Ares 1X

[Phixit]

So I just watched the press conference and they did not expect the upper stage to tumble like it did during separation. They thought it would go straight for longer, however they have seen this in simulations when the vehicle was slightly at the wrong angle or speed. As of now they do not think the upper and lower stages made contact after separation.

As for the tilting at the launch, it sounded like that was planned. Could of warned us though! All in all it sounds like the test went very well and they will have a lot of good data to look at.

[Moonwalker]

The tilt during launch was intentional to avoid potential contact with the launch tower (the Apollo Saturn rockets did the same maneuver, how could I not consider that). However, the staging sequence did work well beside the unintentional rotation. We have to wait until the data is evaluated. The video images do not really show what was happening exactly. For now they think it was aerodynamic effects that caused the tumbling of the upper stage, as had been previsouly demonstrated by computer models already.

We should not forget that the upper stage was an uncontrolled piece of metal

[Admin]

...<SNIP>...
We should not forget that the upper stage was an uncontrolled piece of metal

IMO the entire test was from liftoff to SEP. After that, was just "grab the pieces and analyze the data".

We are still VERY far from putting real people up there.

/Admin

[Moonwalker]

...<SNIP>...
We should not forget that the upper stage was an uncontrolled piece of metal

IMO the entire test was from liftoff to SEP.

Well, the first stage was powered (obviously ) and the entire stack was controlled during powered flight (the upper stage became a useless piece of metal at separation). The vehicle performed just as expected until separation, and even better as expected regarding the torque. There was just 3 corrections other than during computer modeling which indicated there could be 20 to 25 corrections. It seems that riding on top of a single SRB could be much more comfortable and stable than expected. There wasn't even noticable vibrations of the onboard camera and the acceleration did not exceed 3g. But regarding those vibrations: only the very last few seconds of the powered flight of the first stage is expected to cause virbations anyway. Not a big deal although some voices are trying to "verbally" make it a big deal.

But yes, we're still years away of sending humans into space on top of Ares I. But the next test flight, if NASA is allowed to continue, is Ares I-Y in 2012 and that will give us amazing results on an almost usable Ares I configuration I guess. If NASA gets the go and money, I'm confident they're going to design a wonderful and reliable manned system. Solid rockets have been proven to be rather reliable over the last 3 decades.

PS: just in case -> No, STS-51L was not caused by a failed SRB but by mismanagement i.e. decisions against well known issues.

[Admin]

...<SNIP>...There wasn't even noticable vibrations of the onboard camera and the acceleration did not exceed 3g. But regarding those vibrations: only the very last few seconds of the powered flight of the first stage is expected to cause virbations anyway. Not a big deal although some voices are trying to "verbally" make it a big deal.

...<SNIP>...

PS: just in case -> No, STS-51L was not caused by a failed SRB but by mismanagement i.e. decisions against well known issues.

Well, one critical point was Max-Q - and it passes, thankfully.

That was the point where STS-51L "broke". Astronaut Mike Mullane explains a lot about the mismanagement issues that led to the fateful STS-51L and I am sure that the web has a ton of additional info on the subject, not to mention the lame conspiracy theories meant for people with single-neuron brains

/Admin

[uri_ba]

BTW - one of the test goals was to see if the the seperation thrusters are enoght before the pivot thrusters kick in.

If I saw it right they are too weak (or timed too closely together) because when the pivot thrusters fired, you could very clearly see that the SRB is nudging the upper stage.

[Moonwalker]

If I saw it right they are too weak (or timed too closely together) because when the pivot thrusters fired, you could very clearly see that the SRB is nudging the upper stage.

You couldn't really clearly see if both stages had contact once again. That is pretty much interpretation The video, well that one of the public NASA TV transmission everybody is refering to, does not really allow a conclusion. The fact that the upper stage begins to rotate faster right after the first stage began to tumble points to areodynamic effects between both bodies, which were obviously still too close together after sep. There are another different videos on youtube meanwhile, showing the launch from different angles. But we'll have to wait if any data will say seomthing about it...

[bradleyjs]

This is an interesting read:

NASA assessing dented booster from Ares 1-X launch
http://spaceflightnow.com/ares1x/091029dent/

[Moonwalker]

[Snip] China launched rockets like this thousands of years ago [Snip]

Just to correct you and prevent others from potentially jumping on a famous myth-wagon: that China launched rockets like this thousands of years ago is wrong just like that the Earth is 4.500 years old or that the Moon is empty like some people indeed still believe these days.

