rumble - 24/8/2007 12:32 PMQuoteclongton - 24/8/2007 8:53 AMQuotegladiator1332 - 24/8/2007 9:20 AMDon't get me wrong, the Ares I-X flight is going to be exciting, but I will have to agree with Jim on this one. The shape is there, but nothing else on Ares I-X will test the true flight article. And MrTim, I do not think this qualifies as Ares I bashing. I am simply stating an opinion that Ares I-X is more of a political flight than an engineering flight. This doesn't make it any less exciting and is not meant in a derogatory way!The only real concern I have with the Aes-1-X test flight is the interstage. I have heard that it will be much beefier than the flight article. I would hope that it would be much closer to the true mass and section, because this is an early opportunity to get some data on the suspected buckling the interstage may be subjected to. If it’s going to fail, this would be the time to find out, while there is still reasonable schedule available to address it before it also commits to an Orion flight. If they substitute instead a beefier interstage, the flight would provide no data on this critical element. To me, this element is one of the most critical of all in the system design.Can anyone address this concern I have?Correct me if I'm wrong here:Since the Ares 1-X flight will also be using a 4-seg SRB (plus a blank 5th segment), won't the max-Q pressure be lower? If they're flying a significantly stronger interstage on a vehicle that will experience reduced dynamic stresses, it sounds like to me they're just trying to avoid the embarrassment of having their new flagship crew launcher jack-knife on its first test.I agree that the interstage should be as close to the current design of the flight article as possible. ...weight & strength both...
clongton - 24/8/2007 8:53 AMQuotegladiator1332 - 24/8/2007 9:20 AMDon't get me wrong, the Ares I-X flight is going to be exciting, but I will have to agree with Jim on this one. The shape is there, but nothing else on Ares I-X will test the true flight article. And MrTim, I do not think this qualifies as Ares I bashing. I am simply stating an opinion that Ares I-X is more of a political flight than an engineering flight. This doesn't make it any less exciting and is not meant in a derogatory way!The only real concern I have with the Aes-1-X test flight is the interstage. I have heard that it will be much beefier than the flight article. I would hope that it would be much closer to the true mass and section, because this is an early opportunity to get some data on the suspected buckling the interstage may be subjected to. If it’s going to fail, this would be the time to find out, while there is still reasonable schedule available to address it before it also commits to an Orion flight. If they substitute instead a beefier interstage, the flight would provide no data on this critical element. To me, this element is one of the most critical of all in the system design.Can anyone address this concern I have?
gladiator1332 - 24/8/2007 9:20 AMDon't get me wrong, the Ares I-X flight is going to be exciting, but I will have to agree with Jim on this one. The shape is there, but nothing else on Ares I-X will test the true flight article. And MrTim, I do not think this qualifies as Ares I bashing. I am simply stating an opinion that Ares I-X is more of a political flight than an engineering flight. This doesn't make it any less exciting and is not meant in a derogatory way!
rumble - 24/8/2007 9:32 AMIf they're flying a significantly stronger interstage on a vehicle that will experience reduced dynamic stresses, it sounds like to me they're just trying to avoid the embarrassment of having their new flagship crew launcher jack-knife on its first test.
simonbp - 24/8/2007 12:54 PMQuoterumble - 24/8/2007 9:32 AMIf they're flying a significantly stronger interstage on a vehicle that will experience reduced dynamic stresses, it sounds like to me they're just trying to avoid the embarrassment of having their new flagship crew launcher jack-knife on its first test.Or, Ares 1-X is an aerodynamic test flight (like they keep saying), and Ares 1-Y is the structural test flight. But that makes too much sense, so it can't be right... :bleh:And yes, they do need an aerodynamic test flight because computer modeling of hypersonic flow is incredibly underdeveloped at this point, and the only existing hypersonic wind tunnels are tiny and from the 1960s. I would be far, far more worried if they put all their faith in a CFD simulation than actually attempting to do a flight test...Simon
rumble - 24/8/2007 5:32 PMQuoteclongton - 24/8/2007 8:53 AMQuotegladiator1332 - 24/8/2007 9:20 AMDon't get me wrong, the Ares I-X flight is going to be exciting, but I will have to agree with Jim on this one. The shape is there, but nothing else on Ares I-X will test the true flight article. And MrTim, I do not think this qualifies as Ares I bashing. I am simply stating an opinion that Ares I-X is more of a political flight than an engineering flight. This doesn't make it any less exciting and is not meant in a derogatory way!The only real concern I have with the Aes-1-X test flight is the interstage. I have heard that it will be much beefier than the flight article. I would hope that it would be much closer to the true mass and section, because this is an early opportunity to get some data on the suspected buckling the interstage may be subjected to. If it’s going to fail, this would be the time to find out, while there is still reasonable schedule available to address it before it also commits to an Orion flight. If they substitute instead a beefier interstage, the flight would provide no data on this critical element. To me, this element is one of the most critical of all in the system design.Can anyone address this concern I have?Correct me if I'm wrong here:Since the Ares 1-X flight will also be using a 4-seg SRB (plus a blank 5th segment), won't the max-Q pressure be lower?
