NASASpaceFlight.com Forum
SLS / Orion / Beyond-LEO HSF - Constellation => Cancelled Ares I and Ares Tests => Topic started by: Chris Bergin on 10/28/2009 04:12 am
-
LIVE interactive coverage for Ares I-X launch countdown (and launch).
This is interactive, but will remain focused on updates. Use the other threads for items such as viewing the launch, weather and general woo hooing cheerleading posts. The site will get very busy as we get closer to launch, so please appreciate the thread needs to run on updates, not random posts.
Launch attempt 1 (and master overview) Article - by Chris Gebhardt:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/10/live-ares-i-x-ready-for-opening-launch-attempt/
Launch attempt 2 article:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/10/live-ares-i-x-second-launch-attempt/
Recent Ares I-X Articles on NASASpaceflight.com can be found on this link:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/ares-i-x/
For links to NTV options:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=11070.0
-
Countdown for attempt 2 begin at the top of the hour.
Events: First weather balloon is launched. Vehicle power-up preparations
-
A _lot_ of lightning last night, just after 10pm local time. Several strikes within 1/2mi of the pad. Almost every rain gauge at KSC picked up some sort of drops - some up to an inch... The sensors on either side of Pad B had the most at 0.90" on one side and 0.81" on the other.
-
So if the "five hole sensor" is clogged due to water and ice, and stops working....aren't there over 700 sensors on the vehicle that can help the Ares team get the data they need anyway?
Edit: if the five hole sensor doesn't work during the prelaunch test, is that an automatic scrub condition now? That's kind of what I'm getting at.
-
Second launch attempt article: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/10/live-ares-i-x-second-launch-attempt/
Mulled over what to do with this one (not short on info thanks to L2, but wanted an angle). Decided to go with the parachute recovery system - so there's I-X/Ares I JDTV and the failure on STS-128 covered in the above.
Just feel it's more interesting than going on about the weather (sorry Rob! ;D) - which most of the other sites seem to have made the basis of their second attempt article.
-
The site will get very busy as we get closer to launch,
The phenomenon could be characterized as nasaspaceflight.com tribal electrification ;)
-
Just finished reading all the posts in the first launch attempt. Thanks to all the posters for their reports. Launch time is 10:30pm ACDT here in Adelaide, South Australia. Its been awhile since I watched a live launch, but I think this is an historic flight so I want to see it go live. Stayed up to 2am last night for the first attempt. Hope today's attempt has better luck!
-
Looks like the xenons are on at the pad. Unfortunately, today I won't be able to capture screenshots as I am at work. (Yesterday was a day off). The joys of the "slaveyard" shift.
-
yep, xenons are on. and they have a weird two-shots-in-one thing, looks like we had a twin roket launch today ;)
-
The phenomenon could be characterized as nasaspaceflight.com
tribal tribble electrification.
(fixed your quote) ;)
-
Hi Bubbinski,
Do you have a live-stream url for today ?
-
The Yahoo URL that I posted in yesterday's thread should still be good. It's also posted in the NASA TV thread on this board....the quickest way that I found it was on the advanced search function.
-
According to NSF, weather is down to 40%...
-
L-TIME 03:07:00
T-TIME 02:47:00
and counting.....
-
Second launch attempt article: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/10/live-ares-i-x-second-launch-attempt/
Good article Chris! If it was about the weather I was not going to read it :-P
-
George Diller's discussing the need to take a "more deliberate" approach to powering up the electrical systems due to last night's lightning strike. They've started NASA TV live coverage.
RSS retraction at 6 am Eastern, Upper stage access arm retraction between 5:30-5:45 Eastern, as of right now. Ready to launch another weather balloon.
Looking at liftoff between 8:15-8:30 am. Development flight instrumentation powered up.
-
PAO saying "very positive" data with regard to the effects of the lightning strike, no worries so far.
-
Now an hour till RSS retract (6:30 Eastern).
-
Upper Stage access arm being retracted. T-2:05 and counting.
No real issues so far, discussion about torquing a door on the first stage. Green on weather so far, PAO saying winds won't be as bad, main concern is clouds.
-
Discussion of the five hole probe. They tested a spare probe and placed it in the rain, taking it to the lab now. Likely to see degraded data but they will try to compensate it and calibrate it with the spare probe data.
-
Liftoff between 8:45-9 am Eastern.
-
OK, heard a "go for RSS rotation". Sorry I can't provide any visuals.
-
here's some snap from nasatv
-
-
and this one from the split cam:
-
Thank you mooora and marshallsplace.
Some chatter on the net about HYD measurements. I don't think they've started RSS rotation yet.
-
First stage doors are now secure. Looks like they're starting to get ready for RSS rotation, then they'll align the tracking station w/ the vehicle.
-
T-59 minutes. RSS rotation now in 15-20 minutes.
-
RSS just started moving a minute ago or so.
-
-
VSS has started to retract as well as the RSS.
Edit: PAO said started "activity to retract" the VSS (stabilization arms).
-
Retract underway:
-
-
weather balloon released
-
Launch NET 9 am now. Possible T-0 from 9 to 9:15 am. VSS arms retracted.
-
Beautiful sunrise showing on NASA TV. Hoping for some screen caps. After I get home I can contribute my own visuals.
-
-
-
Morning gang.
So a 9am NET now.
-
-
RSS now in Park. T-20 minutes.
-
-
RF Power Up in work.
-
The sun should be above the horizon at 7:32 a.m. EDT (11:32 UTC).
-
Weather currently red, tribo-rule is the problem.
Clear weather coming up, but might not make it for the current T-0
-
Currently RED on weather (but only on the tribo....)
Kathy Winters says good conditions are approaching.
-
They're at the T-4 minute hold.
-
Briefly slipped to T-3.59 before it went back up to T-4:
-
Briefly slipped to T-3.59 before it went back up to T-4:
Maybe whilst we're in the hold, someone who knows could say how the big clock is operated. Is it manually controlled from launch control or elsewhere? Or is it automatic and tied into the coundown autosequencer?
-
Red on tribble electrification around 8:45.
-
Looking better today:
-
The launch team had to deal with the following:
100+ lightning strikes - they had to retest all the electronics.
Balky door on the SRB lower section, issues with torque.
Late RSS retraction
(in answer to yorky10's question)
-
Briefly slipped to T-3.59 before it went back up to T-4:
Actually, I observed the same thing already yesterday... Maybe the clock cannot wait to see this rocket off the ground... ^^
-
-
Will they resume the count in 30, 60 or 90 mins? They needed another 30 minutes just now.
-
Will they resume the count in 30, 60 or 90 mins? They needed another 30 minutes just now.
If you're asking a question, we obviously don't know yet.
-
Launch time no earlier than 9:00 EDT.
-
Will they resume the count in 30, 60 or 90 mins? They needed another 30 minutes just now.
If you're asking a question, we obviously don't know yet.
PAO just clarified. Hold ends 8:26 am (at the moment), but will probably go on to 8:56am, or even later.
-
Sounds like they are looking at 9:15am EDT for the earliest launch now.
-
Now targeting 9:30am EDT for launch.
-
Proceed with PIC test.
-
Hi all, thanks for the excellent forum and the wealth of information on here.
I was wondering why all the small slips in the schedule this morning - is this still to do with the weather?
Thanks.
-
To repeat. They are red triboelectrification. Should be getting better for about 8:30, but they have to follow their count proceedures and won't be ready. They are also checking the lightning data from overnight.
-
-
Currently RED on weather (but only on the tribo....)
Chris what does "tribo" refer to?
-
Currently RED on weather (but only on the tribo....)
Chris what does "tribo" refer to?
Triboelectrification, it´s a possible interaction between the vehicle and the clouds than can create RF interference and prevent the range from using the flight termination system.
-
Flight team is going through all the systems to make sure that the vehicle is ready from the effects of last night's thunderstorm. "Targeting NET 9am EDT for launch" (but expect 9:30am EDT if all goes well). Nothing has come up so far that has become a constraint or a concern, which is good.
-
Currently RED on weather (but only on the tribo....)
Chris what does "tribo" refer to?
Read this article: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/10/live-ares-i-x-ready-for-opening-launch-attempt/ - where it was explained.
-
Flight team is going through all the systems to make sure that the vehicle is ready from the effects of last night's thunderstorm. "Targeting NET 9am EDT for launch" (but expect 9:30am EDT if all goes well). Nothing has come up so far that has become a constraint or a concern, which is good.
Also heard a place next to the QC (Quality Control I'm guessing) Closure list - so looks good as you noted.
-
And notes of a waiver on the loop to back that up.
-
-
PIC checks complete.
A good picture from some video rolled from yesterday's launch attempt and the RSS rollback:
-
-
Launch at 10:30 am if they consider weather.
-
-
I was hoping they would show the probe cover "event".....
-
Skyward-facing camera is under a puddle now. Not good news for the 5-hole probe.
-
Freedom gets the task of returning the first stage.
-
Currently anticipating on picking up the count in 26 minutes... but that will most likely slip. Flight Termination System test was successfully completed. Kathy to get an update on the weather in a few moments, and telemetry has a good lock on the vehicle.
-
Still two open constraints, those are about to close however.
-
Still No Go on weather.
-
Currently ready to pick up the count, currently GO on all constraints except weather (triboelectrification). Standing by to hear the new targeted launch time.
-
Vehicle ready, but the weather isn't. Waiting for a target T-0.
-
"There's a hole nearby, but still no-go for triboelectrification" - T-38 weather.
-
Nice blue sky and weather still NO GO!!! How good does it have to be??
-
"There's a very, very thin cirrus layer above us. As you approach the coast, the northern edge appears to get closer to the pad." - T-38 weather.
-
Hearing clocks are being reset to 10:30am EDT.
-
Nice blue sky and weather still NO GO!!! How good does it have to be??
Being a test launch, and the whole issue with tibroelectrification (spelling?), I can understand the desire for perfect conditions.
-
New liftoff target 10:30 >:(
-
Jon Cowart: "Only red due to weather.. T-38s flying to get a way around this triboelectrification. Heading to 10:30am as our best launch time right now. If there is something that pops up beforehand, we can always pull the launch time back in, but the best T-0 for right now is 10:30am EDT. That's the target. Lightning last night, had 154 strikes within 5 miles. Had to verify that the rocket was good to fly, which leads to a few waivers that we have to process.. but all the data shows everything is good. Instrumentation in the CWS didn't detect the strikes, nor the lightning towers. Nearest strike to the rocket was 700 yards away, which led to a field strength of 20% of the point of where we would be concerned. Rocket is fine."
-
So we are down to a 90 minute window.
-
The weather aircraft observing limits of the thin cirrus cloud deck causing the concern says the edge is 45 miles out on the 290 radial from pad. (This clearing is moving toward the pad.) From that point he says the sky looks clear as far as they can see to the north.
[edit - add below]
The edge of this clearing is oriented along a NW to SE line, so if you check due north of the pad, the clear area is only 20 miles from the pad, and the cloud deck appears to be dissipating along the edge.
-
I really don't want to be "the one" to ask this but since we have 75 minutes now to wait...
any word on range availability tomorrow or is today "IT"?
-
I've gotten spoiled with the shuttle and it's 5 minute launch windows to the ISS.
But I'll be here waiting on the launch!
-
Not sure if this is useful, but:
Windows media player: http://audio4.radioreference.com:80/ksc
Left side appears to be KSC trunked ground comms, right side appears to be the weather assets in the sky.
-
Nice blue sky and weather still NO GO!!! How good does it have to be??
Being a test launch, and the whole issue with tibroelectrification (spelling?), I can understand the desire for perfect conditions.
"According to the 45th Weather Squadron of the Air Force – the Squadron responsible for monitoring all launch weather rules – Triboelectrification is defined as: “triboelectric charging observed to put aircraft and space vehicles into corona when they fly through clouds containing ice or precipitation in either phase.
“The corona generates radio signals known as P-static (Precipitation static). P-static can degrade the signal to noise ratio of critical communications to the vehicle, especially including the range destruct command link.
“In all, the triboelectrification Flight Rule is one that NASA has not concerned itself with for several years, as the Space Shuttle is not susceptible to this phenomenon and most EELVs (Enhanced Expendable Launch Vehicles) are coated to protect against it.
According to the 45th Weather Squadron of the Air Force – the Squadron responsible for monitoring all launch weather rules – Triboelectrification is defined as: “triboelectric charging observed to put aircraft and space vehicles into corona when they fly through clouds containing ice or precipitation in either phase.
“The corona generates radio signals known as P-static (Precipitation static). P-static can degrade the signal to noise ratio of critical communications to the vehicle, especially including the range destruct command link.
“The triboelectrification rule is designed to protect those critical communications links.”
The triboelectrification Flight Rule can come into effect under cloud cover conditions of 5/8 or greater when the clouds are “above the 14 deg F level up to the altitude at which the vehicle’s velocity exceeds 3000 ft/sec,” notes the I-X Weather Launch Commit Criteria."
What I don't understand is if T/E was a known issue, why didn't the 1-X get the same coating that most EELV's do? If the reason was cost, how much do all these delays cost?
-
-
Maybe triboelectrification is the Air Forces's way of ensuring Ares I-X never flies!
-
Launchpad911, as I understand it, the triboelectrification issue is unique to Ares I-X. Or at least unique enough not to bother with avoiding it on other launches.
Maybe triboelectrification is the Air Forces's way of ensuring Ares I-X never flies!
It's a conspiracy man... :D
-
Pad 39B looks like crap with the two old Tail Service Mats still there awkwardly but the FSS tower is only about half as tall as the spacecraft...not to mention those unsightly lightning masts towers they built around the pad. I am just HOPING that this is still a work in progress and the pad will be modified and configured to look like a decent launch pad by the time they are ready to send astronauts on Ares. Right now it looks like crap.
-
If they cannot launch today, will they rol back to VAB? ???
-
Not that it will ever be an issue due to possible cancellation, but I can see the triboelctrification issue being REALLY annoying (delay after delay) with future Ares I launch attempts when and if we do ever get to manned flights.
-
T-38s have some optimism in the weather, it's starting to get better.
-
If they cannot launch today, will they rol back to VAB? ???
They stated earlier that they would stay on the pad until they launched.
-
Not that it will ever be an issue due to possible cancellation, but I can see the triboelctrification issue being REALLY annoying (delay after delay) with future Ares I launch attempts when and if we do ever get to manned flights.
Again, it was noted in previous posts that Ares I would not have this issue, as there would be tests to ensure that triboelectrification would not be an issue.
-
Just to clarify. The actual Ares-I system will not suffer from the triboelectrification constraint.
With regards to the lightning masts, they are there to stay (at least for Constellation).
Info on future pad changes and construction issues can be found elsewhere on the site.
-
Windows media player: http://audio4.radioreference.com:80/ksc
Left side appears to be KSC trunked ground comms, right side appears to be the weather assets in the sky.
And the Public Affairs Officer centered over both ears!
-
Pad 39B looks like crap with the two old Tail Service Mats still there awkwardly but the FSS tower is only about half as tall as the spacecraft...not to mention those unsightly lightning masts towers they built around the pad. I am just HOPING that this is still a work in progress and the pad will be modified and configured to look like a decent launch pad by the time they are ready to send astronauts on Ares. Right now it looks like crap.
Get Congress to give NASA another 6B or so a year and they will make it as nice as you want.
-
If they cannot launch today, will they rol back to VAB? ???
They stated earlier that they would stay on the pad until they launched.
I read that if they can't launch today, it's late December or early 2010 for the next chance. Can it just linger on the pad that long?
-
I am just HOPING that this is still a work in progress and the pad will be modified and configured to look like a decent launch pad by the time they are ready to send astronauts on Ares. Right now it looks like crap.
The RSS and FSS will both be dismantled. The new Ares I ML will have it's own service tower, eliminating the need to a FSS.
-
Why is the clock stuck on L-time: 57:30 on http://countdown.ksc.nasa.gov/elv/
-
-
I am just HOPING that this is still a work in progress and the pad will be modified and configured to look like a decent launch pad by the time they are ready to send astronauts on Ares. Right now it looks like crap.
The RSS and FSS will both be dismantled. The new Ares I ML will have it's own service tower, eliminating the need to a FSS.
I think I remember reading that the FSS and RSS on both LC-39 pads were suffering from corrosion problems, partly caused by exhaust products from the SRBs. Consequently, both will need to be replaced no matter what system replaces the shuttle.
-
Hearing a possibility of a new T-0 at 11:00am EDT. Nothing solid yet, but just hearing talk of it.
-
Pad 39B looks like crap with the two old Tail Service Mats still there awkwardly but the FSS tower is only about half as tall as the spacecraft...not to mention those unsightly lightning masts towers they built around the pad. I am just HOPING that this is still a work in progress and the pad will be modified and configured to look like a decent launch pad by the time they are ready to send astronauts on Ares. Right now it looks like crap.
Get Congress to give NASA another 6B or so a year and they will make it as nice as you want.
Well said! You're hurting padrat's feeling with that talk!! :)
I think the pad is actually looking pretty good with the masts, and the short FSS makes the rocket look vastly more impressive than it is!
Lets not forget, this is the 3rd tallest rocket ever, and the taller rockets have not flown for decades!
-
New T-0 confirmed at 11:00am EDT.
-
Why is the clock stuck on L-time: 57:30 on http://countdown.ksc.nasa.gov/elv/
I suspect they are altering the count, or the page has broken.
-
I'm going to have to call in Nanny 911 if people don't work out this is a live update thread ;D
To be clear on the pad's appearance - lots to do with that yet.....if Ares survives.
You've got the Rollercoaster EES for starters:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2008/07/ares-i-rollercoaster-ees-continues-to-evolve/
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2007/10/major-redesign-to-ares-i-roller-coaster-previous-concept-scrapped/
*There's threads on this on the Ares section of the forum, so please use that for such questions*.
-
I heard the PAO say something about Liberty Star following the USS (Freedom Star will be recovering the first stage). What is the story with that? Are they trying to film the impact?
-
80% chance of good weather now.
Keep an eye out for rogue container ships full of snuggies and flip-flops.
-
I heard the PAO say something about Liberty Star following the USS (Freedom Star will be recovering the first stage). What is the story with that? Are they trying to film the impact?
Both ships being used for radar.
L-60 minutes on the latest T-0 target.
-
I heard the PAO say something about Liberty Star following the USS (Freedom Star will be recovering the first stage). What is the story with that? Are they trying to film the impact?
Both ships being used for radar.
L-60 minutes on the latest T-0 target.
Thanks, I didn't know those ships had air-search radars onboard
-
I'm going to have to call in Nanny 911 if people don't work out this is a live update thread ;D
To be clear on the pad's appearance - lots to do with that yet.....if Ares survives.
You've got the Rollercoaster EES for starters:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2008/07/ares-i-rollercoaster-ees-continues-to-evolve/
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2007/10/major-redesign-to-ares-i-roller-coaster-previous-concept-scrapped/
*There's threads on this on the Ares section of the forum, so please use that for such questions*.
Understood, lol. I think the natives are getting restless with the slow progression of "live updates", as they say about idle minds..... I'm sure everyone is as anxious as I am to get this thing off the ground.
-
-
Ares I-X vehicle is ready for flight, waiting for weather.
-
Too bad there was never a photo like this for Apollo-Shuttle transition. It would been awesome to see Columbia on one pad with a Saturn on the other.
