USAF 45th Space Wing Study released in 2009 concluded that the Ares I capsule will not survive an abort between MET's of ~30 and 60 seconds. Another conclusion is that it re-affirmed the predictive codes of the 1980s, where, to increase performance, solids were added to Titan. Days after ESAS, and confirmed here, for example, about a year later Ares could not do the job because of LAS mass. What are the range of times being studied for the destruct button in this 422 configuration?That is why when Musk revisted Titan I with only one engine type, those who, even serendipitously, knew history, understood its merits.
Quote from: muomega0 on 10/15/2016 02:11 pmUSAF 45th Space Wing Study released in 2009 concluded that the Ares I capsule will not survive an abort between MET's of ~30 and 60 seconds. Another conclusion is that it re-affirmed the predictive codes of the 1980s, where, to increase performance, solids were added to Titan. Days after ESAS, and confirmed here, for example, about a year later Ares could not do the job because of LAS mass. What are the range of times being studied for the destruct button in this 422 configuration?That is why when Musk revisted Titan I with only one engine type, those who, even serendipitously, knew history, understood its merits.More mumble jumble nonsense and linking to your own postsThe Ares I study has nothing do with this vehicle.
Conclusions a) Re-Confirm Codes. Re-confirm predictive codes & values for solid propellant motor fragmentation, comparing results of the late-1980's joint NASA/DOE/INSRP Explosion Working Group (and related) analyses of solid propellant rocket debris (particularly applied to the Titan and NASA SRB's), and verifying that code accuracy continues into the later 1998 Titan A20 destruct at MET=40s.
The code using Titan Data was applied to Ares I. Could it also be applied to Atlas?
Why did the US adopt a space policy to prevent Atlas/Delta from launching crew? Besides being a convenient way to maintain excess, expensive launch capacity, did anyone think that solids and crew would not be mixed in the future rockets? Since Earth departure is a very small part of LOC....perhaps yes.
NASA will development Crew LV derived from Space Shuttle solid boosters 20 to 30 mT class
Quote from: muomega0 on 10/15/2016 02:11 pmWhy did the US adopt a space policy to prevent Atlas/Delta from launching crew? Besides being a convenient way to maintain excess, expensive launch capacity, did anyone think that solids and crew would not be mixed in the future rockets? Since Earth departure is a very small part of LOC....perhaps yes.USAF 45th Space Wing Study released in 2009 concluded that the Ares I capsule will not survive an abort between MET's of ~30 and 60 seconds. Another conclusion is that it re-affirmed the predictive codes of the 1980s, where, to increase performance, solids were added to Titan. Days after ESAS, and confirmed here, for example, about a year later Ares could not do the job because of LAS mass. What are the range of times being studied for the destruct button in this 422 configuration?That is why when Musk revisted Titan I with only one engine type, those who, even serendipitously, knew history, understood its merits.I left the linked portion of that quote because it is relevant as seen below. QuoteNASA will development Crew LV derived from Space Shuttle solid boosters 20 to 30 mT classSo no, there appeared to be no intent to separate crew and solids.
Why did the US adopt a space policy to prevent Atlas/Delta from launching crew? Besides being a convenient way to maintain excess, expensive launch capacity, did anyone think that solids and crew would not be mixed in the future rockets? Since Earth departure is a very small part of LOC....perhaps yes.USAF 45th Space Wing Study released in 2009 concluded that the Ares I capsule will not survive an abort between MET's of ~30 and 60 seconds. Another conclusion is that it re-affirmed the predictive codes of the 1980s, where, to increase performance, solids were added to Titan. Days after ESAS, and confirmed here, for example, about a year later Ares could not do the job because of LAS mass. What are the range of times being studied for the destruct button in this 422 configuration?That is why when Musk revisted Titan I with only one engine type, those who, even serendipitously, knew history, understood its merits.
Recognizing the schedule burdens placed on unmanned payloads launched using human rated systems, we understand that the DOD and NASA believe that separating human rated space exploration from unmanned payload launch will best achieve reliable and affordable assured access to space while maintaining our industrial base in both liquid and solid propulsion launch systems.2. NASA will development Crew LV derived from Space Shuttle solid boosters 20 to 30 mT class
2004SpacePolicy
- Falcon likely will show that common configurations without 3 engine product lines and no solids is one affordable and reliable way to fly Class A cargo and Crew...
c) Ares I could not loft crew safely, so much for Crew LV with shuttle solids.. so how about that 422/CST-100?Yes less energy in the Atlas solids creates a smaller debris field volume but really the same physics (F=ma include drag, etc) ....at what time can they explode wrt chute deployment?
Why is the addition of the skirt such a problem. Heck, it's not much and is short. I'd call it a mini-skirt myself. They're just making a safe, reliable launch system safer. Wouldn't you feel safer going up on an Atlas than any other rocket?
As for making the LV safer, the mini skirt reduces loads on the Centaur making the LV safer when this particular payload is launched. You must expect changed conditions if you do away with the fairing. What would you expect?
Quote from: vapour_nudge on 10/16/2016 06:14 amAs for making the LV safer, the mini skirt reduces loads on the Centaur making the LV safer when this particular payload is launched. You must expect changed conditions if you do away with the fairing. What would you expect?In my view, a better solution would have been to properly position the payload to begin with, allowing a longer tapered fairing (or whatever solution solved the problem) that would have prevented the aero-loading in the first place. This aeroskirt is a tacked-on fix to save schedule (re-positioning the payload would have meant rebuilding the service tower and redesigning umbilicals) for a problem that shouldn't even exist. - Ed Kyle
Is there an extra separation event for the skirt, or was there going to be something similar anyway for some other fairing/adapter?
Quote from: edkyle99 on 10/16/2016 02:35 pmIn my view, a better solution would have been to properly position the payload to begin with, allowing a longer tapered fairing (or whatever solution solved the problem) that would have prevented the aero-loading in the first place. This aeroskirt is a tacked-on fix to save schedule (re-positioning the payload would have meant rebuilding the service tower and redesigning umbilicals) for a problem that shouldn't even exist. - Ed KylePardon me? Should not exist? This little problem with CST-100 is not the first time (and IMO it will not be the last either) that a given stack-design turns out to have aero-acoustic trouble identified late in the game.
In my view, a better solution would have been to properly position the payload to begin with, allowing a longer tapered fairing (or whatever solution solved the problem) that would have prevented the aero-loading in the first place. This aeroskirt is a tacked-on fix to save schedule (re-positioning the payload would have meant rebuilding the service tower and redesigning umbilicals) for a problem that shouldn't even exist. - Ed Kyle
there are some with Orion
Quote from: Jim on 10/16/2016 08:19 pmthere are some with OrionOrion itself, with the SM fairings, changes in SM design, etc, but I don't think that SLS itself has seen substantial changes - at least not visible hardware changes. - Ed Kyle
You're looking at the difference between designing a spacecraft to go on top of a pre-existing launch vehicle design that is outside of the original use concept vs contemporaneous spacecraft and launch vehicle design.
Quote from: SWGlassPit on 10/17/2016 02:52 pmYou're looking at the difference between designing a spacecraft to go on top of a pre-existing launch vehicle design that is outside of the original use concept vs contemporaneous spacecraft and launch vehicle design.My question is, why did the original design of CST-100 with the stumpy adapter pass muster? They wind tunnel tested it some time back and it was made the baseline design. What changed, and why? - Ed Kyle