Ares 1X

[MDBenson]

Going back to the matter in hand for a moment...

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/ares1x/091029dent/

It looks from the recovery photos like the landing wasn't quite as smooth as it should have been. One of the 3 main chutes on the SRB deflated during descent and by the looks caused an awkward impact that buckled the SRB tube. It's apparently happened to the shuttle SRBs in bad seas of from awkward landings before.

I guess this is what test flights are for, finding problems. It's not something that would be life threatening to a human mission on Ares I but it is annoying when you are expecting to reuse the SRB tubes for another launch.

Hope they can work the creases out before the 2012 I-Y flight (if it ever happens).

[Moonwalker]

That parachute thing is quite an old issue. The SRB's of STS-4 even got completely lost due to high speed impact on the water surface.

So we can say that Ares I-X was a nice success still. Obviously no contact between SRB and the upper stage mass-simulator after separation. Just and insufficient separation burn of the SRB (timing and thrust) and aerodynamic effects which caused the upper stage tumbling. If there was a contact, we would have seen this on the upper part of the SRB, which in fact looks like it has not a single scratch on top.

[bjbeard]

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.

Exactly! Modern composites are far lighter and stronger than materials to be had back in the 70's and 80's. The ship would still be large, probably the size of a 767-400, but it would fill that entire space.

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!

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.

Thanks for the explanation.

So would I be safe to assume the majority of engineers out there are siding with the direct ascent capsule, and are not perusing SSTO ideas simply based on cost? Boeing did all that work on a lifting body for nothing?

Well if it is to be capsules again, can we see the finalized plans yet? Oh yea Lockheed has no idea what they are doing! McDonnell Aircraft Corporation built the Mercury and Gemini spacecraft, North American the Apollo. Last I checked Boeing owns both now... Yet NASA went with Lockheed.

Well if this is the next program, LETS GET IT GOING AND QUIT MESSING AROUND!!!

[Moonwalker]

SSTO does work in space. The Apollo lunar lander was SSTO. The next generation of lunar lander also will be SSTO. But SSTO vehicles, capable to be launched on earth, never were capable of reaching orbit for now, and did exceed costs and suffered from serious technological problems. SSTO to be launched from earh still is music for the wide future, if at all. Or in other words: SSTO to be launched from earh does work in theory only.

As had been concluded by the Columbia accident investigation board, crew and cargo have to be separated. That's what Ares is about, launching crew and cargo separately (it is likely that we won't ever see something like the Space Shuttle again). The Augustine Commission does recommend to stop the Shuttle flights next year or 2011 at the latest and to continue with Ares I and Orion. The only real uncertainty belongs to the Ares V as there is no funding yet. Ares IV might become a likely option.

[Phixit]

Awesome aerial video of the launch!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4l2wxbMEQg&feature=sub

You can clearly see the separation, and I saw no contact between the upper and lower stages. Also it shows the parachute deployment and you can see one parachute failing. Amazing video!

[spaceboy7441]

Awesome aerial video of the launch!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4l2wxbMEQg&feature=sub

You can clearly see the separation, and I saw no contact between the upper and lower stages. Also it shows the parachute deployment and you can see one parachute failing. Amazing video!

It has been said that there was no recontact by NASA. So there was no recontact. There is a video on NSF L2 that clearly shows that there was o recontact.

[MDBenson]

Can I just clear up a small matter here. The Augustine Committee has not made *any recommendations*. It's MO was purely to give the most viable *options* for the future of the US Human Spaceflight Program.

It's explained very well by committee member and former astronaut Leroy Chiao here:

http://leroychiao.blogspot.com/2009/10/on-future-of-us-human-spaceflight.html

[Moonwalker]

And one of those options is to stop Shuttle flights by 2010/2011, continue development of Orion and expanding the ISS to 2020. But in my honset opinion I'd say retire ISS i.e. stop US funding and use the money for Constellation (just as they intend still). NASA should stop making people any hopes that Orion will be a big part of the ISS era. If at all, Orion will become the companion of the final few years of the ISS.

[Pocci]

You can clearly see the separation, and I saw no contact between the upper and lower stages.

