jeff Findley wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message ... Yes, though not actually seen it, I suspect the following is more truthful.. First test launch of Ares. Low speed stabilisation needs better algorithm to stop drift and rotation immediately after launch Upper stage should be released in a different way to stop spasmodic afterburning of booster from creating a collision with upper stage As was pointed out elsewhere (in a different thread?) none of the NASA animations I have seen of what was expected had the upper stage in rotation. Would it be correct to assume that rotation was induced by the collision with the lower stage? Would ignition of the J2-X on the upper stage be enough to guarantee clearance from the lower solid stage regardless of 'spasmodic afterburning?' Maybe release the upper stage a little sooner before the solid stage attains burn-out? More work on parachute reliability after burn out and clearance of upper stages needed. Now maybe all of these things are pretty simple to fix, I don't know, but surely this means another launch to test they have been fixed? The next flight, Ares I-Y, is scheduled for March 2014. We'll be waiting quite a long time and pouring billions of dollars into this program before we have any real indication that progress is being made. Ares I-X didn't instill any confidence in the design because it's not representative of flight hardware. What is supposed to be the configuration for Ares 1-Y? Full operative upper stage and Orion capsule? What are the mission goals? Are they expecting a full-up orbital mission with automated capsule recovery? Dave |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
...Ares1-X FAILURE...N KOREA Offers NASA Technical Advice~
David Spain wrote:
Would ignition of the J2-X on the upper stage be enough to guarantee clearance from the lower solid stage regardless of 'spasmodic afterburning?' Maybe release the upper stage a little sooner before the solid stage attains burn-out? [snip] What is supposed to be the configuration for Ares 1-Y? Full operative upper stage and Orion capsule? What are the mission goals? Are they expecting a full-up orbital mission with automated capsule recovery? Dave There have been a lot of posts in different threads and in different groups about this. Makes me wish back for the simpler times when there was only sci.space to post within. As such most of my questions have already been answered elsewhere. Dave |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
...Ares1-X FAILURE...N KOREA Offers NASA Technical Advice~
Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. As I listened to the radio at work, to my great relief and joy the good news came about the highly anticipated Ares1-X launch, our new manned booster for the future. ..and I QUOTE..... ....."The rocket performed as expected". So, I just now went over to NASA TV to watch and enjoy the successful launch. Happy knowing such a significant event went so very well. Yet, to my laymen's eyes I witness a couple of rather p e c u l i a r things . Little details the jubilant press release seemed to have l e f t o u t. Minor details! Like watching this rocket make it's first turn before it even clears HALF the tower. And watching the booster slam headlong into the payload sending it careening into OBLIVION with no hope of a safe abort. A payload meant for our PEOPLE btw. The quotation marks below are mine. NASA's Ares I-X Rocket Completes "Successful" Flight Test http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/co...res/index.html Hmm, I thought to myself, they EXPECTED that to happen? WOW! Like I said, truth is stranger than fiction, read below for proof of this please...I mean...gawd! Someone pinch me! Doublethink http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink Now we see what happens as a result of the wrong kind of space-race. A race meant to hurry up and spend an unpopular Moon project into existence. A race to see which gets "fired" first former NASA chief Griffin or ...Ares1-X Moon Rocket? Mercifully, for his sake, Griffin was fired first. NASA's manned space flight program is hereby officially a Train Wreck in slow motion. Tumbling aimlessly towards an inevitable fate, just like that payload. Let's just pretend the last fifty years never happened...OK? Announce a Do-Over! With something useful, like below. so someday endless clean energy ...falls from the sky... as our TV and phone calls do now. NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER EXPLORATORY RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY (SERT) PROGRAM http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1 Jonathan s |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Ares1-X failure - new information
David Spain wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote: "Brian Gaff" wrote in message ... Yes, though not actually seen it, I suspect the following is more truthful.. First test launch of Ares. Low speed stabilisation needs better algorithm to stop drift and rotation immediately after launch Upper stage should be released in a different way to stop spasmodic afterburning of booster from creating a collision with upper stage It should be pointed out (again) that 'spasmodic afterburning', 'recontact' and 'collision' are assumptions, not facts. As was pointed out elsewhere (in a different thread?) none of the NASA animations I have seen of what was expected had the upper stage in rotation. Would it be correct to assume that rotation was induced by the collision with the lower stage? 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/ D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Ares1-X failure - new information
Derek Lyons 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. To be pedantic, NASA says that they did not see recontact. They don't state there was no recontact. When I watched the video, the feeling I got is that the first stage started to flip during a period where second stage had been unlatched but still being accelerated by first stage. And when first stage started to flip, it induced that movement only to the base of the second stage which then started to separate and flip as well. But I am puzzled: ## The booster's roll control system also functioned perfectly, spinning the rocket 90 degrees a few seconds after liftoff and keeping the vehicle stable throughout the flight. # I can understand the shuttle needing to change it orientation so the wings and control surfaces are in the right orientation. But for a symetrically round rocket, why would it need to rotate 90° ? What does that achieve ? Why not place it in the right orientation on the pad to begin with if it needs to be in a specific roll orientation ? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Ares1-X failure - new information
Hmm, well, I have only others appreciation of this of course, so do I smell
another controversay brewing here as with Challengetr? I hope not. I'm just wondering quite what was expected and unexpected and why they bothered at all if it was all expected, as I'd have waiting till a bit more of the expected unexpected stuff was sorted out before I threw it into the air and showed what a heap of bits and pieces it all was at the moment. 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 Spain wrote: Jeff Findley wrote: "Brian Gaff" wrote in message ... Yes, though not actually seen it, I suspect the following is more truthful.. First test launch of Ares. Low speed stabilisation needs better algorithm to stop drift and rotation immediately after launch Upper stage should be released in a different way to stop spasmodic afterburning of booster from creating a collision with upper stage It should be pointed out (again) that 'spasmodic afterburning', 'recontact' and 'collision' are assumptions, not facts. As was pointed out elsewhere (in a different thread?) none of the NASA animations I have seen of what was expected had the upper stage in rotation. Would it be correct to assume that rotation was induced by the collision with the lower stage? 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/ D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Ares1-X failure - new information
John Doe wrote:
But I am puzzled: ## The booster's roll control system also functioned perfectly, spinning the rocket 90 degrees a few seconds after liftoff and keeping the vehicle stable throughout the flight. # I can understand the shuttle needing to change it orientation so the wings and control surfaces are in the right orientation. But for a symetrically round rocket, why would it need to rotate 90° ? What does that achieve ? Why not place it in the right orientation on the pad to begin with if it needs to be in a specific roll orientation ? Because the pad is fixed - while a vehicle launched from it may depart on any number of different azimuths. Therefore the vehicle rolls to align the vehicles various axes with the with the trajectory. This also helps ensure communications with the vehicle as various antenna are pointed in the proper direction. 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 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 |