The Chinese launched small projectiles, propelled by black powder pretty much comparable to New Year rockets, to frighten the horses of their enemies. That didn't happen thousands of years ago but 768 years ago for the first time. The first small rockets in Europe were used 323 years later, in 1555 for the first time (in Romania). This is not comparable to todays space flight engineering and technology anyway.

What happened to the Bigger, Faster, Better, Further mentality.

Well, Bigger, Faster, Better and Further is exactly the intention of Constellation. Ares I, going to consist of a 22 million hourse power 5-segement SRB, will lift off the pad faster than the Shuttle or the Saturns did, but which doesn't really matter. Better: also is a part of Constellation i.e. Ares. The configuration of both, the Ares I and Ares V vehicles is going to be less risky than the Shuttle stack with its 100% unprotected thermal protection system. The abort capabilities of the Shuttle are also rather narrow compared to a "usual" rocket design. It's actually a windows of just a few seconds. Further: Orion will be operable in a wide range beyond low earth orbit, which is the key goal of future manned space exploration also for future Russian systems as they announced recently. The future lies beyond low earth orbit, which is something the Space Shuttle can not accomplish. Bigger: the Ares V will be able to lift off more mass into earth orbit than the Saturn V did. Ares V will outshine Saturn V.

One could agree that riding on top of such a configuration the Ares I consists of is crazy. But if people would just take a closer look and think about, they'll conclude that riding in a Shuttle on such a configuration actually is the most craziest thing astronauts did for now

[bjbeard]

History?? This is a giant step BACKWARDS! Instead of three there are to be four astronauts making like spam in a can once again...

Just a note, the Orion is designed to carry 6 astronauts to the ISS. Four is for lunar missions, or I guess anything past LEO. I think it is a misconception to keep comparing Orion to Apollo. It is the same concept, but it definitely is a new generation of spacecraft. But, I digress because moonwalker already covered all of this. Also, not a big fan of the saying "spam in a can". I think it doesn't give proper credit to the courage and skill of all the astronauts in Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and Skylab.

I think what people should keep in mind is this is a vehicle designed for a whole different purpose than the space shuttle. I love the shuttle, obviously, but it is a different beast. The only similar mission between Orion and the shuttle will be ISS trips. If funding was not a factor I would say keep the shuttle going and build the Orion, but we don't live in my fairy tail world. I'm honestly torn about our path forward, but I just hope we stay in space and not back out completely.

Anyway, back to the launch. Still T-00:04:00 and holding. Hopefully we get to see a launch today!

PS: I noticed I said "we" in my post. I live in the US, so that's what I meant. But, my personal opinion is the path NASA should take forward would include international cooperation.

Spam in a can is a nickname the ASTRONAUTS gave it. Humor is used A LOT in Aerospace circles. Would you rather have me saig Tang in a bottle?

I guess I expect too much, having been born in the early 70's when the sky was the limit. I was born just before Apollo 17, and I guess the whole thing affected me. I know the Onion (yes I meant that) is the only way to get back from a lunar mission, but that is not the only reason I dont like it. How are we to construct the next space station with out the shuttle? What are ya gonna do, pull Buran outta mothballs? Oh, wait YA CANT! It got destroyed when a hangar collapsed.

Commercial space ventures aren't commercial, as ALL of them are subsidized by NASA via grants, at least in the US. Where are all the SSTO designs at? For crying out loud, there were 15 designs in the 60's and 70's, and 5 more in the early 90's! Now nothing! Until there is a way to get to orbit 2 or 3 times a day with the same vehicle, we are going to be a terrestrial only species.

As many people that use this software, I have a hard time believing that notone of you are an aerospace engineer. Heck I have a design for such a vehicle, but not the training to know if it can work. I am just a private pilot/ex-truck driver that came up with this design on my own.

What have any of you come up with? Ever put pen to paper and done the basic calculations on the thrust/fuel/cargo/pax needed to make an idea fly? Or is your extent in the space program just limited to cheering when the STS heads up and playing with a sim?

This is not an attack, but a challenge to all of you to come up with something that is better!

[Admin]

Hmmm, the thread is becoming less "cuddly" than needed and I blame it on the misunderstandings of written word against friendly face to face conversations. I also blame it on the obvious partisan views some have about the STS and the new Constellation program.

