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
  #1  
Old October 30th 09, 01:56 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,alt.politics
Brian Gaff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,312
Default ...Ares1-X FAILURE...N KOREA Offers NASA Technical Advice~

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?

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Jonathan" wrote in message
...

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










  #2  
Old October 30th 09, 03:43 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,alt.politics
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default ...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  
Old October 31st 09, 10:12 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,alt.politics
Brian Gaff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,312
Default ...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  
Old October 31st 09, 05:08 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,alt.politics
David Spain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default ...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  
Old October 31st 09, 06:27 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,alt.politics
David Spain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default ...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  
Old November 1st 09, 02:20 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,alt.politics
Jonathan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 267
Default ...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  
Old November 1st 09, 03:20 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

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  
Old November 1st 09, 08:37 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.shuttle
John Doe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,134
Default 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  
Old November 1st 09, 11:02 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,alt.politics
Brian Gaff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,312
Default 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  
Old November 1st 09, 07:12 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.shuttle
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,999
Default 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

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 11:13 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.