-
Splitcam update pic ;) :
-
Too bad there was never a photo like this for Apollo-Shuttle transition. It would been awesome to see Columbia on one pad with a Saturn on the other.
There was a 6 year gap between ASTP mission and STS-1. The pads had already been converted to shuttle as well as the MLPs. It would basically have been impossible other than as a public relations gimmick to have done something like that. And they would have had to stack a Saturn that would never have flown.
-
Sounds like they are taking a hard look at the triboelectrification rule to make sure they know just how close they are coming...
-
Teams being polled, all reporting go... waiting on Eastern Range to give a go to pick up the count for an opportunity at 11am EDT.
-
First stage reports they are good to go.
-
All weather rules "go." No word if they're trying to move up T-0
-
L-25 minutes. All current weather constraints are green. Someone hit the "IGNITION" button!
-
L-25 minutes. All current weather constraints are green. Someone hit the "IGNITION" button!
I agree! Launch it before it's too late
-
Planned launch time at 11:00am EDT, terminating heaters at this time.
-
Weather is currently green, but no plans to come out of the hold for another 20 minutes yet.
-
I remember it being said earlier that they could move up the T-0 if they needed to, is that still the case? Can they push it up?
-
Official polling in progress. All are READY to support resuming the count.
-
I remember it being said earlier that they could move up the T-0 if they needed to, is that still the case? Can they push it up?
They were moving back and forth yesterday, so that's a fair question....but they are sticking with a 11am T-0.
Given the calls being made right now, they must need to go through an amount of proceedures prior to coming out of the hold - thus the launch time.
Bottom line - Mr Mango knows best.
-
No constraints to launch. Very good.
-
Too bad there was never a photo like this for Apollo-Shuttle transition. It would been awesome to see Columbia on one pad with a Saturn on the other.
There was a 6 year gap between ASTP mission and STS-1. The pads had already been converted to shuttle as well as the MLPs. It would basically have been impossible other than as a public relations gimmick to have done something like that. And they would have had to stack a Saturn that would never have flown.
I remember looking at the Saturn V on its side by the VAB, then looking at STS-1 on the pad same day. You could see both the pad and the VAB from the press site, but I can't clearly remember if I could see that Saturn from where I was standing by the countdown clock. However, I did dig up a couple of photographs I took from the press site that appear to be from somewhere near the ditch to the "left" of the press site (left, if you're facing that pad). One clearly shows the pad, the other shows the VAB (and a lot of people in sloppy 1981-style clothing). Behind the VAB is a red Apollo-era MLP, and you can glimpse what appears to be a segement of the Saturn on the ground. I didn't think to take a 360-pan, sad to say.
-
The launch rules are so stringent that it's virtually impossible to book the range in advance and then expect absolutely perfect cloudless weather and no other impediments.
If they don't go today while they own the range, they might wait 'forever'.
--- CHAS
-
wouldn't it be awesome if one of them got up walked over to the "launch button" went all "half baked" on them {f-you, f-you, your cool, f-this stupid rocket, I'm out}, pushed the "button" and walked out. not only would that be the number 1 youtube clip of all time, but it would be a fitting end to a rocket that might never fly again esspecially in its completed form.
-
The edge of the clouds that could be a concern could be as close as a mile to the flight plan. T-38s passing along any data they get.
-
wouldn't it be awesome if one of them got up walked over to the "launch button" went all "half baked" on them {f-you, f-you, your cool, f-this stupid rocket, I'm out}, pushed the "button" and walked out. not only would that be the number 1 youtube clip of all time, but it would be a fitting end to a rocket that might never fly again esspecially in its completed form.
While I don't actually know, I would assume that there isn't one big red LAUNCH button.
-
RED on weather.
-
NO GO for weather.
-
This triboelectrification rule is embarrassing.
Another no-go...
-
Red because the pad is under a thin cirrus layer.. T-38 is flying out to see where it starts and ends. We have another 13 minutes for launch, so we could go green again.
-
"If they don't go today while they own the range, they might wait 'forever'"
If they do run out of their current range time, would there be perhaps some analysis of tribo-electrification to see if the rules could be changed? I don't know if they'd be able to modify the vehicle (add coatings) while at the pad.
-
Red because the pad is under a thin cirrus layer.. T-38 is flying out to see where it starts and ends. We have another 13 minutes for launch, so we could go green again.
...only if our luck changes.
-
"Hard to tell exactly where it begins and ends... we're going to fly over the pad again. Might want to watch the northern edge formation of the cirrus cloud." - T-38.
-
wouldn't it be awesome if one of them got up walked over to the "launch button" went all "half baked" on them {f-you, f-you, your cool, f-this stupid rocket, I'm out}, pushed the "button" and walked out. not only would that be the number 1 youtube clip of all time, but it would be a fitting end to a rocket that might never fly again esspecially in its completed form.
While I don't actually know, I would assume that there isn't one big red LAUNCH button.
i was just going for a laugh. obviously that is impossible. it isn't an estes rocket
-
This is the world's most annoying game of "Red Light, Green Light".....
-
Everyone except range weather and RCO are go for launch.
-
Red because the pad is under a thin cirrus layer.. T-38 is flying out to see where it starts and ends. We have another 13 minutes for launch, so we could go green again.
But, according to the launch rules, the T-38 contrail can also cause a NO-GO on weather.
-
Red because the pad is under a thin cirrus layer.. T-38 is flying out to see where it starts and ends. We have another 13 minutes for launch, so we could go green again.
But, according to the launch rules, the T-38 contrail can also cause a NO-GO on weather.
That is infuriating.
-
Red because the pad is under a thin cirrus layer.. T-38 is flying out to see where it starts and ends. We have another 13 minutes for launch, so we could go green again.
But, according to the launch rules, the T-38 contrail can also cause a NO-GO on weather.
So if the contrail dissipates (as is certainly likely), we would be GO?
-
Why was tribo never an issue with Saturn? They launched through cirrus layers, and I don't recall any mention of coatings.
-
Four minutes to go if they are coming out of this hold for a 11am opportunity. Doesn't look like it.
Coming up on 60 minutes to go with the window.
-
Kathy Winters saying that we'll get a break in 10-15 minutes for launch. "It's a dynamic situation, could be earlier or later.. more like 15 minutes from a break."
-
New targeted T-0 at 11:08am EDT.
-
But, according to the launch rules, the T-38 contrail can also cause a NO-GO on weather.
I can't believe that would be a problem. They must have minimum thickness requirements of the troublesome cloud layer.
-
Nice shot while we wait.
-
Why was tribo never an issue with Saturn? They launched through cirrus layers, and I don't recall any mention of coatings.
Cirrus Layers? You jokin'? They launched through full-blown thunderstorms!
-
So I'm getting launch updates via text messages...and I quickly jumped out of bed after one message said all weather rules were 'Go' for launch...
Yea, it wouldn't hurt if they meant 'Go' for weather at the T-0 time--not at the current moment.
-
T-0 at 11:08 Eastern
-
Do the T-38s (or anyone else) have objective criteria? Or is it "Hey, I see some cirrus, so we're red."
-
New data being taken, may not be clear at 11:08am EDT....
-
Again...No-go weather for 11:08.
-
15:08 Zulu is the new T-0.
They will likely bump this down by 5 to 10 minutes a time if no go for each attempt. Got to get off in the next 60 minutes.
-
Why was tribo never an issue with Saturn? They launched through cirrus layers, and I don't recall any mention of coatings.
That's an understatement. Apollo 12 actually got hit with a lightning bolt, temporarily lost the Command Module computer and had to complete ascent on the LV's avionics only.
I just think they are being extra careful with Ares-I-X because, in the end, 45th SW really doesn't like it and suspects that it could go runaway with little or no warning. They don't want to lose the ability to blow it even for a second if they can avoid it.
-
Why was tribo never an issue with Saturn? They launched through cirrus layers, and I don't recall any mention of coatings.
They even launched on rain and lightning.
-
Wasn't Ares I supposed to be more robust than STS?
-
And 11:08 is no go. Getting tight now.
-
Okay guys, remember this is a LIVE update thread. Please stick on topic. ;)
-
I really wouldn't want to be Kathy Winters these last couple of days. What a thankless job.
-
They will likely bump this down by 5 to 10 minutes a time if no go for each attempt. Got to get off in the next 60 minutes.
Why haven't they been doing this (5 to 10 min steps) all day, as they did yesterday?
Analyst
-
They will likely bump this down by 5 to 10 minutes a time if no go for each attempt. Got to get off in the next 60 minutes.
Why haven't they been doing this (5 to 10 min steps) all day, as they did yesterday?
Analyst
Good question! Don't know.
-
Wasn't Ares I supposed to be more robust than STS?
Yes, and as has been stated many times before, this triboelectrification issue won't be a problem for the real Ares I if it flies.
-
No change over the pad. Monitoring the southern movement of the edge. About 11 miles from the pad right now. Situation essentially the same over the pad.
-
Will NOT be green in the next several minutes (meaning, no launch attempt at 11:08am EDT).
-
Tough one to estimate, eroding edge. Need another 20 or 25 minutes from now, possible that it could be faster than that.
-
New targeted T-0 at 11:20am EDT.
-
Looking at a shot for 11:30am - but setting clocks for 11:20am.
-
I see too many clouds! Looks to me like we have here more limits than with a shuttle launch. Hope really will not have this "tribo" issue when and if we have the real Ares missions.
-
If we don't make it today and need to stand down, what are we looking at?
-
I really wouldn't want to be Kathy Winters these last couple of days. What a thankless job.
Nah - any professional understands she's just the policeman. Don't get mad at policemen, get mad at the people who make the laws. And in this case, the law is based in objective albeit conservative analysis.
-
Edge is 7 miles north now.
-
Looking at a shot for 11:30am - but setting clocks for 11:20am.
Will there be problems resetting between the two?
-
Edge of the cloud only 7 miles away now.
-
Doesn't seem to be a big enough gap today either. They'll probably scrub when they move it again after 11:20.
-
I'm getting real concerned that if they cant launch it soon, they may never ever launch it - Ares I-X runs a slight risk of being stood down permanently.
-
"Cirrus layer is breaking up faster than it's moving.. which could be a good thing. Things are definitely moving, that hole we were watching when we took off has moved about 15 miles now." - T-38.
-
T-38 reports high-level cloud formations breaking up
-
-
What are the rules regarding a waiver for triboelectrification?
-
Boats near the impact point, they have been instructed to clear the area (and have).
-
T-38s estimating 10 minutes from going green, which is the T-0 time!
-
In my right speaker I keep hearing 15:20 is the new T-0 time. That is GMT, I guess?
The ELV countdown portal is still frozen
-
What the heck, bumping the T-0 to 11:30am when they are clear at 11:20am! Let's pray that we are still clear at 11:30am.
-
Sounds like they may push back to 11:30 to give themselves some "margin"
-
Sounds like they may push back to 11:30 to give themselves some "margin"
Really? really? ???
-
Chris Fergueson saying that they really want an update before they move the T-0 time, sounds like he is a bit.. mad?
-
getting margin is fine, but use 5 min. increments when it's THIS close each time....
-
Edge of the clouds is 4 miles north of the pad... we would be clear (if it keeps going) at 11:20am time.
-
Sounds like they may push back to 11:30 to give themselves some "margin"
Didn't such margins cost us an opportunity yesterday?!
-
They should have had a delay of 5 minutes instead of 10. I'm quite sure it'll close a couple minutes early.
-
"What the heck, bumping the T-0 to 11:30am when they are clear at 11:20am! "
This didn't make sense to me either!
-
What are the rules regarding a waiver for triboelectrification?
There wouldn't be one. The tribo-electirification could cause communications problems. The main concern is with the FTS (Flight Termination System). The Range folks need to be totally sure they can terminate the rocket should something go wrong. I dont' see there is any leeway on this.
-
Why was tribo never an issue with Saturn? They launched through cirrus layers, and I don't recall any mention of coatings.
They had taken it into account and designed it ou6t
-
Airline contrail headed toward the pad.
-
Sorry for saying this: Even with this being a one time test launch, the restrictive rules are really extreme. And I am not saying this because I can't wait to see this vehicle flying. :) Really. I mean, Shuttle is restrictive (TAL, RTLS, rain, crosswinds ...). But todays weather is as best as you can hope for in humid Florida. 20kts winds maximum also are very restrictive.
You pay in operations your failures in development.
Analyst
-
"Things ebb and flow out here... you may be clear at 11:30, we just don't know. It would be sooner that you go green."
-
Why do they have to re-poll everytime?? STS consoles stay in
a GO state unless otherwise reported at T-9 don't they? ???
-
"Based upon everything we see, you will be green in 5 minutes."
-
What are the rules regarding a waiver for triboelectrification?
Is that even something you can get a waiver on for this flight? It's like getting a waiver for a shuttle launch if there's ice buildup on the external tank's IFRs or something
-
Keep the chatter down from this point (or be deleted) as we may be coming out of the hold (hopefully) real soon.
-
Kathy: "We will be clear in 5 minutes, not sure how long we'll be clear though."
Need a 5 minute window to get through all the polls and through the 4 minutes. T-38s can't guess as it's too dynamic in the sky.
-
10 minutes to coming out of the hold on this T-0.
L-14 minutes.
-
We'll be clear as expected at 11:20am.. do a prayer and hope it remains that way.
-
T-38 update: We would call the cirrus layer beginning about due east of the pad, extending to the south, moving in the southerly direction. How long you might have, hard to estimate.. I'd say 10 minutes, we're about to go green on range.
-
10 minute window, 11 minutes from launch
-
"Slicing it extremely thin, can we accelerate the launch?"
-
"Should be green when we come back around" - T-38
-
Weather should be good for 10 mins, they have 10 minutes to launch!
-
Fergueson saying they have 10 minutes or so, weather should be green now.
-
ELV portal back alive and updated
-
Launch time in 9 minutes, wanting to move it up to 11:28am EDT.
-
GREEN ON TRIBO!
-
Ready to resume count with Range Weather, and GO for launch.
-
RCO LTD is ready for launch.
-
Go to proceed with the Ares I-X flight. Resuming count in 3 minutes, 30 seconds.
-
CLEAR TO LAUNCH.
-
Go to proceed, T-38s making final pass
-
T-38 heading to an area west of the SLF for launch.
-
Picking up the count in 2 minutes.
-
Here we go, coming out of the hold in two minutes.
L-6 six minutes.
-
60 seconds until the count is picked up.
-
We are T-4 minutes and COUNTING!
-
Clock is T-00:03:59 and counting.
-
SRM ignition armed.
-
Let's do this!
Arm Flight Termination System (FTS) safe & arm device
-
T-3 minutes.
-
Arm Solid Rocket Motor (SRM) safe & arm device
-
First Stage Avionics Module/Upper Stage Simulator (FSAM/USS) fan terminate
-
T-2 minutes and counting.
-
Vehicle on internal power.
-
T-120 seconds:
Transfer to internal power. Start onboard instrumentation recorders.
-
L-60 seconds. Godspeed.
-
Flight Control System (FCS) to “launch enable” - FCS to “go internal”
Ground Control Station (GCS) count start
-
Solid Rocket Motor (SRM) joint heater deactivation - Disable gas generator bed heaters
-
LIFTOFF OF ARES I-X!
-
FCS “go inertial” - Auxiliary Power Unit start
-
-
-
LAUNCH!
-
-
AWESOME
-
Cmon.... cmon.....
-
Roll Control System (RoCS) commanding enabled - RoCS active (begin using thrusters)
-
-
“Fly away” maneuver complete
-
-
RoCS is disabled/enabled every 10 sec thru MET 91 sec
-
-
Flight Control System phase change to separation phase
-
SEPARATION!
-
-
-
-
- Latest Solid Rocket Motor burnout
- Booster Deceleration Motor & Pyro Initiator Controller arm
- Thrust Vector Control null & RoCS turned off
- APU shutdown
- APU power removal
- Booster Deceleration Motor ignition
- Booster Deceleration Motor ignition
-
Was there recontact between upper and lower? Video cut out.
-
First Stage / Upper Stage Simulator (FS/USS) sep
-
"We threaded the needle"!
-
-
Stages recontacted!!!
-
Was there recontact between upper and lower? Video cut out.
Did not appear to be, looked pretty ugly though.
-
Quality of telemetry is still good.
-
First time ever seen the stages parallel to each other at sep!
-
That's all gone wrong at sep. USS was sent off course. Not sure how the booster is doing.
-
The joys of solids.. still residual thrust after "burnout"
-
was it me or did it seem odd for it to "lean" to the right slightly after leaving the pad..
jb
-
If that was Ares I it'd of been LOM at least.
-
LOS with the vehicle.
-
Looked a lot more impressive in flight than it did on the pad, but that separation was . . . not good.
-
WOW that was a lot of tilt angle right at launch!
-
was it me or did it seem odd for it to "lean" to the right slightly after leaving the pad..
jb
me too
-
Handshakes all around... even with LOS..
-
Looks like the SRB started to turn before the USS was clear, looked like there was contact.
Oh when that thing took off the SatV ran into the corner and hid, what speed. No wobble at all.
-
Upperstage water impact confirmed.
-
was it me or did it seem odd for it to "lean" to the right slightly after leaving the pad..
jb
Most likely just the pad avoidance maneuver. Saturn V did that too.
-
I thought it was slightly leaning right at launch as well.
-
I'll have HQ video posted shortly after the event is complete (booster impact too).
-
Not receiving the vehicle, no parachute confirmation.
-
was it me or did it seem odd for it to "lean" to the right slightly after leaving the pad..
jb
That was one issue that they were worried about on this launch. Worried that it might contact the tower, but looked like it cleared. Interested to see how much damage there was with the tower getting more of the direct blast from the SRB.
-
was it me or did it seem odd for it to "lean" to the right slightly after leaving the pad..
jb
Most likely just the pad avoidance maneuver. Saturn V did that too.
That was my thought. Looked fine to me.
-
was it me or did it seem odd for it to "lean" to the right slightly after leaving the pad..
jb
Noticed that too.
-
"Basically done with the active part of the mission. Time for recovery. Have not had positive confirmation of first stage splashdown... may have been missed on our audio loop."
-
Ares I seps at interstage, not fustrum, and has ullague motors to pull it away.
-
was it me or did it seem odd for it to "lean" to the right slightly after leaving the pad..
jb
Without a doubt in my mind.
I had my heart in my mouth for that; it will be interesting to see if that drift was inside the acceptable cone.
-
Looked like they didn't learn from Space-X's issues..
-
was it me or did it seem odd for it to "lean" to the right slightly after leaving the pad..
jb
That was one issue that they were worried about on this launch. Worried that it might contact the tower, but looked like it cleared. Interested to see how much damage there was with the tower getting more of the direct blast from the SRB.
Keep us updated please! ;)
-
The separation did not go well at all, looked like the kick motors that sent the booster into tumble while the two stages were still in contact
-
WAS THE USS SUPPOSED TO TUMBLE AFTER SRB SEP??
-
The joys of solids.. still residual thrust after "burnout"
The real Ares-I is going to have ulage thrusters to mitigate this, IIRC.
Re. parachutes: Wouldn't be surprised if the recontact knocked the 'chute system out. Time will tell.
-
WAS THE USS SUPPOSED TO TUMBLE AFTER SRB SEP??
