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

"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.

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.








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

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...
Derek Lyons wrote:
John Doe wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:

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.
Since this is a round cylinder, why not just place the rocket on the pad
in the right roll orientation to begin with ? I realise this may require
some planning, such as ensuring whatever connections to the tower are
placed accordingly (as well as placing the payload (Orion) in such a way
that its door faces the access arm).

So , what is the reason they couldn't orient the rocket on the pad to
remove the need for a 90° roll ?

Because you have various and sundry connections between the vehicle
and the launch pad that can't be moved without extensive renovations
to the pad and extensive design changes to the vehicles - for each and
every flight.

It's much easier to roll.

D.

Right. The SRB hold-down post configuration is not symmetric, either.
Structural considerations will dictate LV placement on the pad, dynamic
considerations will dictate LV flight attitude. The difference between the two
dictates the roll required. Simple as that.


As I documented earlier, the maneuver shortly after lift off
was called a 'pad avoidance maneuver.

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.

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.

It does much. An aerodynamic force increases as it diverges. But a
structurally transmitted force is a push and let the upperstage
spin suddenly. That is what a lot of observers saw and mentioned.
It was never realy denied by NASA. What you wrote at 1st Nov.:

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/

was by a) simply not true. It was told to you here that they only
reported the result of first analysis of the tracking cameras. But
you know a camera 100 km away can never see any recontact within
some inches.

And b) is well true but may only account for some seconds after
seperation, not in the first second. So with your silly rhetorics
it is obvious that you just want to support a NASA PR stand to
save the Ares 1.

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.

I could suggest even more. Maybe the whole thing finaly broke apart.
But why was recontact here (and elesewhere) the first thought?

The question of recontact came not up out of the blue. It was well
expected as critical test issue. About a year ago there were reports
that Ares 1 may need more powerfule solid rocket motors (SRMs) to
break the first stage so that it can safely seperate from the upperstage.
All because of the expected unclean thrust termination those SRBs have.

I saw than a new NASA graphic of the Ares 1 with a lot of breaking, upward
firing, SRMs at the base. This Ares 1 looked almost like a Delta. But
the Ares 1-X looked much less like and the question came up before the
launch whether it will get recontact problems or not. Till now we have
no deffinitiv statemant of NASA about it.


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.

Derek, like I know you well from the past ("Apollo 13 final report"),
your main effort here is to spread silly rhetorics to defend almost
any NASA PR problem. By the time now NASA has well the recorded sensor
data analysed and knows whether a recontact had happend or not or what
went wrong. Instead they are still touting the horn how good all went
and you joined them. Your job as "expert citizen" would be to ask, not
to applaude. Applauding they are doing enough themself.


SENECA

## CrossPoint v3.12d R ##

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 21:41:35 -0500, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:

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.

And here's a 2007 artist's concept of Ares I on the pad, with the
Shuttle-era FSS and RSS long gone...

http://www.skycontrol.net/UserFiles/...ellation-4.jpg

So scrapping the old tower has clearly been planned for years.

Brian

wrote:

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.

It does much. An aerodynamic force increases as it diverges. But a
structurally transmitted force is a push and let the upperstage
spin suddenly. That is what a lot of observers saw and mentioned.
It was never realy denied by NASA.

At lot of observers *think* they saw a push. But even so, with an
extreme aft CG a minor push again translates into what seems to be a
faster spin.

What you wrote at 1st Nov.:

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/

was by a) simply not true. It was told to you here that they only
reported the result of first analysis of the tracking cameras. But
you know a camera 100 km away can never see any recontact within
some inches.

If you have some evidence that a) is not true - then produce it. (And
no, "I thought I saw it on the video" is not evidence.) Otherwise,
you're talking out of your hat.

And b) is well true but may only account for some seconds after
seperation, not in the first second. So with your silly rhetorics
it is obvious that you just want to support a NASA PR stand to
save the Ares 1.

If you have evidence that b) is not true - then produce it.
Otherwise, you're talking out of your hat.

Or to put it more bluntly - you can't seem to differentiate between
opinion and fact. You have somewhere arrived at the delusion that all
you have to do is 'announce' a fact to make it so.

