I was wondering how the extra two tons of mass in the interstage will affect the Orion mass targets. That is a lot to add when they are trying to shave off weight from the spacecraft.
Good article. Don't expect to be hearing much from the EELV folks on this thread.
Quote from: brihath on 12/09/2008 01:07 pmI was wondering how the extra two tons of mass in the interstage will affect the Orion mass targets. That is a lot to add when they are trying to shave off weight from the spacecraft.They are ok, as they've strpped Orion already, with some more to come, but that's another article probably.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 12/09/2008 01:13 pmQuote from: brihath on 12/09/2008 01:07 pmI was wondering how the extra two tons of mass in the interstage will affect the Orion mass targets. That is a lot to add when they are trying to shave off weight from the spacecraft.They are ok, as they've strpped Orion already, with some more to come, but that's another article probably.Is there anywhere (e.g. a PDR document) where the latest official (i.e. opinion limited to a minimum) launch capability (in mass) v's requirement, therefore deficit for Ares I (and V if possible) are published?I know it depends on Orion (and Altair) mass which is in itself fluid, but there must be some assumptions?There's loads of chatter on loads of threads on this site, with various figures suggested. Are there any numbers we can agree on, as to how big a problem is faced (on both LVs) or is it too early?
Good reporting as the data is correct to report, good and bad. I just worry they have calibrated the tests to create the encouraging data. As Chris points out, it's computational data, that's shown some strange results already with the 1 in 3, and the lack of real flight data until Ares I-Y.
Hey Chris, do you have a bigger res image of the one you used at the top of the article. Probably a L2 image, but if I promise not to redicule your football team.....
Is there anywhere (e.g. a PDR document) where the latest official (i.e. opinion limited to a minimum) launch capability (in mass) v's requirement, therefore deficit for Ares I (and V if possible) are published?
The analysis also showed that TO may only “occur” - or affect Orion - once in every three flights. This in itself is a major finding, though there is a counter argument that claims that this points towards the computational models - known as “Monte Carlo runs” - suffering from inaccuracies.
Chris, thanks for the article. What a good read.One question related to this :QuoteThe analysis also showed that TO may only “occur” - or affect Orion - once in every three flights. This in itself is a major finding, though there is a counter argument that claims that this points towards the computational models - known as “Monte Carlo runs” - suffering from inaccuracies.In the Q&A follow-up to his remarks to the Space Transportation Association Breakfast, 22 January 2008, Washington DC, Dr. Griffin clearly stated that the TO phenomenon is not deterministic, it does not occur every flight, every test, every motor (paraphrasing here).This is not important per se ; even at 1 in 3 occurence, mitigation must be done like is 1 in 1; but why the emotion - which is apparent in this thread also. It looks like NASA knew about the non-deterministic TO from 4-seg flight and ground test experience; recent "major finding" noted in the article just shows that 5-seg motors follows the same pattern as the 4-seg, which should not be such a big surprise.Thanks again for the article, it made my day.
Quote from: renclod on 12/09/2008 05:28 pmChris, thanks for the article. What a good read.One question related to this :QuoteThe analysis also showed that TO may only “occur” - or affect Orion - once in every three flights. This in itself is a major finding, though there is a counter argument that claims that this points towards the computational models - known as “Monte Carlo runs” - suffering from inaccuracies.In the Q&A follow-up to his remarks to the Space Transportation Association Breakfast, 22 January 2008, Washington DC, Dr. Griffin clearly stated that the TO phenomenon is not deterministic, it does not occur every flight, every test, every motor (paraphrasing here).This is not important per se ; even at 1 in 3 occurence, mitigation must be done like is 1 in 1; but why the emotion - which is apparent in this thread also. It looks like NASA knew about the non-deterministic TO from 4-seg flight and ground test experience; recent "major finding" noted in the article just shows that 5-seg motors follows the same pattern as the 4-seg, which should not be such a big surprise.Thanks again for the article, it made my day.Thanks. It really surprised me to see it on the notes, so that's useful to see another reference above.
It's definitely surprising me, and I'm having a hard processing it. Resonant burning occurs every flight, correct?