Yes, it's an unguided lump of metal.
-
WAS THE USS SUPPOSED TO TUMBLE AFTER SRB SEP??
No.
Edit: I thought that it was unplanned? First stage and second stage recontacted and caused the second stage to tumble?
-
WAS THE USS SUPPOSED TO TUMBLE AFTER SRB SEP??
No, it was shoved by the First Stage.
-
Ed Mango just lost half his tie, as is tradition.
-
It almost looked like the rocket just broke in half instead of the two sections separating like on a normal rocket.
-
WAS THE USS SUPPOSED TO TUMBLE AFTER SRB SEP??
Yes
-
no upper stage motor, so recontact and tumbling is not surprising
-
WAS THE USS SUPPOSED TO TUMBLE AFTER SRB SEP??
Yes, it's an unguided lump of metal.
"Unguided" doesn't necessarily mean "unstable."
The question stands.
-
Heh. "First flight test, and all we were waiting on was weather. That means you all were frickin' fantastic."
Ares I-X launch replays up next, I will be recording those, will NOT be posting if someone can grab that, I'm fixing the launch video.
-
Seems during staging it did the same thing Falcon 1 flight 3 did.
I guess they made right call to use a dummy stage as the recovery system on the SRM would have gotten cooked.
It would be interesting to see the data and the on board camera footage.
-
Ares I seps at interstage, not fustrum, and has ullague motors to pull it away.
Looks like those are going to have to be significant ullage motors(ignited before sep?) to get away from that still burning solid.
-
Shame they cut of for replays so soon.
-
WAS THE USS SUPPOSED TO TUMBLE AFTER SRB SEP??
No, it was shoved by the First Stage.
Have to hear about stage contact and rates later, and maybe not "supposed" to tumble, but as said, it's unguided -- it will eventually develop rates.
If anyone remembers Delta 178, that's an example of what happens...
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeIjVB2O9_4
-
"Unguided" doesn't necessarily mean "unstable."
At hypersonic velocities, it does. One little instability and it goes off. Again, the final Ares I will have ullage motors...
-
Shame they cut of for replays so soon.
Yea, I am waiting for confirmation of chute deploy and splashdown.
-
"You were all FREAKIN' fantastic!"
That's the first time I heard someone at Launch Control say that on NASA TV. Unstandable, though. :)
-
It certainly headed more to the right than I was expecting. I know they were concerned about contact with the tower but it did appear a bit extreme to me. Far more than I remember a Saturn V doing.
And obviously staging was not as planned.
Keith
-
They would have ullage rockets on the 2nd stage that could help. The video from the SRB should tell the tale.
-
Booster recovery vessel says they have spotted the booster
-
Would any thrust oscillation have been noticeable?
-
It was figured that it would tumble eventually, but can't say that the booster didn't "accelerate" that process. And everyone remember, this is a TEST flight. If there's a time for problems to develop, this is it. So please don't be so quick to label this as a failure. If you'd like the human space program to continue we don't need snap judgements that can accelerate quite quickly.
-
Couldnt see it from other side of Florida due to clouds but the tv view was fun. A good PR day for Ares, for whatever it's worth at this point.
-
WAS THE USS SUPPOSED TO TUMBLE AFTER SRB SEP??
Yes, it's an unguided lump of metal.
"Unguided" doesn't necessarily mean "unstable."
The question stands.
The primary mission objective for separation (P4) was to "demonstrate First Stage separation sequencing" and is silent about what the upper stage does afterward. I'd say that they'd demonstrated the separation sequenceing.
-
Would any thrust oscillation have been noticeable?
With a 4-seg SRM, TO would have been similar to STS launches. The concern is that the 5-segment SRM, with a different chamber throat profile will cause potentially fatal oscillation.
-
Shame they cut of for replays so soon.
Yea, I am waiting for confirmation of chute deploy and splashdown.
It was just a bit more light hearted to hear the speeches and something you dont usually see with a shuttle launch as everyone at this time would be looking up :)
-
Starting replays now.
-
It could be that the SRB stage did NOT re-contact the USS, could just be from our POV it appeared that way, and the USS was just not stable enough to fly on its own.
-
Thanks for the awesome coverage, guys, i think the numbers speak for themselves:
Most Online Today: 2015. Most Online Ever: 2015 (Today at 03:45 PM)
-
Launch video encoding. Will have it up in about 15 minutes, will be approximately 45mb. Will process all the launch replays afterward, and will have those up later tonight.
-
well at least it launched, was quite nice to watch it fly, only time will tell if we get to see it again :)
-
Good day for nasa as well as the constellation program.
-
"Unguided" doesn't necessarily mean "unstable."
At hypersonic velocities, it does. One little instability and it goes off. Again, the final Ares I will have ullage motors...
Read your response to my statement. You can't define a term using itself. :-\
And hypersonic has nothing to do with it - if an object is stable, it's stable. If it's dynamically stable, the rates will null as the center of pressure and location of the the shock(s) change with motion.
So again, "unguided" does not equal "unstable."
Or so I learned in MY engineering curricula (including subsonic, supersonic, and hypersonic aerodynamics and compressible flow theory). Your mileage may vary. :)
-
Patrick DOAMS replay right now...I lost video briefly during the separation dynamics, so hopefully will get to see this better...
-
WAS THE USS SUPPOSED TO TUMBLE AFTER SRB SEP??
Yes, it's an unguided lump of metal.
"Unguided" doesn't necessarily mean "unstable."
The question stands.
The primary mission objective for separation (P4) was to "demonstrate First Stage separation sequencing" and is silent about what the upper stage does afterward. I'd say that they'd demonstrated the separation sequenceing.
Not if it imparted a moment to the second stage.
-
Here's separation, 3 images at a time.
-
More replays - Patrick DOAMS
-
First stage spotted with chutes deployed
-
well at least it launched, was quite nice to watch it fly, only time will tell if we get to see it again :)
Agree. Also, our beloved shuttle is still safe and sound on the pad waiting for it's day to launch.
-
-
-
It could be that the SRB stage did NOT re-contact the USS, could just be from our POV it appeared that way, and the USS was just not stable enough to fly on its own.
Current launch replay (long range camera) shows a clear gap between the two stages before either starts tumbling.
-
And if Atlantis were a person, she'd breathe a sigh of relief.
"Phew. Came out of this unscathed."
-
Launch photos starting to surface on the Kennedy Media Gallery:
http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cfm?cat=4
-
It looks as though the SRB exhaust impinges on the upper stage after separation, causing it to yaw.
-
I was really worried when I saw it tumble... Then the video cut out right as the upper stage and lower stage were parallel... Even if it was designed that way, it didn't look right. What a rush, though, after finally launching after all the tribo stuff! Great launch!
Yeah, they will have to be significant ullage motors. *sigh* Well, that was nice. Now we can go ahead and try Jupiter 130/24x, Ares V-lite, Not-Shuttle-C, or EELVs. And, time to watch Masten Space!!! Their clock for the NGLLC starts in like 5 minutes!!! They will have a web stream going.
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/northrop-grumman-lunar-lander-challenge
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13206.msg496094#new
-
WAS THE USS SUPPOSED TO TUMBLE AFTER SRB SEP??
Yes, it's an unguided lump of metal.
"Unguided" doesn't necessarily mean "unstable."
The question stands.
The primary mission objective for separation (P4) was to "demonstrate First Stage separation sequencing" and is silent about what the upper stage does afterward. I'd say that they'd demonstrated the separation sequenceing.
Not if it imparted a moment to the second stage.
Yes, even then -- unless you can point us toward something that says "the upper stage proceeds serenely on its way after separation"
-
It could be that the SRB stage did NOT re-contact the USS, could just be from our POV it appeared that way, and the USS was just not stable enough to fly on its own.
Current launch replay (long range camera) shows a clear gap between the two stages before either starts tumbling.
Right. I don't see contact. I see the sep motors fire at the base of the SRB, then the tumble motors as planned. The SRB tumbles because it was purposely sent into a tumble at that point.
- Ed Kyle
-
It looked like a Delta, it moved during liftoff like Saturn V, it visually ended in the "airstream" like Delta 178.
Analyst
-
The Patrick DOAMS replay showed what looked to me like a good sep followed by a recontact, not just a tumble caused by moment applied during sep.
-
It could be that the SRB stage did NOT re-contact the USS, could just be from our POV it appeared that way, and the USS was just not stable enough to fly on its own.
Current launch replay (long range camera) shows a clear gap between the two stages before either starts tumbling.
I don't know -- rocking the video back and forth, they both begin to slowly tumble, then the 1st stage seems to bump "upward" and the USS begins spinning at a much faster rate.
-
To me, it looked like the separation itself was clean, but once the SRB started to tumble, the upper stage also started rotating, due to either recontact or exhaust impingement.
-
Does not look like there was contact, could just be airflow disrupion or the USS just does not fly well on its own :)
But it looked VERY close to contact, thought that "SRB yaw" move was supposed to happen much later.
-
I was surprised by the "stately" liftoff... of course, I was comparing to my old Estes model rockets, which didn't have nearly as large a payload.
-
Would any thrust oscillation have been noticeable?
With a 4-seg SRM, TO would have been similar to STS launches. The concern is that the 5-segment SRM, with a different chamber throat profile will cause potentially fatal oscillation.
This is the only time where the structural constraints are the same. The forcing function would be the same as Shuttle, but the resulting acceleration oscillation is more Ares-like than Shuttle.
-
The launch looked somewhat looked like a pencil lifting off!
-
Patrick DOAMS replay right now...I lost video briefly during the separation dynamics, so hopefully will get to see this better...
Wow. Sep looked even worse on that.
-
ares 1-x #2 trending topic on twitter right now
-
It could be that the SRB stage did NOT re-contact the USS, could just be from our POV it appeared that way, and the USS was just not stable enough to fly on its own.
Even if there wasn't recontact.. it appeared to stay in contact long after the Separation event. Ullage motors are a must.. and this may tell them if they've planned for large enough motors
Ares I-X Using a 4-seg is not as high at sep and there may be more aerodynamic pressure on US than there will be at burnout for Ares I using a 5-seg Solid... although with 5-seg you'll also be moving faster at burnout.. Not sure what which case will be worse.
-
Yeah, they will have to be significant ullage motors
Aren't ullage motors just designed to settle the fuel in the stage?
Keith
-
Hope they got the booster cam video signals... haven't seen any of those yet.
-
(http://twitpic.com/show/thumb/n9q4s.jpg)
Nice photo from twitter - thanks FlyingJenny
-
Yeah, they will have to be significant ullage motors
Aren't ullage motors just designed to settle the fuel in the stage?
Yes, by imparting forward acceleration.
-
It could be that the SRB stage did NOT re-contact the USS, could just be from our POV it appeared that way, and the USS was just not stable enough to fly on its own.
Current launch replay (long range camera) shows a clear gap between the two stages before either starts tumbling.
When one turns one way and the other turns the exact opposite, that's too coincidental. Physics is rarely coincidental.
-
Maybe it was all scheduled but the sep sequence was sort of depressive. I wonder if public and Congress will see it as a failure.
-
Something definitely looked fishy about the separation. The NASA animations released before the flight showed a much longer delay between the separation motors and the induced rotation.
The way the US started spinning made it look like *something* was still holding the stages together.
-
Vehicle camera replays coming on now. Very nice shots.
-
Vehicle Cam 1 is next replay.
-
WAS THE USS SUPPOSED TO TUMBLE AFTER SRB SEP??
Yes, it's an unguided lump of metal.
"Unguided" doesn't necessarily mean "unstable."
The question stands.
The primary mission objective for separation (P4) was to "demonstrate First Stage separation sequencing" and is silent about what the upper stage does afterward. I'd say that they'd demonstrated the separation sequenceing.
You're right. I got really scared when I saw the USS tumbling 'below' the first stage.
Anyhow, I thought the BSM would separate both USS and RSRM before the BTM fired. in this context the USS shouldn't have tumbled.
-
Maybe it was all scheduled but the sep sequence was sort of depressive. I wonder if public and Congress will see it as a failure.
It's a test vehicle. People know that.
-
Maybe it was all scheduled but the sep sequence was sort of depressive. I wonder if public and Congress will see it as a failure.
Time will tell. The liftoff sequence is usually the money shot, but there will be questions at the upcoming press conference and we'll have to hear what they say.
Downward looking video camera replay now.
-
Ares I-X Launch
http://www.space-multimedia.nl.eu.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5465
recording 1200K
-
They ullage can give a little kick, and perhaps put some "retros" on the aft skirt to help slow it down. Have to be gentle however, dont want to make it worse.
Just seemed to me the yaw move was much quicker. The cams on the stages will really tell the tale.
-
Vehicle Cam 1 proved no good for staging, lost signal right at staging.
-
Vehicle Cam 1 proved no good for staging, lost signal right at staging.
Perhaps Chris (or Chris) knows if all the cameras are being recorded on the booster...dependent on recovery, but if that's the case, there should be something to see.
-
The thing is they need to make sure there is NO contact with a live 2nd stage with a J2X in it, that could ruin your whole day.
But it was a good flight, much smoother than I was expecting, just did not know how an Shuttle SRB would do solo. Had a quite pronounced "lets make sure we dont hit the tower" maneuver, and very fast.
Also did not notice much in the way of "rotation" at all really.
-
Yeah, they will have to be significant ullage motors
Aren't ullage motors just designed to settle the fuel in the stage?
Keith
I am sure the final flight vehicle, if it ever is built, will include ullage motors. The Saturns did and not only for pushing the upper stage away but also to settle the propellant in the upper stage as mentioned. I believe this second stage had no such active component so the odd separation really doesn't seem to be that odd to me. Also remember the recent SpaceX failure due to impact between stages at separation.
-
You can see the exhaust from the roll control thrusters in rocket cam video
-
Drogue chute deployed:
-
On to Vehicle Camera 2 (WITH AUDIO!)
-
Got a few bits of the parachute deploy sequence at the end of the Cam 1 replay.
-
Vehicle Cam 1 proved no good for staging, lost signal right at staging.
It did give a short glimpse of the upper stage after staging, just as the tumble motors fired. Upper stage looked pretty stable at the time (linear with the booster, anyway), but we need more data.
-
Good day for nasa as well as the constellation program.
That is debatable.
-
Cam 2 has some audio...interesting...
Also a lot of dropouts...
-
Yeah, they will have to be significant ullage motors
Aren't ullage motors just designed to settle the fuel in the stage?
Keith
Yes. The ullage motors are for settling fuel - and they are not gimballed - they have no ability to keep the vehicle pointy end forward. They are not very powerful. I can't recall offhand if there are attitude control jets on second stage - that might help normally. On a real flight, the second stage J2 will not fire immediately (and will not be able to control the stage), so the second stage will need to be stable or stabilized for a few seconds after sep. Also, the J2 nozzle will be sticking out back and recontact with that will have to be avoided. It was expected that eventually for this test the upper stage would tumble, but it wasn't supposed to do what it did.
-
Maybe it was all scheduled but the sep sequence was sort of depressive. I wonder if public and Congress will see it as a failure.
1.) Ares I-X flew straight as an arrow during ascent
2.) The first and upper stages will not separate at the same location on Ares I as on I-X
2.) The REAL upper stage on Ares I will still be moving forward (on its OWN propulsion) once the first stage separates from it. Also, if artist concepts and online videos are anything to go by, the upper stage will have its own separation motors to help push it away from the FS after SRB burnout.
The public and Congress should see this flight as MORE of a success than a failure.
-
Vehicle Cam 1 proved no good for staging, lost signal right at staging.
Came back for a couple frames with the USS visible, no readily apparent damage but not enough evidence either way.
-
I'm a huge fan, but I find it interesting the vehicle cam replays cut out between ignition and tower clear and again at first and upper stage sep. Coincidence? Makes me wonder if contact was made with launch service structure as wells as recontact with upper stage.
Make no difference to me as I already can't wait for Ares 1-Y!
-
The USS yaw did look pretty severe on the angle that was shown for launch, however it doesn't look as bad on some of the replays.
Also remember we are used to seeing separations of powered 2nd stages...
(Anybody else get the 'Right Stuff' theme music and visions of the end sequence of Coopers flight during that?)
-
Vehicle Camera 2 still no good for separation.. again, if they have recorded it on the vehicle and have the raw vehicle video, that'll be good.
-
Yes, pretty launch though I have to think that tilt was more than expected... Even worse was the separation......
For a test of a vehicle designed to be unmanned, I could almost accept this... But this vehicle is supposed to carry PEOPLE to orbit.
Just ask yourself.... With that liftoff tilt and that separation - even with separation motors - Do you think people should fly on that?
-
I lost video briefly during the separation dynamics, so hopefully will get to see this better...
Sorry if this was already covered in thread, still catching up. The NASA TV feed (over satellite) had trouble right after separation, for about 20 seconds. I'll be checking my recordings to see what the deal was, but there was definitely a problem there. Internet may have been fine, but cable would definitely have seen the problem.
-
Sweet shot:
-
Upper stage video doesn't show separation, but I think the upper stage was *supposed* to be LOS at separation -- all the electronics were in the first stage.
-
You know the usual SRB cameras that we usually see footage from half way through a shuttle mission (for debris analysis)?
Does this booster have those on?
-
I lost video briefly during the separation dynamics, so hopefully will get to see this better...
Sorry if this was already covered in thread, still catching up. The NASA TV feed (over satellite) had trouble right after separation, for about 20 seconds. I'll be checking my recordings to see what the deal was, but there was definitely a problem there. Internet may have been fine, but cable would definitely have seen the problem.
It choked on both satellite and cable at the same time -- also earlier in the morning.
-
Upper stage video doesn't show separation, but I think the upper stage was *supposed* to be LOS at separation -- all the electronics were in the first stage.
Right, but was it supposed to tumble that fast after separation?
-
Looks like Ares I-X cleared LC-39B without damage:
-
Although ullage motors are mostly for fuel settling, they'll have to be used to avoid recontact since SRMs so often (always?) have residual thrust after "burn-out." Of course, people have thought of this before today.
BTW, Masten Space Systems NGLLC clock just started...
Watch the live video stream here:
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/northrop-grumman-lunar-lander-challenge
Masten Space NSF thread is here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13206.msg496284#new
Twitter "ngllc" is here:
http://twitter.com/search?q=%23ngllc
-
The public and Congress should see this flight as MORE of a success than a failure.
Ares-IX accomplished its objectives - and that's all that could be asked. It was a successful launch. Nice job guys!
-
Maybe it was all scheduled but the sep sequence was sort of depressive. I wonder if public and Congress will see it as a failure.
1.) Ares I-X flew straight as an arrow during ascent
2.) The REAL upper stage on Ares I will still be moving forward (on its OWN propulsion) once the first stage separates from it. Also, if artist concepts and online videos are anything to go by, the upper stage will have its own separation motors to help push it away from the FS after SRB burnout.
1) Unless you count the apparently excessive "pad avoidance" maneuver.
2) There is a delay between staging and second stage ignition, to prevent the motor's exhaust from rebounding off the first stage and potentially damaging the second stage. The ullage motors on the second stage will impart a slight acceleration, but only to settle propellant in the tanks prior to stage ignition. The 1st stage will (and did today) have booster separation motors -- essentially retro-rockets at the base of the aft skirt.