JIS - 25/8/2007 2:42 AMQuoterumble - 24/8/2007 5:32 PMQuoteclongton - 24/8/2007 8:53 AMQuotegladiator1332 - 24/8/2007 9:20 AMDon't get me wrong, the Ares I-X flight is going to be exciting, but I will have to agree with Jim on this one. The shape is there, but nothing else on Ares I-X will test the true flight article. And MrTim, I do not think this qualifies as Ares I bashing. I am simply stating an opinion that Ares I-X is more of a political flight than an engineering flight. This doesn't make it any less exciting and is not meant in a derogatory way!The only real concern I have with the Aes-1-X test flight is the interstage. I have heard that it will be much beefier than the flight article. I would hope that it would be much closer to the true mass and section, because this is an early opportunity to get some data on the suspected buckling the interstage may be subjected to. If it’s going to fail, this would be the time to find out, while there is still reasonable schedule available to address it before it also commits to an Orion flight. If they substitute instead a beefier interstage, the flight would provide no data on this critical element. To me, this element is one of the most critical of all in the system design.Can anyone address this concern I have?Correct me if I'm wrong here:Since the Ares 1-X flight will also be using a 4-seg SRB (plus a blank 5th segment), won't the max-Q pressure be lower? Not if the GLOW is lower than Ares 1.
gladiator1332 - 24/8/2007 6:20 AMDon't get me wrong, the Ares I-X flight is going to be exciting, but I will have to agree with Jim on this one. The shape is there, but nothing else on Ares I-X will test the true flight article. And MrTim, I do not think this qualifies as Ares I bashing. I am simply stating an opinion that Ares I-X is more of a political flight than an engineering flight. This doesn't make it any less exciting and is not meant in a derogatory way!
clongton - 24/8/2007 10:19 AMOk, that actually makes sense. If they are limiting the X flight to *just* aerodynamics, then it would make sense to beef up the interstage to well past known failure points so that it can’t complicate the aerodynamics by buckling. This flight would then be followed by the Y flight, specifically to verify structural integrity. If that’s the case, then the interstage on the Y flight *needs* to be very close to the expected flight article.
wannamoonbase - 29/8/2007 4:22 PMI find it interesting that EELVs are deemed unacceptable to be considered for the CLV yet Atlas V avionics will control the Ares 1-X. So either the Ares 1-X or position on the EELVs is wrong. Which one is it?
wannamoonbase - 29/8/2007 1:22 PMI find it interesting that EELVs are deemed unacceptable to be considered for the CLV yet Atlas V avionics will control the Ares 1-X. So either the Ares 1-X or position on the EELVs is wrong. Which one is it?
simonbp - 29/8/2007 6:24 PMThat said, I don't recall and criticism of the Atlas III/V avionics system...Simon
tnphysics - 29/8/2007 8:02 PMIn my opinion, Congress will cancel Ares I when the Falcon 9 Heavy comes along. NASA will be forced to buy F9 Heavies to launch the CEV.Ares V will not be canceled.
clongton - 30/8/2007 1:32 AMQuotetnphysics - 29/8/2007 8:02 PMIn my opinion, Congress will cancel Ares I when the Falcon 9 Heavy comes along. NASA will be forced to buy F9 Heavies to launch the CEV.Ares V will not be canceled.Huh? That makes no sense. Without the Ares-I, the Ares-V cannot be afforded.
gladiator1332 - 29/8/2007 9:31 PMQuotewannamoonbase - 29/8/2007 4:22 PMI find it interesting that EELVs are deemed unacceptable to be considered for the CLV yet Atlas V avionics will control the Ares 1-X. So either the Ares 1-X or position on the EELVs is wrong. Which one is it?It is a bit ironic, however, the Atlas V avionics are the only way Ares I-X can launch when NASA wants it to. And as was stated above, the main idea of Ares I-X is to see if the basic shape will work. It doesn't matter what avionics are on board.
A_M_Swallow - 30/8/2007 1:43 AMWithout the Ares-I the Ares-V will have to reveal its true costs and time-scales.Time for Direct to reappear.