Sorry, but where can you see clearly the separation?
You can see clearly that after separation there was no recontact.
But you can't see the separation itself.
Both videos I know (this here and the life NASA TV during launch) do not show clear enough the junction of upper and lower stage.
But both show from different angles, that the top of the lower stage and the bottom of the upper stage start to move in the same direction right after separation.
It is highly unlikely, that this is a coincident.
In my opinion there are two possibilities and the second with the higher probability:

1. The separation mechanism (probably some pyrotechnical severed bolts) did not work as intended (one or some bolts broke too late).

2. The separation rockets of the lower stage were too weak for this test (the upper stage had no ullage rockets and no own thrust). The lower stage is in the slipstream of the upper stage after separation and was able to catch up after normal separation leading to an immediate recontact that pushed the lower end of the upper stage to the side.

I say "too weak for this test" and not too weak generally, because with a normal upper stage there might be no problem.
They should have used the escape system (without or with delayed separation of the crew cabin) to propel the upper stage forward in the very moment of 1st stage separation.
I wonder what would be planned in a real launch, should the 2nd stage start tumbling like here. I guess it would be immediate start of the escape system.
But I guess, the escape system was only a mock up.

Regarding the parachute issue, the comments on youtube so far are wrong.
It can be clearly seen, that all three parachutes open normally, but then one rapidly deflates and you can see it dragging half of the canopy above the plane of the two good ones and the lines. I guess, approximately half of the lines broke (or more likely their attachment point(s)).
What happened to the second was blocked by the cloud, but it drags part of the blue material so I guess a quarter of its lines broke as well.
I don't know how many attachment points each chute has.
Were it four, than two of the first chute and one of the second probably broke.
I am pretty sure, that will not happen on the next launch.

/Armin

PS: I speak of  "separation rockets" but this is a plain guess.
Should they did not use any means of active deceleration of the lower stage during separation, the visited tumble of both stage would be no reason for questions, it would have been expected.

[Phixit]

Sorry, but where can you see clearly the separation?
You can see clearly that after separation there was no recontact.

I was talking about the initial tumble after separation. Sorry, should of made myself clearer. 

[gablau]

Even the most diehard shuttle fan (myself included) can't help but feel proud of the subject of this picture. The past and the future. I was around for the birth of Apollo and the Shuttle and now Ares/Orion. It has allways been sad to see a passing like this, but also exciting. Congress and the administration will get their act together and Ares will be as fantastic as everything that has come before. God Speed Ares.


By davidrobinsonjr at 2009-10-26

I don't remember who said it, maybe it was Aldrin, but the statement was essentially correct: "The Orion project is nothing more but Apollo on steroids"

[MDBenson]

Looks like the Ares 1-Y test flight could be cancelled? Apparently it's a lack of fund to build the new engine required for the second stage flight test.

http://nasawatch.com/archives/2009/11/ares-1-lynch-mo.html

[Admin]

Forget about the article! Dig the talkbacks! They all rock! Interesting, intriguing  (and civilized) debate.

/Admin

[Moonwalker]

And be aware that NASA isn't going to cancel Ares I-Y because they have no fund to build the J-2X engine. They just don't have the fund to build it on schedule. Big differecne. And with the potential cut of Ares I-Y, there are opportunities for later but more efficient test flights by an almost complete Ares-I rocket. I say better take some time than do things fast and quick just to reduce a gap. The gap between Apollo and the Shuttle was 6 years although development was already underway when Apollo was still in operation. When the Shuttle was first being tested within the atmosphere in 1977 (the ALT - Approach and Landing Test flights), NASA was still anticipating to launch the Shuttle already in 1979 (for missions that take "a month"...). But there was a delay by two years caused by several challenges of the Shuttle's development. And to develope the Space Shuttle system was a huge challenge compared to Ares-I. And the Shuttle had never been launch-tested unmanned...

In Germany we have a saying: History doesn't repeat itself, but occasionally it is alike. Too bad it doesn't rhyme in English. In German it sounds very nice

[gablau]

Forget about the article! Dig the talkbacks! They all rock! Interesting, intriguing  (and civilized) debate.

/Admin

Obama clearly indicated that he is not planning to support NASA to the degree as it was planned during the Bush administration.