-
I'm a huge fan, but I find it interesting the vehicle cam replays cut out between ignition and tower clear and again at first and upper stage sep. Coincidence?
No, just issues with signal getting through the plume to MILA and/or PDL. Happens with Shuttle, too.
-
Yeah, they will have to be significant ullage motors
Aren't ullage motors just designed to settle the fuel in the stage?
Keith
I am sure the final flight vehicle, if it ever is built, will include ullage motors. The Saturns did and not only for pushing the upper stage away but also to settle the propellant in the upper stage as mentioned. I believe this second stage had no such active component so the odd separation really doesn't seem to be that odd to me.
I'm curious, then, to compare this with the first Saturns that had a dummy upper stage. Did we see the same thing?
-
Also remember we are used to seeing separations of powered 2nd stages...
Atlas and Delta have unpowered separations
-
I can't find the link on NSF right now but I believe there was one that had a timeline along with graphics showing what was supposed to happen with Ares I-X. It seems like that would be a good starting point for discussion on the actual flight, rather than infinite speculation on separation/tumbling. Is there such a doc on NSF?
-
Well done again on the coverage team - congrats to NASA and contractor teams.
Press conference in a few minutes.
-
Just ask yourself.... With that liftoff tilt and that separation - even with separation motors - Do you think people should fly on that?
This test has almost no resemblance to Ares-I, thus nothing about it would affect my decision to fly on Ares-I or not.
-
1) Unless you count the apparently excessive "pad avoidance" maneuver.
Didn't look that excessive, just looked different from Shuttle, which walks to the north and has a different thrust to weight ratio.
Can't necessarily use Shuttle as a baseline for this.
-
Upper stage video doesn't show separation, but I think the upper stage was *supposed* to be LOS at separation -- all the electronics were in the first stage.
Right, but was it supposed to tumble that fast after separation?
Don't know if they ever said *what* specifically would happen to the upper stage after separation (besides fall into the ocean).
*After* seeing the launch, I suspect it saw enough of the tumble motor exhaust to start a quick tumble, with no significant airstream at that altitude to counteract the force of the exhaust. I'll wait for the analysis, though...
-
LC-39B Pad perimeter shot:
-
-
Ares I-X staged at a much higher dynamic pressure than Ares I is going to. That staging didn't look so great, but without good knowledge of how it was supposed to look, it's hard to say (much like LCROSS).
-
We'll have to wait for official data, but that really does look like the FS recontacted with the USS.
-
Pad Perimeter Cam was stunning
-
(Anybody else get the 'Right Stuff' theme music and visions of the end sequence of Coopers flight during that?)
No, because if Gordo ended up tumbling and looking right back at the Atlas, he wouldn't have made it.
-
Maybe it was all scheduled but the sep sequence was sort of depressive. I wonder if public and Congress will see it as a failure.
1.) Ares I-X flew straight as an arrow during ascent
2.) The REAL upper stage on Ares I will still be moving forward (on its OWN propulsion) once the first stage separates from it. Also, if artist concepts and online videos are anything to go by, the upper stage will have its own separation motors to help push it away from the FS after SRB burnout.
1) Unless you count the apparently excessive "pad avoidance" maneuver.
By what criteria have you judged the PAM to be "apparently excessive"? Have you data on how big it was supposed to be?
-
1.) Ares I-X flew straight as an arrow during ascent
1) Unless you count the apparently excessive "pad avoidance" maneuver.
Just be grateful that I-X didn't cork-screw into the launch tower as many people here feared. :)
-
Ares I-X Launch - NASA TV (http://www.maxqent.com/Backup/Ares/Ares%20I-X%20Launch%20-%20NASA%20TV.mpg) 46.5mb, right click > save as.
-
The rocket did tilt a few degrees right after liftoff but there's nothing to worry. I really love the bright jet and the thunderous sound as it cleared the sky. We're one step closer to the Moon and Mars :)
-
Honestly to me looks like all went pretty much as planned, tumbling included. We have to see if the parachute worked well.
Ciao!
-
Just ask yourself.... With that liftoff tilt and that separation - even with separation motors - Do you think people should fly on that?
This test has almost no resemblance to Ares-I, thus nothing about it would affect my decision to fly on Ares-I or not.
Then what is the point of the launch? :D Of course it is intended to match a real Ares I flight as much as possible.
-
Now this is nice:
-
2) There is a delay between staging and second stage ignition, to prevent the motor's exhaust from rebounding off the first stage and potentially damaging the second stage. The ullage motors on the second stage will impart a slight acceleration, but only to settle propellant in the tanks prior to stage ignition. The 1st stage will (and did today) have booster separation motors -- essentially retro-rockets at the base of the aft skirt.
The Russians ignite the second stage while the core stage is still accelerating, just before MECO. That ensures that the US propellants are settled prior to ignition.
-
The shot from LC-39A was pretty, I'll give it that.
-
Also an interesting replay from the Pad A east perimeter...would have liked the HD version!
-
it's hard to say (much like LCROSS).
Speaking of which. With their two analyzing weeks more than over, have there been clearer results lately?
Analyst
-
The CNN guy was quite excited. It's a good day for NASA.
-
Even worse was the separation......
This separation was as expected. The USS didn't have any live thrusters, so it entered a tumble. The booster fired its sep motors, followed immediately by its tumble motors *as planned*. That sent it into a tumble *as planned*.
We're just not used to seeing a test like this.
The flight was stable in pitch, yaw, and roll. The sep was clean. The stage appears to have parachuted to recovery.
It looks like a very successful test flight, assuming the telemetry flowed well for data downlink.
- Ed Kyle
-
With regard to the sound of the launch... It sounds distinctly different from a shuttle launch. With the lack of SSME's contribution, there is simply a big BOOM, and then it's off! Spectacular.
-
Just ask yourself.... With that liftoff tilt and that separation - even with separation motors - Do you think people should fly on that?
This test has almost no resemblance to Ares-I, thus nothing about it would affect my decision to fly on Ares-I or not.
If this test had no resembalance to Ares I, what was the test for?
-
Post launch press conference at 1:30 pm Eastern.
-
I love hearing the sound of the moment of ignition without the masking noise of the SSME's.
-
Just ask yourself.... With that liftoff tilt and that separation - even with separation motors - Do you think people should fly on that?
This test has almost no resemblance to Ares-I, thus nothing about it would affect my decision to fly on Ares-I or not.
If this test had no resembalance to Ares I, what was the test for?
PR.
-
Just ask yourself.... With that liftoff tilt and that separation - even with separation motors - Do you think people should fly on that?
This test has almost no resemblance to Ares-I, thus nothing about it would affect my decision to fly on Ares-I or not.
Then what is the point of the launch? :D Of course it is intended to match a real Ares I flight as much as possible.
The number of times people have been asking that question... :P
Ares 1-X had rather little to do with Ares 1, as it didn't really have that much actual Ares 1-hardware, if any. Thrust and aerodynamic loads will all be different on the actual vehicle, if it ever flies.
-
Also remember we are used to seeing separations of powered 2nd stages...
Atlas and Delta have unpowered separations
Sorry Jim, i'm being ambiguous in my haste. I mean of vehicles that have actual powered upper stages..rather than dummy simulators.
I meant powered in that respect, as in real rather than dummy.
-
1330 EDT Post Launch Press Conference
-
The Russians ignite the second stage while the core stage is still accelerating, just before MECO. That ensures that the US propellants are settled prior to ignition.
Didn't the Titan second stage do the same fire in the hole?
Analyst
-
I suspect it saw enough of the tumble motor exhaust to start a quick tumble
Sorry, but that doesn't make physical sense. The BTM exhaust would have been going to the left on the screen, pushing the top of the first stage to the right. The impingement of that exhaust on the USS would have pushed the bottom of the USS to the left. The bottom of the USS went to the right. QED.
-
How's this for a suiting last picture?
-
Hilarious (not at all) that the servers cope with a record audience, but the database has an issue. Mark working out what it was. Many apologies for the last hour
-
I've been taking notes from the briefing, since the forum seems to have been down.
Doug Cooke: How cool was Ares 1-X? It was triboelectrifying! Can't say enough about this team. Went from concept to flying in 3 years. Learned a lot just getting to this point. Vehicle flew well, and we will learn a lot from the data.
Jeff Hanley: Do not want to hear triboelectrified stuff from now on! Team is tired, but extremely satisfied. Couldn't be prouder of the teams. I was not even sure we were gonna launch because of the lightning strikes. But the team worked through that issue well to get to the launch. Very proud of the result
Bob Ess: Spectacular day. Vehicle flew better than expected. Saw the flyaway maneuver at the pad, may have looked strange, but flew perfectly - right down the line. RoCS fired only 3 times... very benign flight. Dynamics on the upper stage, working to understand that. Booster is back in the water... so the parachutes are assumed to have worked well.
Ed Mango: Fantastic day. The team really excelled. We had a great team and a great vehicle. We just had to wait for mother nature. Developmental flight stuff is a lot of fun! We had some challenges getting off the ground. It's a new rocket... it was our first time working with it. No problems with the rocket... just learning on our part. Probe cover was a bit of a challenge, but we were able to get it off. Weather didn't cooperate after that, so came back today. Lightning struck last night near pad. Worked through vehicle step-by-step to build flight rationale. That was only issue other than weather. We found a hole in the clouds, and took off through it.
Questions:
Q: Why no visual on chute deploy? With a test as smooth as this, what are your thoughts on "selling" this rocket.
A: We saw drogues come out, then lost video. SRB ships saw parachute splashdown, on their way to pick it up. We are working from Augustine report. Have been instructed to continue on current path. This test will be valuable no matter what happens in the future. We can see how valid our models were.
Q: Been 37 years since we left earth orbit. There is a push for commercial spaceflight, without background experience. This demonstration was 207th successful flight of SRB. How will you respond to Augustine report?
A: Bolden and NASA are looking at the facts from the report. We are interested in helping commercial ventures through COTS, etc. They are making progress. You are seeing experience, but also a streamlined NASA team. We are learning to do this from the beginning, since we haven't done this in a while.
Q: How successful would you classify this flight? Have you got any prelim data.
A: Completely met, and blew away our criteria for success. All onboard data systems worked well. It will take us a while to look at all the telemetry and collect data from sensors in the booster. Separation seemed different from predicted, we will need to look at that.
Q: Why are you having a difficult time selling to outsiders that you are "on-time" with this project?
A: I don't know of any data about issues like TO, didn't see any. We are keeping our heads down and pushing forward with the project. We had Orion PDR successful. And a successful 5 seg booster test. I can't speak for others. Challenged from budget perspective. Opinions of others vary, and we still need to understand Augustine report's suggestions.
-
To update (added some news to the article as the news site was still working).
Still want to see the video for the sep. Had some dynamics on the USS. Didn't use the word recontact at any point.
I have sources saying FS splashed down with two parachutes, with a third failing.
-
Q: Give us an overview of where things stand with the program.
A: We have been continuing with the work underway. We have been on track with development of facilities and program milestones. Opened OMC building. Continuing to make progress on Ares 1 MLP. Chute modifications. Orion PDR. DM-1 test for 5 seg booster. Pad abort test coming up.
-
I've been taking notes from the briefing, since the forum seems to have been down.
Doug Cooke: How cool was Ares 1-X? It was triboelectrifying! Can't say enough about this team. Went from concept to flying in 3 years. Learned a lot just getting to this point. Vehicle flew well, and we will learn a lot from the data.
Jeff Hanley: Do not want to hear triboelectrified stuff from now on! Team is tired, but extremely satisfied. Couldn't be prouder of the teams. I was not even sure we were gonna launch because of the lightning strikes. But the team worked through that issue well to get to the launch. Very proud of the result
Bob Ess: Spectacular day. Vehicle flew better than expected. Saw the flyaway maneuver at the pad, may have looked strange, but flew perfectly - right down the line. RoCS fired only 3 times... very benign flight. Dynamics on the upper stage, working to understand that. Booster is back in the water... so the parachutes are assumed to have worked well.
Ed Mango: Fantastic day. The team really excelled. We had a great team and a great vehicle. We just had to wait for mother nature. Developmental flight stuff is a lot of fun! We had some challenges getting off the ground. It's a new rocket... it was our first time working with it. No problems with the rocket... just learning on our part. Probe cover was a bit of a challenge, but we were able to get it off. Weather didn't cooperate after that, so came back today. Lightning struck last night near pad. Worked through vehicle step-by-step to build flight rationale. That was only issue other than weather. We found a hole in the clouds, and took off through it.
Questions:
Q: Why no visual on chute deploy? With a test as smooth as this, what are your thoughts on "selling" this rocket.
A: We saw drogues come out, then lost video. SRB ships saw parachute splashdown, on their way to pick it up. We are working from Augustine report. Have been instructed to continue on current path. This test will be valuable no matter what happens in the future. We can see how valid our models were.
Q: Been 37 years since we left earth orbit. There is a push for commercial spaceflight, without background experience. This demonstration was 207th successful flight of SRB. How will you respond to Augustine report?
A: Bolden and NASA are looking at the facts from the report. We are interested in helping commercial ventures through COTS, etc. They are making progress. You are seeing experience, but also a streamlined NASA team. We are learning to do this from the beginning, since we haven't done this in a while.
Q: How successful would you classify this flight? Have you got any prelim data.
A: Completely met, and blew away our criteria for success. All onboard data systems worked well. It will take us a while to look at all the telemetry and collect data from sensors in the booster. Separation seemed different from predicted, we will need to look at that.
Q: Why are you having a difficult time selling to outsiders that you are "on-time" with this project?
A: I don't know of any data about issues like TO, didn't see any. We are keeping our heads down and pushing forward with the project. We had Orion PDR successful. And a successful 5 seg booster test. I can't speak for others. Challenged from budget perspective. Opinions of others vary, and we still need to understand Augustine report's suggestions.
Oh GOOD WORK that man!! :)
-
Q: Why are you having a difficult time selling to outsiders that you are "on-time" with this project?
A: I don't know of any data about issues like TO, didn't see any. We are keeping our heads down and pushing forward with the project. We had Orion PDR successful. And a successful 5 seg booster test. I can't speak for others. Challenged from budget perspective. Opinions of others vary, and we still need to understand Augustine report's suggestions.
No mention of the MLAS test they did this summer.....
-
Q: Been 37 years since we left earth orbit. There is a push for commercial spaceflight, without background experience.
This from Jay Barbree, taking a classic snipe at SpaceX with its "1 in 5 successful flights" and completely ignoring any existence of ULA and its success record. Makes me sick to my stomach already.
-
Q: Do you feel vindicated today?
A: Vindication doesn't describe it well. It is more a sense of validation of our course of action. Shows the "flyability" of this design. Performance was very pleasing... incredibly satisfying for the team. Ares 1 guidance algorithms flew the vehicle and returned the booster.
-
Ares I-X Launch Replays
http://www.space-multimedia.nl.eu.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5466
-
Q: Any problems encountered?
A: Very few problems encountered up until yesterday with all the little things like weather. Need to look at data for the flight. Looked just like our plans, but more spectacular.
Q: ChrisG!: The probe cover... would it have hindered the flight had it not come off?
A: We figured we should pull as much as we could before trying anyting else. We have simulated flying with the cover on. When it happened we knew what to expect. Can't say whether we would have flown or not, though.
-
Thanks to Chris G for specifically asking about the sep dynamics.
-
Q: Did stages contact?
A: Hard to tell. We need to look at the data. We know the booster sep motors fired as planned, but don't know if any other conditions affected it. It was interesting, though.
Q: Did you ever want to shake your fist at the weather gods?
A: I wish Kathy Winters was here. She did a tremendous job searching for the right conditions to launch. We would have liked more chances, but I was happy that we didn't go yesterday, since we would have lost it in the clouds.
-
Thanks to Chris G for specifically asking about the sep dynamics.
Very good question, especially the wording - especially when compared to my reaction on here when watching live!
-
I lost video briefly during the separation dynamics, so hopefully will get to see this better...
Sorry if this was already covered in thread, still catching up. The NASA TV feed (over satellite) had trouble right after separation, for about 20 seconds. I'll be checking my recordings to see what the deal was, but there was definitely a problem there. Internet may have been fine, but cable would definitely have seen the problem.
For the record, the NASA TV outage was indeed 20 seconds long. On the two SD feeds, the bug (logo in upper right corner) persisted, which implies a camera or master control problem. On the HD feed, the bug disappeared, which implies a master control or distribution problem.
Therefore, I think NASA TV's master control crashed at this point, and I'm glad it waited until sep to do so!
Glad to see that NSF is back up :) ChrisB, you should have posted something to your Twitter account about the NSF outage ...
-
I'm not even gonna cover the question about the additional plume and such. ;)
Q: How significant was roll torque?
A: We saw roll control do 3 firings today. Sims showed 20-25 times fired. Much less than expected. It is another data point showing that this roll torque is very small. Flight tests like this help reduce uncertainties.
Edit: Spelling
-
Thanks to Chris G for specifically asking about the sep dynamics.
Yes indeed, kudos to him for asking. I really enjoyed the quip of "it was designed to tumble," after the long detailed answer Bob (I believe it was) gave.
I wonder how different sep would have been for a full 5-seg instead of the dummy 5th stage.
Edit: Adjusted punctuation.
-
Also remember we are used to seeing separations of powered 2nd stages...
Atlas and Delta have unpowered separations
Sorry Jim, i'm being ambiguous in my haste. I mean of vehicles that have actual powered upper stages..rather than dummy simulators.
I meant powered in that respect, as in real rather than dummy.
Dynamics are not different
-
I watched the launch from all the available views and noticed a few things that I hope the experts on here can comment about.
1. At SRB ignition I noticed the vehicle appeared to "pitch", by that I mean that from the side view the SRB base moved slightly to the left and the Escape Tower appeared to move slightly right less than 2 seconds after ignition. Is this what it was supposed to do. I am only talking about a .5 degree or 1 degree pitch.
2. At SRB separation the booster appeared stable, where the upper stage did not appear to separate cleanly and began to tumble emmediately. In the CGI sim the opposite was true, where the booster tumbled and the dummy upper stage fired separatioin motors and proceeded straight and true.
Overall it appeared to be a very stable flight with none of the violent rolling and instability that was predicted by some, let alone the G forces staying very close to 3gs for the duration of the flight.
I look forward to responses.
-
HD version of the launch, slightly better quality tracking shots:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0ZHzAvFuYc
-
Q: From watching a lot of countdowns, the internal comms seemed a little rocky... is that a fair assessment?
A: Comms is different than shuttle launches. Prime launch team did outstanding. Communications areas will be improved through more flight tests. This was a learning experience. We will take lessons from it. Range and weather communications and support were outstanding.
Q: What messages do you want the test flight to send to the next generation?
A: This is fun fun stuff! This is the time to come join us. This is the sort of thing that inspired us. There is interest in going beyond LEO, so this is an exciting time. This is about people, discovery, and learning things for society and our country. It proves that anything is possible. NASA and the space program can do anything and this helps prove anything is possible. But it is the people that make it happen.
-
Yes, please do it again! :)
-
Even worse was the separation......
This separation was as expected. The USS didn't have any live thrusters, so it entered a tumble. The booster fired its sep motors, followed immediately by its tumble motors *as planned*. That sent it into a tumble *as planned*.