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.

I could suggest even more. Maybe the whole thing finaly broke apart.

Well, again, you're suggestion is at odds with reported facts. The
USS was seen to impact as a single unit - there is no evidence that it
broke apart.

But why was recontact here (and elesewhere) the first thought?

Two main reasons... The first being many people here are rather
exiteable and tend to leap to conclusions based on slim or no
evidence. Once having reached that conclusion, they then seek to
create justification for that conclusion.

The second, and key one, is an extreme bias against NASA - bias they
continue to hold even when the facts state otherwise, or other
possible interpretations exist.

The question of recontact came not up out of the blue. It was well
expected as critical test issue. About a year ago there were reports
that Ares 1 may need more powerfule solid rocket motors (SRMs) to
break the first stage so that it can safely seperate from the upperstage.
All because of the expected unclean thrust termination those SRBs have.

Well, duh. Anyone with actual knowledge of spaceflight history and
booster development and engineering knows that recontact is a
potential issue. But that doesn't justify leaping to the conclusions
that recontact must be *the* issue.

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.

Derek, like I know you well from the past ("Apollo 13 final report"),
your main effort here is to spread silly rhetorics to defend almost
any NASA PR problem.

Which is a strange conclusion to reach, given that I have provided
facts and analysis - and you are the one providing rhetoric and
handwaving.

By the time now NASA has well the recorded sensor
data analysed and knows whether a recontact had happend or not or what
went wrong. Instead they are still touting the horn how good all went
and you joined them. Your job as "expert citizen" would be to ask, not
to applaude. Applauding they are doing enough themself.

When I applaud them, rather than analyzing the facts, you'll have a
point. Until then, once again, you are confusing assumption with
facts.

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

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

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

On Oct 30, 7:56*am, "Brian Gaff" wrote:
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

No such thing. This is SOP and nothing is wrong

FreeX wrote in :

On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 10:48:59 -0800 (PST), Me
wrote:

No such thing. This is SOP and nothing is wrong

Like you'd know?


Yes. Prove otherwise.


--Damon

"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?
Because I'm easily finding statements to quite the contrary.
That pad LC-39B was heavily modified for Ares and
was expected to launch /all/ Ares Stick and Heavy launches
for the length of the program.

I'm smelling a big lie that speaks volumes about the problems
of Ares1-X.

Looking at this from a political perspective, I can predict with a
high level of certainty the following...there will be no new Ares
tower, there will never be another Ares flight, there will never
be a Ares Heavy and there will never be a new manned
lunar lander.

It was written all over the faces of the department
managers at the post launch press conference.

And I distinctly heard someone associated with LCROSS
say they only need a couple of weeks to get an idea
about the concentrations of water at the impact site.
Instead, two weeks after impact they mention at the very
bottom of a statement that 'Any new information will undergo
the normal scientific review process and will be released
as soon as it is available."

NASA-speak for someone else...months down the road
will release some results for the public.

We can assume what that means in terms of water on the
flippin Moon. Like I've been saying, that search will fail.
Look like it has!

Ya know, in the business world, it's highly illegal for a corp
to only release the 'good news' while not giving equal
time to the 'bad news'. Corps must release both so
stockholders can judge the value.

NASA only releases the good news.

It would be nice if NASA and our SCIENTIFIC communmity
in general behaved as honestly, openly and morally as
....oh...say...ExxonMobil!

They need to come clean and soon.


Jonathan

s





s

FreeX wrote:
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 10:48:59 -0800 (PST), Me
wrote:

No such thing. This is SOP and nothing is wrong

Like you'd know?


He would, actually.

This was a planned tower avoidance maneuver. Saturn V did the same thing.

"Jonathan" wrote in
:


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".

And it did.

All those "problems" you say you witnessed are normal behavior.

Next you be telling us it was a failure because the payload didn't make
into orbit...

The only anomaly I saw was with one of the chutes for the booster
splashdown that didn't open, but I'm sure they have seen that before and
only 2 of the 3 are needed for a safe recovery of the booster.