I say that whatever brings us to the Stars without s****dly and needlessly sacrificing the lives of people, has my support. There are still very intense relevant and non-relevant, political and not political discussions inside NASA about the correct configuration and goals of the Constellation program, which make the arguments here a bit diluted. I am sure that before we see the first Constellation manned LEO or Moon mission, there will be many changes. After all, the next test flight will happen in 2012!

Whether the Shuttle or Ares is more beautiful, well, that's only a personal opinion which cannot be argued with - you know, the "beauty" and the "beholder" stuff?

Anyway, I will be following up on the Constellation program and hope that it is the correct way to "reach for the Stars".

/Admin

[Phixit]

I have a hard time believing that notone of you are an aerospace engineer.

Actually, I am. Studying aerospace engineering in grad school. To be honest my concentration is aerodynamics/hydrodynamics so I don't do too much past ascent and descent for space vehicles.

Where are all the SSTO designs at?

Single stage to orbit designs have one big flaw and that is weight. Historically multiple stage vehicles have always been lighter for the same lifting power, since you can release your spent rocket sections. However, there have been so many advances with composite materials and new manufacturing techniques recently that this isn't a bad idea.  

Now I think SSTO designs and anything big enough to build a space station (like the shuttle) are pretty much limited to LEO operations. There is no reason to take all that weight to the moon or beyond.

How are we to construct the next space station with out the shuttle?

This is a tough one. The shuttle is great at it! 

We have had awesome advances in autonomous operation and just down the hall from my lab they are working on autonomous space docking. It has also been done by the Jules Verne ATV to the ISS. With this in mind we could use heavy lift rockets (maybe even the ares-v?) to lift the sections into orbit and then dock them there. This of course has one HUGE flaw. Each section has to have the ability to rendezvous and dock!

[Phixit]

Hmmm, the thread is becoming less "cuddly" than needed and I blame it on the misunderstandings of written word against friendly face to face conversations.

I agree, this is a limitation on forums. For the record my comments are all made in a  friendly matter. I've only been on the forums for a short time, but everyone so far has been friendly with good opinions. My comments are my own opinions and nothing else.

I apologize if anyone has been offended by them. Thanks guys!

[Admin]

...<SNIP>...

I apologize if anyone has been offended by them. Thanks guys!

Phixit,

My remark was not necessarily directed at your post

/Admin

[Moonwalker]

It is a common (non-engineering) misconception that the Space Shuttle is an absolute requirement to assemble a space station in orbit. That the Space Shuttle is used for ISS assembling is due to the fact that the entire concept included the Space Shuttle from the beginning, the early 1980's, when the USA initially was planning to build the "Freedom" space station. At that time, Russia already was developing the Mir station and launched it into orbit starting in 1986 already, without any Space Shuttle or a similar vehicle involved. This was a milestone in space flight engineering and a huge step forward for long term space exploration. That is an experience the USA did not have for decades. The Mir station lasted for 16 years.

The future of manned space flight lies beyond low earth orbit, well for NASA. NASA did never intend to operate the ISS into the early or even late 2020's. The ISS NASA budgets will cut in 2017 rather likely. However, it is not out of the question that NASA would potentially build another space station. But this is something for the wide future, possibly not going to happen again within the first half of this century in case NASA continues to put its focus on Moon and Mars within the next decades, which is a wise decision.

There is a wide range of possibilites to build a station like ISS without any Shuttle-like vehicle involved. Even more, using something like the Russian Proton-K, assembly will happen quite faster than using the delay-hungry Space Shuttle. The Proton-K lifts up to 21 tons into orbit. Future vehicles could lift up even more. NASA engineers theirselves said that: hopefully we won't be that s****d again to build a space station by carrying it up by so many small pieces. And they're right. 6 tons here, 4 tons there... lots of required launches and delays for month inbetween caused by technical issues with the Shuttle / ET technology. The ISS is aging still during assembly. The first parts are already a decade of age. When Orion might be ready to fly, the ISS will be almost 20 years old alreday.

As amazing the Shuttle is, and as much progress and milestones the Shuttle did, not all that glistens is gold in any case. People really have to look behind the curtain before saying that something is the absolute best thing. The ISS does way less science than intended and than a lot of people here on the ground know or imagine. The ISS is a huge experiment itself which showed that it was an expensive and time consuming way we did it. Engineers and scientists have learned that in the future they'll do it a different more efficient way.