- Ed Kyle
I think you misunderstood the statement. The sep did _not_ go completely as expected. The question is not whether the first stage tumbled - everyone knows that was supposed to happen as a planned part of the recovery process. At the press conference just completed it was specifically stated that the immediate second stage tumble was unexpected. That's what was being referred to. It could be a lot of things, aerodynamic effects, proximity aero, recontact, etc.
-
I watched the launch from all the available views and noticed a few things that I hope the experts on here can comment about.
Uh, yeah, see the last 10 pages of this thread for discussion of that!
-
Also remember we are used to seeing separations of powered 2nd stages...
Atlas and Delta have unpowered separations
Sorry Jim, i'm being ambiguous in my haste. I mean of vehicles that have actual powered upper stages..rather than dummy simulators.
I meant powered in that respect, as in real rather than dummy.
Dynamics are not different
Sep altitudes are much different. And the upper stages have live RCS that springs into action fairly quickly.
- Ed Kyle
-
Q: Current direction is to keep moving forward. What are big upcoming milestones? Ares 1-Y?
A: Next thing is Pad Abort 1. Test of LAS on Orion. Capsule is boilerplate, and is at White Sands. Parachutes and abort motor are being installed, and will be fired in the spring. Beyond that, is Ares 1-Y. Schedule is always changing, but is planned for March 2014. Was to be sub-orbital test of 5-seg 1st stage and high-altitude abort. We want to see if we can attach an engine to the upper stage, we continue to review that. We are paced by budget for long-lead parts. Puts pressure on our program towards critical design review. J-2X engine in being designed and prepped for PDR. Orion is is being worked on, a ground test article is being built. Successful PDR in August, now working toward CDR next year. Orion is largely ready for assembly... just waiting for parts. ML is under construction. VAB designs are complete.
-
Hilarious (not at all) that the servers cope with a record audience, but the database has an issue. Mark working out what it was. Many apologies for the last hour
Most Online Today: 2064. Most Online Ever: 2064 (Today at 03:58 PM)
There is a Fark.com link to NSF on their "Geek" sub-page -- don't know whether it had anything to do with the outage but Fark links have spiked many sites in the past.
-
I think I might be missing something on the recontact thing. I just watched the HD version and I can't see any recontact. It looks like the initial sep motor firing takes place while the vehicle is behind a cloud, and then the camera changes angles and you can see a big dark blotch on the base of the US that I assume is the hole in the frustrum. Then the tumble motor on the SRM fires and the "nose" of the SRM swings around past that dark section, eclipsing it. THEN the US starts to tumble. So when did the two recontact?
-
Q: How much would a funding increase help in speeding up the process? How much does a good test today increase confidence?
A: More money, sooner is good. Systems take about 3 years to build, from the time the order is put in. This includes parts. So design needs to get done first. And this puts us in the 2014 range. Flat nature to our funding curve through this FY, then it jumps after Shuttle retires. We would like to fly sooner, but funding hasn't materialized. We need to adjust schedule accordingly.
-
Even worse was the separation......
This separation was as expected. The USS didn't have any live thrusters, so it entered a tumble. The booster fired its sep motors, followed immediately by its tumble motors *as planned*. That sent it into a tumble *as planned*.
- Ed Kyle
I think you misunderstood the statement. The sep did _not_ go completely as expected. The question is not whether the first stage tumbled - everyone knows that was supposed to happen as a planned part of the recovery process. At the press conference just completed it was specifically stated that the second stage tumble was unexpected. That's what was being referred to. It could be a lot of things, aerodynamic effects, proximity aero, recontact, etc.
Bob Ess said that the separation looked good, clean, but that there were some surprises on the upper stage "dynamics" (i.e. tumble rate). He also said that a tumble like this had been seen in some simulations, the result of slightly off axis but not out of spec positioning at sep, which would mean that it was not completely "unexpected".
It was interesting, but not a big deal.
- Ed Kyle
-
Q: Triboelectrification... what would it have taken to certify vehicle?
A: It's not so much an issue of certification. You can coat the vehicle to dissipate charge. Or you can show vehicle is not sensitive to the effect. Shuttle does not have this rule. It is more a rule for a brand new vehicle. Our analysis shows Ares 1-X was probably not susceptible to it, but didn't want to take the chance. You learn from these experiences.
Q: How many launch times did you set over the last 2 days? ;)
A: I don't look at it as a comedy, but it beats any reality show. There was a bet on how many we would do today. In reality I would say only 2 times yesterday and once today... including the time when we got below T-4:00 yesterday, and today when we launched. You have to set a resume time for this hardware... not exactly like shuttle where you can just pick up the count. The team did very well working through issues, including the lightning strike.
-
Looking at that HD version of separation, the upper stage seems to be given a shove from the lower stage which starts the tumbling.
The first two half-rotations for the upper stage take around 6 seconds each, with the next half-rotation (which is cut off just about halfway through) looking as if it's going to take a second or two longer - that would imply (to me) that the impulse which started the tumbling was not aerodynamic forces, but contact from the lower stage.
The issue (presumably) is made worse by the lower stage tumble motors firing whilst the upper stage is in too close a proximity to the upper stage - the cure for this would be slightly later firing of the tumble motors and possibly some method of slightly retarding the lower stage?
-
Fundamentally that was a success, SpaceX-esque staging notwithstanding ;). They controlled an inline Shuttle SRB successfully and safely from launch to separation. Staging, Thrust Oscillation, Acoustics, Money, fundamentally these can all be solved given the will and time but the concept was proved today and the MSFC Stick boys and girls can walk a little prouder today whatever the future holds, Congratulations !
-
Hilarious (not at all) that the servers cope with a record audience, but the database has an issue. Mark working out what it was. Many apologies for the last hour
Most Online Today: 2064. Most Online Ever: 2064 (Today at 03:58 PM)
There is a Fark.com link to NSF on their "Geek" sub-page -- don't know whether it had anything to do with the outage but Fark links have spiked many sites in the past.
Na, the servers were fine, it was a bad line in the database, which is why the rest of the site remained working.
-
Fundamentally that was a success, SpaceX-esque staging notwithstanding ;). They controlled an inline Shuttle SRB successfully and safely from launch to separation. Staging, Thrust Oscillation, Acoustics, Money, fundamentally these can all be solved given the will and time but the concept was proved today and the MSFC Stick boys and girls can walk a little prouder today whatever the future holds, Congratulations !
Hear hear!
I may not be an Ares fan, but you have to give credit where it is due for a job well done.
-
Q: Why no visual on chute deploy? With a test as smooth as this, what are your thoughts on "selling" this rocket.
A: ...We are working from Augustine report. Have been instructed to continue on current path. This test will be valuable no matter what happens in the future.
That can't be correct??
I know this must have been a slip of the tongue, but they can't go by a 'report; at all, only whet they have been directed to do so far.
I do agree on the value of the test data however...
I will issue congrats to the teams who have worked on getting this rocket to fly, because it did, and you should be proud of that.
(sorry to reply to this in the middle of the presser)
-
Bob Ess said that the separation looked good, clean, but that there were some surprises on the upper stage "dynamics" (i.e. tumble rate). He also said that a tumble like this had been seen in some simulations, the result of slightly off axis but not out of spec positioning at sep, which would mean that it was not completely "unexpected".
It was interesting, but not a big deal.
- Ed Kyle
One of them (don't know which) said it wasn't what they expected but that it was interesting, and interesting is good.
-
Fundamentally that was a success, SpaceX-esque staging notwithstanding ;). They controlled an inline Shuttle SRB successfully and safely from launch to separation. Staging, Thrust Oscillation, Acoustics, Money, fundamentally these can all be solved given the will and time but the concept was proved today and the MSFC Stick boys and girls can walk a little prouder today whatever the future holds, Congratulations !
Agreed.
Hint to the non-L2 folk: It's going to be worth an L2 subscription to read all of the reports and analyses that are going to result from this test!
-
Q: Do you regret saying not to read too much into the results from Triboelectrification and from the results from this flight in general?
A: If this launch had slipped, we had been collecting data to go to the range about waiving the Triboelectrification issue. Will not be an issue in the future.
Actual data from the flight will be very valuable. Regardless of what happens with Ares, this flight will be valuable. We learned a lot even before launching. Performance data is a bonus.
-
Just ask yourself.... With that liftoff tilt and that separation - even with separation motors - Do you think people should fly on that?
This test has almost no resemblance to Ares-I, thus nothing about it would affect my decision to fly on Ares-I or not.
If this test had no resembalance to Ares I, what was the test for?
Since people keep asking this, I guess a basic explanation is in order:
When you design a new vehicle, you build computer models. Lots of analysis is done on the computer models (structural analysis, computational fluid dynamics, thermal analysis, etc.) because it is cheaper, safer, faster, more convenient and therefore allows the study of various changes and options. This analysis is good, but not fully grounded in the real world. At some point, designers generally settle on a subset of their designs and build one or more wind tunnel models which are then put into a tunnel and tested as actual physical objects in actual moving air. Data gathered from the wind tunnel can then be folded back into the computer models to make them more accurate. A wind tunnel model is still not the "real thing" and is not operating in the actual flight environment, so the first full-scale vehicles of a given design are often instrumented to gather better data (Columbia was a good example of this) so that later production flight articles can be further optimized. Ares I-X was, in effect, a full-scale wind tunnel model for the study of first stage flight dynamics. Data from this first full-scale instrumented flight should provide data the shuttle designers did not have until STS-1 flew. It does not matter that I-X was not just like an Ares I; what matters is that it is just like the computer models and wind tunnel models of the I-X. The result will be to improve the models, which will then permit Ares I models to more closely match a future Ares I. The overall shape (engineers call it the "outer mold line" or "OML") of an Ares I should be close enough to that of the Ares, that the corrections to the I-X models will inform the Ares I models.
In addition, they probably generated a great deal of great strain gauge data, acoustics, data, etc.
Well done, to the entire Ares I-X team.
-
One of the folks brought up a good point about the launch - had it gone off yesterday, we would have lost it in the clouds and the way onboard video kept dropping out we wouldn't even know there was anything "interesting" happening at staging.
-
Q: Took several days to launch Alan Sheppard... you guys were fast compared to that! Ares 1, if cancelled, you need a year to lay plans, then 80 months to get to that. How soon can we fly astronauts with Ares 1?
A: Late 2016, early 2017, like Augustine said. That timeframe is in reach. 2015 is still very achievable.
Q: What would you say with "Ares V light"?
A: 80 months is typical development based on history. It would take probably that long... 2017, 2018, 2019.
-
Gotta run now... someone else can finish off!
-
Looking at that HD version of separation, the upper stage seems to be given a shove from the lower stage which starts the tumbling.
The first two half-rotations for the upper stage take around 6 seconds each, with the next half-rotation (which is cut off just about halfway through) looking as if it's going to take a second or two longer - that would imply (to me) that the impulse which started the tumbling was not aerodynamic forces, but contact from the lower stage.
The issue (presumably) is made worse by the lower stage tumble motors firing whilst the upper stage is in too close a proximity to the upper stage - the cure for this would be slightly later firing of the tumble motors and possibly some method of slightly retarding the lower stage?
But the upper stage simulator doesn't start tumbling until about a second AFTER the first stage has swung past it. The separation motor fires at 2:03, I saw the tumble motor fire at 2:06, and given the angle I'd say the top of the lower stage goes past the base of the upper stage at about 2:07. The upper stage doesn't start tumbling until about a second later, in the 2:08-2:09 range.
-
Gotta run now... someone else can finish off!
Didn't miss much -- press conference ended.
-
RELEASE: 09-252
NASA'S ARES I-X ROCKET COMPLETES SUCCESSFUL FLIGHT TEST
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. - NASA's Ares I-X test rocket lifted off at 11:30
a.m. EDT Wednesday from NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida for a
two-minute powered flight. The test flight lasted about six minutes
from its launch from the newly modified Launch Complex 39B until
splash down of the rocket's booster stage nearly 150 miles down
range.
"This is a huge step forward for NASA's exploration goals," said Doug
Cooke, associate administrator for the Exploration Systems Mission
Directorate at NASA Headquarters in Washington. "Ares I-X provides
NASA with an enormous amount of data that will be used to improve the
design and safety of the next generation of American spaceflight
vehicles -- vehicles that could again take humans beyond low Earth
orbit."
The 327-foot tall Ares I-X test vehicle produced 2.6 million pounds of
thrust to accelerate the rocket to nearly 3 g's and Mach 4.76, just
shy of hypersonic speed. It capped its easterly flight at a
suborbital altitude of 150,000 feet after the separation of its first
stage, a four-segment solid rocket booster.
Parachutes deployed for recovery of the booster and the solid rocket
motor will be recovered at sea for later inspection. The simulated
upper stage, Orion crew module, and launch abort system will not be
recovered.
"The most valuable learning is through experience and observation,"
said Bob Ess, Ares I-X mission manager. "Tests such as this -- from
paper to flight -- are vital in gaining a deeper understanding of the
vehicle, from design to development."
Wednesday's flight offered an early opportunity to test and prove
hardware, facilities, and ground operations - important data for
future space vehicles. During the flight, a range of performance data
was relayed to the ground and also stored in the onboard flight data
recorder. The 700 sensors mounted on the vehicle provide flight test
engineering data to correlate with computer models and analysis. The
rocket's sensors gathered information in several areas, including
assembly and launch operations, separation of the vehicle's first and
second stages, controllability and aerodynamics, the re-entry and
recovery of the first stage and new vehicle design techniques.
The Ares I-X efforts are led by the Ares I-X mission management office
of the Constellation Program, based at NASA's Johnson Space Center in
Houston, and NASA's Exploration Systems Mission Directorate in
Washington. NASA's Glenn Research Center in Cleveland designed and
built the vehicle's upper stage mass simulator. NASA's Langley
Research Center in Hampton, Va., provided aerodynamic
characterization, flight test vehicle integration and the crew
module/launch abort system mass simulator. NASA's Marshall Space
Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., with contractor support, provided
management for the development of Ares I-X avionics, roll control,
and first stage systems. The Kennedy Space Center provided operations
and associated ground activities and launch operations.
Contractors for Ares I-X include Alliant Techsystems, or ATK, of Salt
Lake City for the first stage solid rocket booster and Teledyne Brown
Engineering of Huntsville for the roll control system. Jacobs
Engineering of Tullahoma, Tenn., supported by Lockheed Martin of
Denver, provided the avionics systems. United Space Alliance of
Houston and ATK Launch Systems support the ground systems and launch
operations.
For information about Ares I-X, visit:
http://www.nasa.gov/aresIX
-
Computer model validation is indeed a good purpose for a test vehicle like Ares I-x (though some may see that $400 million is too high for just that sort of thing).
-
I wonder why Jay Barbaree insists on giving us a history lesson speech every time he has a question? Also, one of the last questions he asked today was the same question he asked during the last press conference. Didn't he remember that?
-
Since people keep asking this, I guess a basic explanation is in order:
When you design a new vehicle, you build computer models. Lots of analysis is done on the computer models (structural analysis, computational fluid dynamics, thermal analysis, etc.) because it is cheaper, safer, faster, more convenient and therefore allows the study of various changes and options. This analysis is good, but not fully grounded in the real world. At some point, designers generally settle on a subset of their designs and build one or more wind tunnel models which are then put into a tunnel and tested as actual physical objects in actual moving air. Data gathered from the wind tunnel can then be folded back into the computer models to make them more accurate. A wind tunnel model is still not the "real thing" and is not operating in the actual flight environment, so the first full-scale vehicles of a given design are often instrumented to gather better data (Columbia was a good example of this) so that later production flight articles can be further optimized. Ares I-X was, in effect, a full-scale wind tunnel model for the study of first stage flight dynamics. Data from this first full-scale instrumented flight should provide data the shuttle designers did not have until STS-1 flew. It does not matter that I-X was not just like an Ares I; what matters is that it is just like the computer models and wind tunnel models of the I-X. The result will be to improve the models, which will then permit Ares I models to more closely match a future Ares I. The overall shape (engineers call it the "outer mold line" or "OML") of an Ares I should be close enough to that of the Ares, that the corrections to the I-X models will inform the Ares I models.
In addition, they probably generated a great deal of great strain gauge data, acoustics, data, etc.
Well done, to the entire Ares I-X team.
Thanks, I would agree that this is a good explanation for the rationale behind the test. Since it seems likely Ares I will be dropped or at least modified, I think the test becomes even more of a success. NASA have proven for the first time that an SRB can be used as an unassisted 1st stage (ie without SSME assistance).
-
One of the folks brought up a good point about the launch - had it gone off yesterday, we would have lost it in the clouds and the way onboard video kept dropping out we wouldn't even know there was anything "interesting" happening at staging.
Another interesting point (at least to me) in the Q&A was about the differences in the launch countdown procedures for picking up the clock out of an open-ended hold...Atlas doesn't have the WX rule for "the T-word," so the significance of setting a time for resuming at T-4 didn't sink in as much as for this launch. And as was pointed out I believe by Ed Mango, Shuttle count resumes are different. (Something like a bit more than three seconds (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=2078.msg51752#msg51752).)
-
I wonder why Jay Barbaree insists on giving us a history lesson speech every time he has a question? Also, one of the last questions he asked today was the same question he asked during the last press conference. Didn't he remember that?
I had to walk away from the TV when it became apparent that he was not asking a question, but beginning a sermon.
-
Ares I-X Post-launch News Conference
http://www.space-multimedia.nl.eu.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5467
-
My favorite IX photo from the Spaceflight Now gallery shows a halo around the second stage. I assume this is Mach one.
--- CHAS
Prandtly-Glauert singularity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prandtl%E2%80%93Glauert_singularity
-
How closely did the actual staging altitude and velocity correlate with the predicted altitude and velocity? What was the prediction?
-
Fundamentally that was a success, SpaceX-esque staging notwithstanding ;). They controlled an inline Shuttle SRB successfully and safely from launch to separation. Staging, Thrust Oscillation, Acoustics, Money, fundamentally these can all be solved given the will and time but the concept was proved today and the MSFC Stick boys and girls can walk a little prouder today whatever the future holds, Congratulations !
Hear hear!
I may not be an Ares fan, but you have to give credit where it is due for a job well done.
Right now its the only bus on this route, may not want to let it go by.
-
Q: Been 37 years since we left earth orbit. There is a push for commercial spaceflight, without background experience.
This from Jay Barbree, taking a classic snipe at SpaceX with its "1 in 5 successful flights" and completely ignoring any existence of ULA and its success record. Makes me sick to my stomach already.
The HSF Committee ruled out EELVs as a one of the commercial crew options for carrying crew to ISS unless an EELV derived vehicule is used as a HLV.
-
First, I congratulate the entire 1-X team, lot of hard work paid off today.
However, I do have questions and will look forward to seeing the answers as the analysis comes out.
1. At launch, the vehicle clearly has a tilt and the nozzle essentially kicks out toward the FSS. For a second, I thought it was going to just keep going. Obviously even with all that thrust behind you, the vehicle speed is till relatively small and other forces, such as wind, can have a large affect until those alphas and betas begin to converge. Was that expected from either the GNC system or a wind loads perspective?
2. The weather. Were the LCC limitations intentionally strict due to it being a test flight or for other engineering concerns? The shuttle could have launched and for all the billing of this rocket being simpler and safer, if the launch restrictions are tighter, than it will be ultimately more difficult.
3. Stage separation. While the upper stage had "dynamics" that does not really mean much if separation occurred as designed since it was just going into the drink anyway. It does look like there was some recontact and has the thrust transient at separation versus where the engine bell would be versus J-2 start time been evaluated and will this have any impacts on that?
-
Sep altitudes are much different. And the upper stages have live RCS that springs into action fairly quickly.
- Ed Kyle
They are inhibited for several seconds after sep
-
My favorite IX photo from the Spaceflight Now gallery shows a halo around the second stage. I assume this is Mach one.
--- CHAS
That is amazing! The vapor feature looks almost like a jellyfish!
-
This from Jay Barbree, taking a classic snipe at SpaceX with its "1 in 5 successful flights" and completely ignoring any existence of ULA and its success record. Makes me sick to my stomach already.
The HSF Committee ruled out EELVs as a one of the commercial crew options for carrying crew to ISS
Says who?
-
Just saw this from Twitter, booster recovered.
http://twitpic.com/naine
-
Data from this first full-scale instrumented flight should provide data the shuttle designers did not have until STS-1 flew.
Which begs the question, if they didn't need it for a more complex vehicle like the shuttle, why would they need it now and more importantly, spend 1/2 billion dollars on it. The data is not worth that. That is the cost of a planetary mission which would provide much more valuable data.
-
SpaceflightNow reports that there was a small nitrogen tetroxide leak at Pad B post-launch. Not sure if that has impacted re-opening Pad A for shuttle work.
Edit: attached screencap from around 12:35 pm Eastern. Can see a little bit of the brownish color in the view on the right...
-
This from Jay Barbree, taking a classic snipe at SpaceX with its "1 in 5 successful flights" and completely ignoring any existence of ULA and its success record. Makes me sick to my stomach already.
The HSF Committee ruled out EELVs as a one of the commercial crew options for carrying crew to ISS
Says who?
See, p. 69 (70 on adobe):
"While launch of the Orion on the Delta IV HLV was found
to be technically feasible, it requires some modification
of the current launcher, and was comparable in cost and
schedule to simply continuing with the development of
the Ares I. When the Committee factored in the carrying
cost of the NASA infrastructure that would be maintained
if any NASA-heritage heavy launcher would eventually
be developed (Ares V in any variant or a more directly
Shuttle-derived heavy launcher), any cost savings that
might have occurred due to using an EELV to launch the
Orion were lost. Using the EELV for launch of Orion
would only make sense if it were coupled with the development
of an EELV-heritage super-heavy vehicle for
cargo launch. Except in this case, this analysis closed out
the second option."
-
NASA have proven for the first time that an SRB can be used as an unassisted 1st stage
There was no need for a flight test to prove that. SRB use as an unassisted 1st stage is a given and was never in doubt nor questioned.
-
Which begs the question, if they didn't need it for a more complex vehicle like the shuttle, why would they need it now and more importantly, spend 1/2 billion dollars on it. The data is not worth that. That is the cost of a planetary mission which would provide much more valuable data.
I would imagine the data they were seeking with Ares I-X is probably not related to interplanetary unmanned spacecraft missions.
-
This from Jay Barbree, taking a classic snipe at SpaceX with its "1 in 5 successful flights" and completely ignoring any existence of ULA and its success record. Makes me sick to my stomach already.
The HSF Committee ruled out EELVs as a one of the commercial crew options for carrying crew to ISS
Says who?
See, p. 69 (70 on adobe):
/cut
You are confusing EELV launching Orion with EELV launching a commercial crew capsule to LEO.
-
Data from this first full-scale instrumented flight should provide data the shuttle designers did not have until STS-1 flew.
Which begs the question, if they didn't need it for a more complex vehicle like the shuttle, why would they need it now and more importantly, spend 1/2 billion dollars on it. The data is not worth that. That is the cost of a planetary mission which would provide much more valuable data.
Agreed!
Or a nice X-prize... Or man-rating EELVs... or giving it to Orbital or SpaceX to develop a LAS for the manned versions of their cargo craft... Or...
(BTW, Masten Space Systems is attempting the NGLLC Level 2 again in about half an hour or so.)
-
Which begs the question, if they didn't need it for a more complex vehicle like the shuttle, why would they need it now and more importantly, spend 1/2 billion dollars on it. The data is not worth that. That is the cost of a planetary mission which would provide much more valuable data.
I would imagine the data they were seeking with Ares I-X is probably not related to interplanetary unmanned spacecraft missions.
And yet the money spent on it could have financed one such mission.
-
But the upper stage simulator doesn't start tumbling until about a second AFTER the first stage has swung past it. The separation motor fires at 2:03, I saw the tumble motor fire at 2:06, and given the angle I'd say the top of the lower stage goes past the base of the upper stage at about 2:07. The upper stage doesn't start tumbling until about a second later, in the 2:08-2:09 range.
I've spliced together a few images - http://i37.tinypic.com/s0vak1.jpg (http://i37.tinypic.com/s0vak1.jpg)
There's (limited) tumble of the USS from 2.06, which increases pretty rapidly to 2.09.
It may be the angle, but to my eye, it appears that the lower stage instigates the tumble of the USS.
What seems remarkable co-incidental is that the tumble of the two parts is perfectly co-ordinated in exactly the same way it would be as if there was contact.
Still, it's a pretty minor issue, which shouldn't detract from the overall massive success of the launch ;)
-
SpaceflightNow reports that there was a small nitrogen tetroxide leak at Pad B post-launch. Not sure if that has impacted re-opening Pad A for shuttle work.
Edit: attached screencap from around 12:35 pm Eastern. Can see a little bit of the brownish color in the view on the right...
That would most likely be from the the impact with the pad that looks like happened from the "tilt" question I posed earlier. In addition I hear the nozzle has a dent.
-
interesting is good.
In this business, only boring is good. Saying interesting is good is spin or inexperience. Solving problems is fun, but I'd much rather have nothing to do during a count or post-flight. That means the design was good.
-
Fundamentally that was a success, SpaceX-esque staging notwithstanding ;). They controlled an inline Shuttle SRB successfully and safely from launch to separation. Staging, Thrust Oscillation, Acoustics, Money, fundamentally these can all be solved given the will and time but the concept was proved today and the MSFC Stick boys and girls can walk a little prouder today whatever the future holds, Congratulations !
Hear hear!
I may not be an Ares fan, but you have to give credit where it is due for a job well done.
Right now its the only bus on this route, may not want to let it go by.
Very true, and something we all must keep in mind.
-
Q: Took several days to launch Alan Sheppard... you guys were fast compared to that! Ares 1, if cancelled, you need a year to lay plans, then 80 months to get to that. How soon can we fly astronauts with Ares 1?
Let me guess: the Barbree-saurus again?
-
This from Jay Barbree, taking a classic snipe at SpaceX with its "1 in 5 successful flights" and completely ignoring any existence of ULA and its success record. Makes me sick to my stomach already.
The HSF Committee ruled out EELVs as a one of the commercial crew options for carrying crew to ISS
Says who?
See, p. 69 (70 on adobe):
/cut
You are confusing EELV launching Orion with EELV launching a commercial crew capsule to LEO.
You are right but that would mean that somebody else (possibly without much experience) would have to make a vehicule.
-
Q: Took several days to launch Alan Sheppard... you guys were fast compared to that! Ares 1, if cancelled, you need a year to lay plans, then 80 months to get to that. How soon can we fly astronauts with Ares 1?
Let me guess: the Barbree-saurus again?
Bingo. He also talked about launching chimpanzees, but I chose not to paraphrase that part.
-
The HSF Committee ruled out EELVs as a one of the commercial crew options for carrying crew to ISS
Says who?
See, p. 69 (70 on adobe):/cut
You are confusing EELV launching Orion with EELV launching a commercial crew capsule to LEO.
Also forgetting the acknowledgement from Augustine that parts of the report contradict one another.
-
You are confusing EELV launching Orion with EELV launching a commercial crew capsule to LEO.
You are right but that would mean that somebody else would have to make a vehicule.
So? It's not as if you take an off-the-shelf Orion now either. Face it, Barbree was deliberately trying to discredit the "commercial" sector by going after the weakest link. He probably wished ULA didn't exist. Too bad for him.
-
I'm back. And I haz video.
Shot in Melbourne near Viera.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlFkgqGPFtc
Good job boys.
-
Just to add to the list of crazy things happening during the countdown; during that last scramble while the weather plane was defining the hole in the overcast which they managed to launch through... one of the surveillance planes reported a submarine on the surface in the exclusion zone.
I Mean... can you write fiction like this and expect people to believe it? What a Day! There have to be a lot of folks glad this launch is over!
-
Just to add to the list of crazy things happening during the countdown; during that last scramble while the weather plane was defining the hole in the overcast which they managed to launch through... one of the surveillance planes reported a submarine on the surface in the exclusion zone.
I Mean... can you write fiction like this and expect people to believe it? What a Day! There have to be a lot of folks glad this launch is over!
With Subs being military would they be allowed in the area?
-
Right now its the only bus on this route, may not want to let it go by.
Very true, and something we all must keep in mind.
The driver says you'll get where you're going in an hour. The traffic authority's consultant says you'll get there in 80 minutes. There's still a lot of uncertainty in how bumpy the route is. Every 10 minutes the traffic authority adds more fuel to the tank, but it may not be as much as they said they were going to add 10 minutes ago. So maybe 80 minutes isn't even right.
Meanwhile, there's another bus in the barn, whose route is already paved. Hell, it's electric - it consumes so little fuel comparatively. It's only still in the barn because the traffic authority won't let it out. There are even others who are willing to ride this bus and help decrease the fare.
In this case, I want the efficient bus with the paved road. Spend the gas on the 18-wheeler that's moving my house so that I've got something to live in when I get to the end of the route.
-
You are right but that would mean that somebody else (possibly without much experience) would have to make a vehicule.
Vehicule, that word seems apt. ;)
-
Amazing VIEW from the press site. Video will be online later tonight.
-
RD, you've got some great sources. I enjoy the color added by your posts.
-
You are right but that would mean that somebody else (possibly without much experience) would have to make a vehicule.
There is nobody with much experience. The Orion contractor LM has never built a manned vehicle.
-
There was some talk earlier about it tumbling but iirc there is an ares I animation showing an Ares I firing small side rockets near the base to intentionally swing away from the second stage.
I dont know if this one was set up for that but it looked like the animation Ive seen.
-
It could be that the SRB stage did NOT re-contact the USS, could just be from our POV it appeared that way, and the USS was just not stable enough to fly on its own.
Even if there wasn't recontact.. it appeared to stay in contact long after the Separation event. Ullage motors are a must.. and this may tell them if they've planned for large enough motors
Ares I-X Using a 4-seg is not as high at sep and there may be more aerodynamic pressure on US than there will be at burnout for Ares I using a 5-seg Solid... although with 5-seg you'll also be moving faster at burnout.. Not sure what which case will be worse.
Is it not worth considering that the live upper stage on Ares 1 would have light off its own J-2x engine, and have GNC of its own? This would mean that the real vehicle would not suffer in this way?
-
AFAIK the J-2X engine will not fire immediately at separation, so any induced rotation on the US could be very problematic.
-
Remaining agnostic about the larger picture, but I'm glad the launch itself went well.
One short comment about the micro scrutiny evinced by the last 36 pages though. Can you imagine what it would have been like during the fraught testing of the early Deltas, Atlases and Titans in the 50s if a huge tribe of Nasaspaceflight fans were watching, in real time, every move? :)
I suspect that rocket testing remains the same, its the media technologies, and the audience's expectations, that have really changed.
P
-
Congrats to everyone involved!!! This was amazing to watch from Titusville it was so huge!!! Loading a video on youtube NOW!
Orbiter
-
It could be that the SRB stage did NOT re-contact the USS, could just be from our POV it appeared that way, and the USS was just not stable enough to fly on its own.
Even if there wasn't recontact.. it appeared to stay in contact long after the Separation event. Ullage motors are a must.. and this may tell them if they've planned for large enough motors
Ares I-X Using a 4-seg is not as high at sep and there may be more aerodynamic pressure on US than there will be at burnout for Ares I using a 5-seg Solid... although with 5-seg you'll also be moving faster at burnout.. Not sure what which case will be worse.
Is it not worth considering that the live upper stage on Ares 1 would have light off its own J-2x engine, and have GNC of its own? This would mean that the real vehicle would not suffer in this way?
I pointed that out earlier...but people here need to find SOMETHING to nitpick about on an otherwise successful flight. ;)
-
Q: Took several days to launch Alan Sheppard... you guys were fast compared to that! Ares 1, if cancelled, you need a year to lay plans, then 80 months to get to that. How soon can we fly astronauts with Ares 1?
A: Late 2016, early 2017, like Augustine said. That timeframe is in reach. 2015 is still very achievable.
Q: What would you say with "Ares V light"?
A: 80 months is typical development based on history. It would take probably that long... 2017, 2018, 2019.
I case anybody missed this...
I believe this is the FIRST 'OFFICIAL' announcement by NASA that their Ares-I schedule will definitely slip.
I'd hate to think how much money they honestly believe is required to improve Ares I & Orion development to make 2015.
As for their Ares V lite comment, 'history' of Ares-I alone would discount that timeline.
-
One short comment about the micro scrutiny evinced by the last 36 pages though. Can you imagine what it would have been like during the fraught testing of the early Deltas, Atlases and Titans in the 50s if a huge tribe of Nasaspaceflight fans were watching, in real time, every move? :)
Forget the 50s -- there were Shuttle launch countdowns like this in the 80s and 90s. I'm sure we would have examined ourselves a little too closely if the technology existed back then.
-
I believe this is the FIRST 'OFFICIAL' announcement by NASA that their Ares-I schedule will definitely slip.
To be fair, the full quote was reasonably qualified -- certainly enough for a public statement. It can be interpreted a number of ways.
Edit: I wasn't being fair in my description -- equivocated isn't right; qualified is better.
-
First, I congratulate the entire 1-X team, lot of hard work paid off today.
However, I do have questions and will look forward to seeing the answers as the analysis comes out.
1. At launch, the vehicle clearly has a tilt and the nozzle essentially kicks out toward the FSS. For a second, I thought it was going to just keep going. Obviously even with all that thrust behind you, the vehicle speed is till relatively small and other forces, such as wind, can have a large affect until those alphas and betas begin to converge. Was that expected from either the GNC system or a wind loads perspective?
Yes. It was an avoidance maneuver designed to minimize pad damage and add clearance margin. It looked aggressive because the rocket is nearly 100 meters tall.
2. The weather. Were the LCC limitations intentionally strict due to it being a test flight or for other engineering concerns? The shuttle could have launched and for all the billing of this rocket being simpler and safer, if the launch restrictions are tighter, than it will be ultimately more difficult.
Limits were due to range safety RF requirements for this vehicle alone. It was a one-time deal.
3. Stage separation. While the upper stage had "dynamics" that does not really mean much if separation occurred as designed since it was just going into the drink anyway. It does look like there was some recontact and has the thrust transient at separation versus where the engine bell would be versus J-2 start time been evaluated and will this have any impacts on that?
Ares I would have a different staging setup. It would even separate at a different point.
I think that the "recontact" claimed by some is an optical illusion caused in part by the extreme magnification of the tracking camera. The fact that the first stage rotated past the upper stage simulator with no obvious change in the speed of either part supports no contact. I also think that the successfully recovered first stage shows that it did not have contact. If they recover the forward skirt extension (attached to the drogue chute) they will know for sure. I'm not sure if that recovery is planned.
- Ed Kyle
-
There was an oxidizer leak from one of the large flexhoses on the RSS hinge column that got smoked pretty good. We sent in a SCAPE team to fix it. Haven't been in there yet but the guys who went in said there was quite a bit more damage than a typical shuttle launch, and they've only seen up to the 95' level. Initial re-entry teams are in the pad now doing a walkdown.
-
There was an oxidizer leak from one of the large flexhoses on the RSS hinge column that got smoked pretty good. We sent in a SCAPE team to fix it. Haven't been in there yet but the guys who went in said there was quite a bit more damage than a typical shuttle launch, and they've only seen up to the 95' level. Initial re-entry teams are in the pad now doing a walkdown.
Thanks padrat.
I guess that was the Nitrogen tetroxide mentioned earlier by psloss.
-
Yes. It was an avoidance maneuver designed to minimize pad damage and add clearance margin. It looked aggressive because the rocket is nearly 100 meters tall.
Going back and looking at the west-pointing perimeter camera replay -- in which that maneuver is hard to see -- another interesting contrast is watching the booster track more or less straight up the FSS. Versus Shuttles, which very distinctly translate north. (Or left to right from the point of view of the same camera.)
With respect to the flex hose leak, I wonder if the Shuttle's normal "avoidance maneuver" helps reduce some damage to areas like that on the hinge line...
-
I believe this is the FIRST 'OFFICIAL' announcement by NASA that their Ares-I schedule will definitely slip.
To be fair, the full quote was reasonably qualified -- certainly enough for a public statement. It can be interpreted a number of ways.
Edit: I wasn't being fair in my description -- equivocated isn't right; qualified is better.
Yeah, we need to remember that I was paraphrasing the answer, not quoting word-for-word. If we're gonna analyze what he said, we need to find the full quote.
-
I believe this is the FIRST 'OFFICIAL' announcement by NASA that their Ares-I schedule will definitely slip.
To be fair, the full quote was reasonably qualified -- certainly enough for a public statement. It can be interpreted a number of ways.
Edit: I wasn't being fair in my description -- equivocated isn't right; qualified is better.
Yeah, we need to remember that I was paraphrasing the answer, not quoting word-for-word. If we're gonna analyze what he said, we need to find the full quote.
Okay thanks to both of you.
Always need to be fair.
-
The Ares I-X flight looks like it performed, at the very least, to (most of?) the predicted simulations. Very impressed with the flight.
Minimal conclusion must be 'further development may make this (first stage SRB) an option for space flight'.
-
...Initial re-entry teams are in the pad now doing a walkdown.
Thanks for the firsthand reports, great to hear them from you.
-
I personally was expecting a lot more vibration from the onboard cameras. Instead, I saw it looking very smooth, even compared to a shuttle launch.
-
Okay thanks to both of you.
Always need to be fair.
Also note that was one of the "questions w/story" from Jay Barbree...
-
I think that the "recontact" claimed by some is an optical illusion caused in part by the extreme magnification of the tracking camera. The fact that the first stage rotated past the upper stage simulator with no obvious change in the speed of either part supports no contact. I also think that the successfully recovered first stage shows that it did not have contact. If they recover the forward skirt extension (attached to the drogue chute) they will know for sure. I'm not sure if that recovery is planned.
Watch it again in HD. The USS doesn't begin to tumble until the yawing first stage swings to the right, after which it begins to yaw itself to the left at the same rate as might be expected by contact with something on the right side of its aft end.
It appears to me, that the separation event occurs, the stages begin to separate - cleanly, I will add - and drag on the USS causes it to begin slowing at the same time that tail-off from the first stage continues to impart a small residual acceleration. Meanwhile, the first stage tumble motors impart the yaw, which then strikes the USS, causing it to begin tumbling in turn.
If the USS has accelerometer data I imagine whether this actually occurred will be discovered in short order.
Interesting info on L2 will follow I am sure. :)
-
I personally was expecting a lot more vibration from the onboard cameras. Instead, I saw it looking very smooth, even compared to a shuttle launch.
Did you notice some of the foam debris that passed by the USS camera? Just joking.
-
If the USS has accelerometer data I imagine whether this actually occurred will be discovered in short order.
As far as I know, the USS was unpowered dummy stage after separation.
-
Which begs the question, if they didn't need it for a more complex vehicle like the shuttle, why would they need it now and more importantly, spend 1/2 billion dollars on it. The data is not worth that. That is the cost of a planetary mission which would provide much more valuable data.
I would imagine the data they were seeking with Ares I-X is probably not related to interplanetary unmanned spacecraft missions.
And yet the money spent on it could have financed one such mission.
I figure a lot of the data they were seeking in the I-X flight could have been extrapolated from Taurus.
http://www.orbital.com/SpaceLaunch/Taurus/
Though on a side note since Ares I-X did not CATO at max Q it might convince the congress critters to give them more money.
Though if they want to go with this vehicle they'll have to be more aggressive with their testing schedule and accept the fact a few will end up in the Atlantic.
The 2016 date might not be acceptable.
-
Though if they want to go with this vehicle they'll have to be more aggressive with their testing schedule and accept the fact a few will end up in the Atlantic.
The 2016 date might not be acceptable.
Aren't there only two more test flights scheduled? (I-Y and Orion 1)
-
Which begs the question, if they didn't need it for a more complex vehicle like the shuttle, why would they need it now and more importantly, spend 1/2 billion dollars on it. The data is not worth that. That is the cost of a planetary mission which would provide much more valuable data.
I would imagine the data they were seeking with Ares I-X is probably not related to interplanetary unmanned spacecraft missions.
And yet the money spent on it could have financed one such mission.
My point was that if the money that bought Ares I-X was spent on an interplanetary mission, then we would still be in need of a test launch. It may have been expensive, but it was needed. I can't see how it makes sense to argue both in favor of manned exploration, and spending the Ares I-X cash on an interplanetary mission. NASA is already doing interplanetary missions and has plenty going on. Before today, NASA never had an Ares test launch. IMHO, spending the cash to fly Ares I-X was wise, under the Constellation Programme architecture (whether or not Constellation itself is a wise choice notwithstanding).
-
Watch it again in HD. The USS doesn't begin to tumble until the yawing first stage swings to the right, after which it begins to yaw itself to the left at the same rate as might be expected by contact with something on the right side of its aft end.
In my own viewing of the HD footage, I agree precisely with Herb.
I expect that we'll have real HD (not Youtube "HD") for you all to scrutinize within a day or so.
-
Watch it again in HD. The USS doesn't begin to tumble until the yawing first stage swings to the right, after which it begins to yaw itself to the left at the same rate as might be expected by contact with something on the right side of its aft end.
In my own viewing of the HD footage, I agree precisely with Herb.
I expect that we'll have real HD (not Youtube "HD") for you all to scrutinize within a day or so.
This will be one of the video stills to examine closely in HD, to see if any impact damage is apparent.
I'm still not seeing it (impact). These are two massive, heavy objects, hurtling through the upper atmosphere. If they had smashed into one another, I would have expected debris of some type flying off from an impact of that size, etc.
- Ed Kyle
-
It took me 28 years, but now I realize how unique STS 1 really was by launching astronauts on a brand new launch vehicle's very first flight!
Congratulations to the entire Ares team!!!
-
It doesn't quite look like recontact to me - more like the stages had not completely separated as the thruster fired to start the rotation. To my eye it seemed like the leftover thrust from the SRB was still stronger than the retro's, so the retro's were not as effective as they should have been.
-
I'm still not seeing it (impact). These are two massive, heavy objects, hurtling through the upper atmosphere. If they had smashed into one another, I would have expected debris of some type flying off from an impact of that size, etc.
With the two having low relative velocities, maybe it's possible they can hit without making a mess? Just sort of bump and gently shove each other?
-
News Release Issued: October 28, 2009 1:12 PM EDT
ATK's First Stage Successfully Launches NASA's Ares I-X Flight Test
Culminating Four Years of Progress, Historic Test Demonstrates Long-Term Strategic Architecture, Unmatched Crew Safety
Flight Test Critical First Step to Launching NASA's Future in Human Spaceflight
MINNEAPOLIS, Oct. 28 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Alliant Techsystems' (NYSE: ATK) first stage ignited today at 11:30 a.m., launching the Ares I-X flight test for NASA and igniting the next generation in American spaceflight. The Ares I is designed to be the safest rocket ever developed to deliver humans to space.
"The successful launch of the Ares I-X continues to demonstrate decades of flawless performance and the progress ATK and NASA have made to develop the most reliable and affordable family of solid rocket motors ever produced," said Blake Larson, ATK Space Systems president. "This flight provides critical data that can be tested only in a flight environment and will be a key building block for maturing the design of Ares I and developing Ares V."
The 177-foot-tall, 12-foot diameter first stage produced 3.3 million pounds of thrust to propel the vehicle from liftoff to stage separation 124 seconds into the flight. At 130,000 feet, the first stage parachutes deployed, enabling the spent booster to slow its descent prior to splashing down into the ocean where it will be recovered for reuse.
"This flight test is the culmination of four years of progress and is the critical first step to launching America beyond low earth orbit, signifying the beginning of a new era for the American space program," said Mike Kahn, ATK Space Systems executive vice president. "The Ares I architecture provides unmatched crew safety and performance for payload capacity, all while utilizing existing infrastructure."
The primary test objectives for the Ares I-X flight included demonstrating vehicle proof of concept, and vital flight performance early in design of the Ares I program. It also demonstrated effective vehicle integration, ground processing and launch operations.
The flight test of the Ares I-X brings America one step closer to the goals of sending humans beyond low Earth orbit for sustained exploration of multiple destinations throughout the Solar System. The launch is a critical milestone in the development of NASA's Constellation Program, which will also support missions to the International Space Station.
The Ares I-X First Stage is comprised of a four-segment Reusable Solid Rocket Motor (RSRM) originally produced for the Space Shuttle Program, and newly designed hardware including the frustum, forward skirt extension, forward skirt and a simulator representing the fifth segment that will fly on the Ares I vehicle. The solid rocket motor cases used for Ares I-X have collectively flown on 30 previous shuttle missions and will continue to be reused for the Ares program. The solid rocket motors were produced at ATK's facility in Promontory, Utah, and the new hardware was manufactured by Major Tool and Machine Inc. in Indianapolis, Ind., under a contract to ATK.
ATK and NASA have continually improved their techniques and processes to increase the safety and mission reliability of the RSRMs. These motors have undergone countless subscale material characterization tests that tie together complex analyses with hard data. They have also undergone 27 full-scale ground tests, including a successful test of the Ares I first stage five-segment development motor conducted last month.
ATK is the prime contractor for the first stage five-segment solid rocket motor and provides the main abort motor and attitude control motor for Orion's Launch Abort system.
-
I am OUTRAGED that NASA hasn't answered all of these questions yet, complete with backing reports and video analysis of the entire flight! Who should we call to get some ACTION on this OUTRAGE?!!!
:):):):):)
-
I'm still not seeing it (impact). These are two massive, heavy objects, hurtling through the upper atmosphere. If they had smashed into one another, I would have expected debris of some type flying off from an impact of that size, etc.
With the two having low relative velocities, maybe it's possible they can hit without making a mess? Just sort of bump and gently shove each other?
I have to think a Falcon 1 flt 2-class recontact wouldn't create much debris. Flt 3's recontact might have been more benign if they could have stopped the second stage engine from starting. Not that that would've done any good. I have to say, despite my general antipathy to Ares I, this launch looked very cool. Wish I could have seen it in person!
-
I'm still not seeing it (impact). These are two massive, heavy objects, hurtling through the upper atmosphere. If they had smashed into one another, I would have expected debris of some type flying off from an impact of that size, etc.
With the two having low relative velocities, maybe it's possible they can hit without making a mess? Just sort of bump and gently shove each other?
Yeah, that's why it's called recontact and not resmash ;)
Not saying I believe there was any contact, but not dismissing it either.
All these camera angles are only just tentatively suggestive. I wish there was a more sideways look angle from one of them chase planes if only they were used... what were they, WB-57?
-
It doesn't quite look like recontact to me - more like the stages had not completely separated as the thruster fired to start the rotation. To my eye it seemed like the leftover thrust from the SRB was still stronger than the retro's, so the retro's were not as effective as they should have been.
That was my thought. To me it looked like what I'd imagine if a cord or cable was still attached between them, or if the releasing system did not finish the seperation when the thruster fired, whipping the USS around.
-
Aren't there only two more test flights scheduled? (I-Y and Orion 1)
Wasn't I-Y cancelled?
-
Aren't there only two more test flights scheduled? (I-Y and Orion 1)
Wasn't I-Y cancelled?
No, at least not yet. Last I heard was that it's scheduled for September 2012, but according to information listed earlier today, changes to the test objectives could push it two years to the right.
-
I have a question about the separation event - Let's say the two stages DID recontact one another. If this had been an actual Ares I launch, what would have happened? Would the J2-X abort operation and could the LAS save the crew if the upper stage started tumbling like that?
-
Aren't there only two more test flights scheduled? (I-Y and Orion 1)
Wasn't I-Y cancelled?
In fact, in the news conference Handley (I think -- I was just listening to the sound) said something about possibly adding a J-2X to the Ares I-Y flight...
-
Congrats to NASA on their launch of Ares 1-X! I watched it this morning on NASA TV and it was one of the most spectacular launches I have watched. I got nervous when the rocket appeared to lean quite a bit as it lifted off but she flew very well once airborne.
I agree that there was definitely some funny business going on during stage separation. I'm curious what NASA will conclude after reviewing the footage and data.
-
First, I congratulate the entire 1-X team, lot of hard work paid off today.
However, I do have questions and will look forward to seeing the answers as the analysis comes out.
1. At launch, the vehicle clearly has a tilt and the nozzle essentially kicks out toward the FSS. For a second, I thought it was going to just keep going. Obviously even with all that thrust behind you, the vehicle speed is till relatively small and other forces, such as wind, can have a large affect until those alphas and betas begin to converge. Was that expected from either the GNC system or a wind loads perspective?
Yes. It was an avoidance maneuver designed to minimize pad damage and add clearance margin. It looked aggressive because the rocket is nearly 100 meters tall.
2. The weather. Were the LCC limitations intentionally strict due to it being a test flight or for other engineering concerns? The shuttle could have launched and for all the billing of this rocket being simpler and safer, if the launch restrictions are tighter, than it will be ultimately more difficult.
Limits were due to range safety RF requirements for this vehicle alone. It was a one-time deal.
3. Stage separation. While the upper stage had "dynamics" that does not really mean much if separation occurred as designed since it was just going into the drink anyway. It does look like there was some recontact and has the thrust transient at separation versus where the engine bell would be versus J-2 start time been evaluated and will this have any impacts on that?
Ares I would have a different staging setup. It would even separate at a different point.
For number 1, I would like to see that documentation, because everything I have seen shows that "event" not taking place. I have seen estimates for when umbilicals will separate, the hold down posts will break, first expected motion, roll but nothing about this "planned maneuver"
For number 2, I would like to see that documentation as well.
For number 3, I would like to see that documentation as well. It very well may but certainly recontact was considered in this conops.
-
Aren't there only two more test flights scheduled? (I-Y and Orion 1)
Wasn't I-Y cancelled?
In fact, in the news conference Handley (I think -- I was just listening to the sound) said something about possibly adding a J-2X to the Ares I-Y flight...
I could not find it on NASA's site but yes indeed Handley worked up a mitigation schedule listing a number of Orion and Ares program requirements that could be dropped to buy some of the gap back. One of those were to forgo Ares 1Y and move straight to a complete integrated launch including an Orion and working LAS. (unmanned)
-
For number 1, I would like to see that documentation, because everything I have seen shows that "event" not taking place. I have seen estimates for when umbilicals will separate, the hold down posts will break, first expected motion, roll but nothing about this "planned maneuver"
I believe that's on L2...I'll bump the doc there...
-
Since Ares 1x staged at a lower altitude with more atmosphere, is it possible that yes indeed the retro rockets were not powerful enough but that there was no actual contact made between the FS and USS but rather when the FS swung around it was so close that it washed out the USS? Actually moved enough surrounding atmosphere to kick USS's orientation?
Apologies if this is completely out of the question.
-
1. My point was that if the money that bought Ares I-X was spent on an interplanetary mission, then we would still be in need of a test launch. It may have been expensive, but it was needed.
2. I can't see how it makes sense to argue both in favor of manned exploration, and spending the Ares I-X cash on an interplanetary mission. NASA is already doing interplanetary missions and has plenty going on.
1. no, the point is that a test launch wasn't required. Especially at this cost and the marginal data. The shuttle didn't need a test launch.
2. No, Constellation has been taking away from the unmanned program. There are no east coast unmanned launches in 2010
-
Would the J2-X abort operation and could the LAS save the crew if the upper stage started tumbling like that?
The LAS would have gone off after the stage went out of limits within 5-20 degrees
-
It could be that the SRB stage did NOT re-contact the USS, could just be from our POV it appeared that way, and the USS was just not stable enough to fly on its own.
Even if there wasn't recontact.. it appeared to stay in contact long after the Separation event. Ullage motors are a must.. and this may tell them if they've planned for large enough motors
Ares I-X Using a 4-seg is not as high at sep and there may be more aerodynamic pressure on US than there will be at burnout for Ares I using a 5-seg Solid... although with 5-seg you'll also be moving faster at burnout.. Not sure what which case will be worse.
Is it not worth considering that the live upper stage on Ares 1 would have light off its own J-2x engine, and have GNC of its own? This would mean that the real vehicle would not suffer in this way?
I pointed that out earlier...but people here need to find SOMETHING to nitpick about on an otherwise successful flight. ;)
A number of the same posters also nitpicked the last SpaceX flight...
-
First, I congratulate the entire 1-X team, lot of hard work paid off today.
However, I do have questions and will look forward to seeing the answers as the analysis comes out.
1. At launch, the vehicle clearly has a tilt and the nozzle essentially kicks out toward the FSS. For a second, I thought it was going to just keep going. Obviously even with all that thrust behind you, the vehicle speed is till relatively small and other forces, such as wind, can have a large affect until those alphas and betas begin to converge. Was that expected from either the GNC system or a wind loads perspective?
Yes. It was an avoidance maneuver designed to minimize pad damage and add clearance margin. It looked aggressive because the rocket is nearly 100 meters tall.
Ares I would have a different staging setup. It would even separate at a different point.
I think that the "recontact" claimed by some is an optical illusion caused in part by the extreme magnification of the tracking camera. The fact that the first stage rotated past the upper stage simulator with no obvious change in the speed of either part supports no contact. I also think that the successfully recovered first stage shows that it did not have contact. If they recover the forward skirt extension (attached to the drogue chute) they will know for sure. I'm not sure if that recovery is planned.
- Ed Kyle
The tilt in the beginning wasn't to minimize pad damage it was to prevent contact with the tower. If anything it was the best trajectory to maximize pad damage. I can't wait until the SCAPE guys hose it down so we can go out and look.
We are trying to get them to fly the other way on ARES I to minimize pad damage. Aiming the dangerous end at the tower the first 5 seconds doesn't make us GSE guys happy.
-
A number of the same posters also nitpicked the last SpaceX flight...
I wouldn't necessarily call it nitpicking. Just like baseball, there's always got to be something to talk about. :-)
-
And a good number of people here are actual engineers. Looking for things that went wrong (or just "less right") is part of the job. It's not personal, and it's not gloating over someone else's failures.
Picking over the available data for things to learn is just good engineering and a sign of a skeptical, engaged mind.
IMO. :)
-
I'm going to reply to several things here, all piled together, NSF needs multiquote capability :)
All these camera angles are only just tentatively suggestive. I wish there was a more sideways look angle from one of them chase planes if only they were used... what were they, WB-57?
This question came up in one of the pre-flight pressers, and I'm trying to remember the exact answer. I think it was that they would be only looking for parachutes, not separation event.
(and hello ugordan, I'm a big fan of your imagery work at UMSF!)
"Since Ares 1x staged at a lower altitude with more atmosphere, is it possible that yes indeed the retro rockets were not powerful enough but that there was no actual contact made between the FS and USS but rather when the FS swung around it was so close that it washed out the USS? Actually moved enough surrounding atmosphere to kick USS's orientation?
Indeed, hours ago someone suggested here that it could be "proximity aero", which is the best idea I've heard yet.
"In fact, in the news conference Handley (I think -- I was just listening to the sound) said something about possibly adding a J-2X to the Ares I-Y flight...
Hanley said this in one of the pre-flight pressers too. Several Ares folks have been saying publicly for a while now that they do want to get a real engine on Ares 1-Y, it's "just" a matter of getting the J-2X and 1-Y schedules to line up.
AND THAT is just what I gathered in the past three days of catching up with the HSF business. Been busy with non-space stuff. (gasp!)
The tilt in the beginning wasn't to minimize pad damage it was to prevent contact with the tower. If anything it was the best trajectory to maximize pad damage. I can't wait until the SCAPE guys hose it down so we can go out and look. We are trying to get them to fly the other way on ARES I to minimize pad damage. Aiming the dangerous end at the tower the first 5 seconds doesn't make us GSE guys happy.
Very interesting, thanks for the insight!
-
First, I congratulate the entire 1-X team, lot of hard work paid off today.
However, I do have questions and will look forward to seeing the answers as the analysis comes out.
1. At launch, the vehicle clearly has a tilt and the nozzle essentially kicks out toward the FSS. For a second, I thought it was going to just keep going. Obviously even with all that thrust behind you, the vehicle speed is till relatively small and other forces, such as wind, can have a large affect until those alphas and betas begin to converge. Was that expected from either the GNC system or a wind loads perspective?
Yes. It was an avoidance maneuver designed to minimize pad damage and add clearance margin. It looked aggressive because the rocket is nearly 100 meters tall.
Ares I would have a different staging setup. It would even separate at a different point.
I think that the "recontact" claimed by some is an optical illusion caused in part by the extreme magnification of the tracking camera. The fact that the first stage rotated past the upper stage simulator with no obvious change in the speed of either part supports no contact. I also think that the successfully recovered first stage shows that it did not have contact. If they recover the forward skirt extension (attached to the drogue chute) they will know for sure. I'm not sure if that recovery is planned.
- Ed Kyle
The tilt in the beginning wasn't to minimize pad damage it was to prevent contact with the tower. If anything it was the best trajectory to maximize pad damage. I can't wait until the SCAPE guys hose it down so we can go out and look.
We are trying to get them to fly the other way on ARES I to minimize pad damage. Aiming the dangerous end at the tower the first 5 seconds doesn't make us GSE guys happy.
Agreed. While I see the reference to this being a planned maneuver, this seems like it could be bad practice to have your launch vehicle thrust semi-directly at your launch infrastructure every time you launch it. Certainly will drive up maintenance costs and presumably this would be something that would be considered on any operational vehicle like Ares 1, regardless of what the tower looks like then or where it located relative to the vehicle.
In addition, if I were a crew member, not sure how I would feel about such a long and skinny vehicle doing this intentionally with such low amount of foward momentum.
-
I'd say it definitely didn't minimize pad damage. Haven't seen it yet but there is supposedly quite a bit more than a typical shuttle launch.
-
This day has been one of NASA's finest .
Thanks, NASA !
-
First, I congratulate the entire 1-X team, lot of hard work paid off today.
However, I do have questions and will look forward to seeing the answers as the analysis comes out.
1. At launch, the vehicle clearly has a tilt and the nozzle essentially kicks out toward the FSS. For a second, I thought it was going to just keep going. Obviously even with all that thrust behind you, the vehicle speed is till relatively small and other forces, such as wind, can have a large affect until those alphas and betas begin to converge. Was that expected from either the GNC system or a wind loads perspective?
Yes. It was an avoidance maneuver designed to minimize pad damage and add clearance margin. It looked aggressive because the rocket is nearly 100 meters tall.
For number 1, I would like to see that documentation, because everything I have seen shows that "event" not taking place. I have seen estimates for when umbilicals will separate, the hold down posts will break, first expected motion, roll but nothing about this "planned maneuver"
While I've seen no *internal* documentation, the tower avoidance maneuver was reported in the press at the time of rollout:
http://spaceflightnow.com/ares1x/091020pad/
"We've designed a flyaway maneuver for the nozzle to cant over ever so slightly -- 1 degree -- not that much to us, but with 2 million pounds of thrust, that's going to take the vehicle and help it to fly away from the pad," Stelzer said.
Stover said engineers predict there will be about 15 feet of clearance between the pad and the rocket at liftoff, so there is no threat of physical contact. Officials are only concerned about the affects of the booster's plume.
2. The weather. Were the LCC limitations intentionally strict due to it being a test flight or for other engineering concerns? The shuttle could have launched and for all the billing of this rocket being simpler and safer, if the launch restrictions are tighter, than it will be ultimately more difficult.
Limits were due to range safety RF requirements for this vehicle alone. It was a one-time deal.
For number 2, I would like to see that documentation as well.
Again, while I've seen no internal documentation, this was discussed at today's press conference. Ares I-X has triboelectrification restrictions because NASA decided that the efforts to mitigate it weren't worth it for a one-off vehicle.
3. Stage separation. While the upper stage had "dynamics" that does not really mean much if separation occurred as designed since it was just going into the drink anyway. It does look like there was some recontact and has the thrust transient at separation versus where the engine bell would be versus J-2 start time been evaluated and will this have any impacts on that?
Ares I would have a different staging setup. It would even separate at a different point.
For number 3, I would like to see that documentation as well. It very well may but certainly recontact was considered in this conops.
5-segment SRB will be higher (therefore lower q) at separation than the 4-segment SRB used for Ares I-X.
Ares I upper stage will have ullage motors that the Ares I-X upper stage simulator lacked. These motors are used to assist separation as well as settle the propellants.
http://spacefellowship.com/2009/07/01/atk-awarded-contract-for-ares-i-upper-stage-ullage-motor/
While neither of those guarantees no recontact, it does mean the conditions will be different at sep.
-
Congratulations to the entire Ares-1X team! Well done! It shows us all how much you all have learned, how far you have come, in just 4 short years.
You are ready for what is about to come.
INTEGRATOR
-
$450,000,000 for this test
Can someone show me the pieces that added up to the total?
If this is "Nothing like Ares-1" (for manned flight) then what is it for?
Will there be an all up unmanned launch of Ares-1?
What will that cost?
This is cheaper than STS flights?
-
Agreed. While I see the reference to this being a planned maneuver, this seems like it could be bad practice to have your launch vehicle thrust semi-directly at your launch infrastructure every time you launch it. Certainly will drive up maintenance costs and presumably this would be something that would be considered on any operational vehicle like Ares 1, regardless of what the tower looks like then or where it located relative to the vehicle.
It's a tradeoff. Without a tower avoidance maneuver, the allowable winds at liftoff would have to be reduced.
Also keep in mind that the shuttle legacy FSS/RSS won't be there by the time Ares I flies. The FSS was "hardened" for Ares I-X but only a limited amount of hardening makes sense for a structure that's going to be demolished anyway. The Ares I ML can be hardened with the tower avoidance maneuver in mind.
In addition, if I were a crew member, not sure how I would feel about such a long and skinny vehicle doing this intentionally with such low amount of foward momentum.
The Apollo astronauts would tell you to man-up. The Saturn V also performed a tower avoidance maneuver and it also lifted off very slowly. It is not obvious in many launch photos due to camera placement but it shows up really well in some of them:
http://www.aerospaceguide.net/saturn_5.html
-
First, I congratulate the entire 1-X team, lot of hard work paid off today.
However, I do have questions and will look forward to seeing the answers as the analysis comes out.
1. At launch, the vehicle clearly has a tilt and the nozzle essentially kicks out toward the FSS. For a second, I thought it was going to just keep going. Obviously even with all that thrust behind you, the vehicle speed is till relatively small and other forces, such as wind, can have a large affect until those alphas and betas begin to converge. Was that expected from either the GNC system or a wind loads perspective?
Yes. It was an avoidance maneuver designed to minimize pad damage and add clearance margin. It looked aggressive because the rocket is nearly 100 meters tall.
2. The weather. Were the LCC limitations intentionally strict due to it being a test flight or for other engineering concerns? The shuttle could have launched and for all the billing of this rocket being simpler and safer, if the launch restrictions are tighter, than it will be ultimately more difficult.
Limits were due to range safety RF requirements for this vehicle alone. It was a one-time deal.
3. Stage separation. While the upper stage had "dynamics" that does not really mean much if separation occurred as designed since it was just going into the drink anyway. It does look like there was some recontact and has the thrust transient at separation versus where the engine bell would be versus J-2 start time been evaluated and will this have any impacts on that?
Ares I would have a different staging setup. It would even separate at a different point.
For number 1, I would like to see that documentation, because everything I have seen shows that "event" not taking place. I have seen estimates for when umbilicals will separate, the hold down posts will break, first expected motion, roll but nothing about this "planned maneuver"
For number 2, I would like to see that documentation as well.
For number 3, I would like to see that documentation as well. It very well may but certainly recontact was considered in this conops.
All of this was discussed in the preflight press conferences or in the press kit, available online.
- Ed Kyle
-
Seems little progress has been made in 48 years
Might seem like that, but if you are familiar with space operations you'll know why that's an incorrect assumption.
-
$450,000,000 for this test
Can someone show me the pieces that added up to the total?
If this is "Nothing like Ares-1" (for manned flight) then what is it for?
Will there be an all up unmanned launch of Ares-1?
What will that cost?
This is cheaper than STS flights?
On May 5, 1961, Alan Shepard was launched suborbitally to an altitude of over 116 miles, 303 statute miles down range from Cape Canaveral. His 15 minute 28 second flight achieved a velocity of 5,134 miles per hour and pulled a maximum of 11G's.2
The UNMANNED 327-foot tall Ares I-X test vehicle produced 2.6 million pounds of thrust to accelerate the rocket to nearly 3 g's and Mach 4.76. It capped its easterly flight at a sub-orbital altitude of 150,000 feet after the separation of its first stage and splashed down nearly 150 miles down range.
Seems little progress has been made in 48 years
Nonsense. Please. Just stop.
- Ed Kyle
-
Glad I got to see the launch before going to bed in the middle of the day....
Congratulations to the team. Good work.
That second stage separation didn't look right, but we'll see what the engineers say about that. Where did the USS land? And did the dent on the nozzle that OV-106 talked about come from a hard landing (one parachute failed?) or striking something on the MLP/pad?
When the bird launched and went off to the right I thought "uh oh" but turns out that was the planned tower avoidance manuever. Flight looked spectacular.
And thanks to the two Chris's and everyone else for the coverage.
-
From what I've gathered from the damage reports it seems that the area around the hinge column took the brunt of it. Majority of damage and debris is from that area. Alot of damage such as loose/damaged grating on the 95' level, but that level always looks like a train wreck after every launch. Catches all of the blast deflected from the MLP zero level. Incidentally the damaged hyper flexhoses were on that level of the hinge column.
Don't like the fact that the avoidance maneuver directed alot of blast at the tower, but I'll take some tower damage over a destroyed vehicle/tower anyday.
-
Just to add to the list of crazy things happening during the countdown; during that last scramble while the weather plane was defining the hole in the overcast which they managed to launch through... one of the surveillance planes reported a submarine on the surface in the exclusion zone.
I Mean... can you write fiction like this and expect people to believe it? What a Day! There have to be a lot of folks glad this launch is over!
With Subs being military would they be allowed in the area?
No, they would not.
-
$450,000,000 for this test
Can someone show me the pieces that added up to the total?
If this is "Nothing like Ares-1" (for manned flight) then what is it for?
Will there be an all up unmanned launch of Ares-1?
What will that cost?
This is cheaper than STS flights?
On May 5, 1961, Alan Shepard was launched suborbitally to an altitude of over 116 miles, 303 statute miles down range from Cape Canaveral. His 15 minute 28 second flight achieved a velocity of 5,134 miles per hour and pulled a maximum of 11G's.2
The UNMANNED 327-foot tall Ares I-X test vehicle produced 2.6 million pounds of thrust to accelerate the rocket to nearly 3 g's and Mach 4.76. It capped its easterly flight at a sub-orbital altitude of 150,000 feet after the separation of its first stage and splashed down nearly 150 miles down range.
Seems little progress has been made in 48 years
Nonsense. Please. Just stop.
- Ed Kyle
That separation was classic... Well done MSFC... well worth $0.5 Billion in a time of need..
-
So what happens to Pad 39B now? It seems like there is nothing left but to take her down as sad as it is. Also same question for MLP-1.
Thanks
-
A "normal" upper stage doesn't get to be on its own until it's well out of the atmosphere. Because Ares-I's first stage is so weak, it's upper stage gets to fly while there still is significant q. If there was no recontact, doesn't the performance of the upper stage simulator indicate that's it's pretty severely aerodynamically unstable? If so, could it gain some fins to assure the upper stage guidance has both sufficient authority and sufficient time to use that authority after separation?
-
So what happens to Pad 39B now? It seems like there is nothing left but to take her down as sad as it is. Also same question for MLP-1.
Thanks
Depends on how much and how soon the money flows. Still some decomissioning/safing and spares removal to get done. MLP 1 is supposed to be scrapped, but again, if the money is there.
Now, whenever the funding shows up, rollercoaster construction can begin, remove the slidewires and bunker, finish the lightning protection, start dismantling the FSS/RSS, (hopefully a refurbishment/mod period for LH2?), and many other jobs/construction that I can't think of right now.
-
This day has been one of NASA's finest .
You got to be kidding. Get real. It doesn't even rank in the top 100. And that is without being a Ares I basher.
You just lost what little credibility you had.
-
Just watched the video. "Flying syringe" indeed.
-
. . . could it gain some fins . . .
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/40/Ares_I_Evolution.jpg/800px-Ares_I_Evolution.jpg
-
I'd just like to say congrats to the Ares 1-X team for a spectacular launch! It certainly was exciting to watch it online.
Hopefully it will be worth it once they review all the data and compare it to their computer models.
Also congrats to everybody on this thread for the coverage!
Watching it is one thing. Following it here makes it a more personal experience!
Kevin
P.S. Anybody know what's going to happen to MLP 1 now? Will they turn it back over to the Shuttle program? Or just let it sit on LC39B for awhile?
Edit: Thanks padrat for the info on MLP 1...
-
This day has been one of NASA's finest .
You got to be kidding. Get real. It doesn't even rank in the top 100. And that is without being a Ares I basher.
You just lost what little credibility you had.
So Jim, what do you think of the great work by MSFC.. 30 year no LV, and now where do they stand.?
-
This day has been one of NASA's finest .
You got to be kidding. Get real. It doesn't even rank in the top 100. And that is without being a Ares I basher.
You just lost what little credibility you had.
Please Jim, enlighten me, how do you figure?
It may not have been NASA's finest moment, but, c'mon.
-
I smell an argument! Let's all calm down or I'll get the big stick (no pun intended) out ;)
-
This day has been one of NASA's finest .
You got to be kidding. Get real. It doesn't even rank in the top 100. And that is without being a Ares I basher.
You just lost what little credibility you had.
Please Jim, enlighten me, how do you figure?
It may not have been NASA's finest moment, but, c'mon.
Even NASA x-plane first flights rank higher. This was no different than Little Joe test flights.
I can give you 10, no 25 more important launches/flights easily. Which means top 100 is still to high for Ares I-X
Apollo 11, STS-1, Freedom 7, Gemini 3, Friendship 7, Apollo 4, Apollo 7, Apollo 8, Mariner 2, Mariner 4, Surveyor 1, Skylab 1, Delta 1, Voyager 1, Viking 1, Syncom 1, HST, X-15, M1F2, STS-2, STS-76, STS-88, Explorer I, Saturn I, Ranger 7, Lunar Orbiter 1, Mariner 9, Mariner 10, Pioneer 9, Pioneer Venus ,etc. There are more from STS missions, Gemini and other unmanned
-
This day has been one of NASA's finest .
You got to be kidding. Get real. It doesn't even rank in the top 100. And that is without being a Ares I basher.
You just lost what little credibility you had.
Please Jim, enlighten me, how do you figure?
It may not have been NASA's finest moment, but, c'mon.
Even NASA x-plane first flights rank higher. This was no different than Little Joe test flights.
I can give you 10, no 25 more important launches/flights easily. Which means top 100 is still to high for Ares I-X
Apollo 11, STS-1, Freedom 7, Gemini 3, Friendship 7, Apollo 4, Apollo 7, Apollo 8, Mariner 2, Mariner 4, Surveyor 1, Skylab 1, Delta 1, Voyager 1, Viking 1, Syncom 1, HST, X-15, M1F2, STS-2, STS-76, STS-88, Explorer I, Saturn I, Ranger 7, Lunar Orbiter 1, Mariner 9, Mariner 10, Pioneer 9, Pioneer Venus ,etc. There are more from STS missions, Gemini and other unmanned
Won't quibble with most of those, but what do you find significant about STS-76? It was the third Shuttle-Mir mission. All I can think of is that it carried Shannon Lucid to Mir, kicking off a two-year continuous US presence there.
-
I can give you 10, no 25 more important launches/flights easily. Which means top 100 is still to high for Ares I-X
Apollo 11, STS-1, Freedom 7, Gemini 3, Friendship 7, Apollo 4, Apollo 7, Apollo 8, Mariner 2, Mariner 4, Surveyor 1, Skylab 1, Delta 1, Voyager 1, Viking 1, Syncom 1, HST, X-15, M1F2, STS-2, STS-76, STS-88, Explorer I, Saturn I, Ranger 7, Lunar Orbiter 1, Mariner 9, Mariner 10, Pioneer 9, Pioneer Venus ,etc. There are more from STS missions, Gemini and other unmanned
Exactly. NASA has a pretty long history, and a ton of great moments of which they can be proud. Getting the Apollo 13 guys back safely, ATV-1 and HTV-1 dockings, MER-1 and 2 (Spirit and Opportunity) landings, and even Scott fixing the solar array on 120 would be up there for me.
-
You know what? Jim's comment would make a fun thread - name the top moment in NASA spaceflight (I'd count the X-15 there) and aerospace history.
-
Won't quibble with most of those, but what do you find significant about STS-76? It was the third Shuttle-Mir mission. All I can think of is that it carried Shannon Lucid to Mir, kicking off a two-year continuous US presence there.
meant STS-71. 76 was the first MIR Spacehab mission, which I worked, Not so nationally important.
-
This day has been one of NASA's finest .
You got to be kidding. Get real. It doesn't even rank in the top 100. And that is without being a Ares I basher.
Please Jim, enlighten me, how do you figure?
It may not have been NASA's finest moment, but, c'mon.
Geesh, I actually agree with Jim on this one, go figure LoL!)
But at least a real launch has more of a WoW factor for the general public to it than some silly moon bombing thing!
Wondering about a few things if anybody cares to enlighten:
-Does the seperation "glitch" give more credence to the 45th's original preliminary assertion about crew survivability & that it's still unproven in apparently the models as well as this "wind tunnel" test (wasn't that the whole justification for the Ares design)?
-Read somewhere of a report that the recovery ship found a gash in the 1st stage? Also, differing reports about whether 2 or 3 chutes deployed - there seemed to be enough aircraft & ships around viewing - shouldn't there be some pics released?
-Pad leak & damage, will pics & repair costs be released? Or doesn't it matter because of need to reconfigure anyway?
-The lightening strikes - what, if anything, did the new lightening towers contribute (i.e. worked better or worse than the old system)?
-Seemed like a lot of unusual comm/data drops - any indications of root cause forthcoming?
Thanks!
-
Won't quibble with most of those, but what do you find significant about STS-76?
I was Lead FDO on STS-76 Jorge... doesn't that count for something significant?
;)
I keeeeeed.... I keeeeeeeeed!!!
-
Aren't there only two more test flights scheduled? (I-Y and Orion 1)
Wasn't I-Y cancelled?
No, at least not yet. Last I heard was that it's scheduled for September 2012, but according to information listed earlier today, changes to the test objectives could push it two years to the right.
I think it was September 2013 originally...but 2014 is the more likely date as you mentioned
-
-Does the seperation "glitch" give more credence to the 45th's original preliminary assertion about crew survivability
Of course not.
-Read somewhere of a report that the recovery ship found a gash in the 1st stage? Also, differing reports about whether 2 or 3 chutes deployed - there seemed to be enough aircraft & ships around viewing - shouldn't there be some pics released?
Yes they will, it's not even been 12 hours since launch, so why don't we wait for a bit? Let the team get a little break.
-Pad leak & damage, will pics & repair costs be released?
Sure they will, it's not even been 12 hours since launch, so why don't we wait for a bit? Maybe the teams could use a little downtime?
-The lightening strikes - what, if anything, did the new lightening towers contribute (i.e. worked better or worse than the old system)?
No lightning struck Ares - so that answer should be obvious.
-Seemed like a lot of unusual comm/data drops - any indications of root cause forthcoming?
Probably, but it's not even been 12 hours since launch. So I think it might be a few more hours before that one is answered too...
-
From what I've gathered from the damage reports it seems that the area around the hinge column took the brunt of it. Majority of damage and debris is from that area. Alot of damage such as loose/damaged grating on the 95' level, but that level always looks like a train wreck after every launch. Catches all of the blast deflected from the MLP zero level. Incidentally the damaged hyper flexhoses were on that level of the hinge column.
Don't like the fact that the avoidance maneuver directed alot of blast at the tower, but I'll take some tower damage over a destroyed vehicle/tower anyday.
I'm guessing that the "hinge column" is the pivot point on the tower for the RSS? just curious
-
-Seemed like a lot of unusual comm/data drops - any indications of root cause forthcoming?
No, nothing unusual for Rocketcams
-
OK.. attempting to defuse this.....
I get your point. I should have clarified myself. I was not trying to imply that this is NASA's finest moment, or in the top 10, 20, 100, whatever.. I was just getting a little frustrated at the number of posts on here, like the majority of yours have been today, that hint to today being a total failure and a complete waste of money. You've made it quite clear in the past that you are not an Ares fan and I understand that. And to reiterate what I'VE said in the past, I'm not a huge Ares fan myself. But I will give credit where it is due and NASA proved today that there is some credibility to the Ares I design, as close as I-X could have been to the actual Ares I. Were there problems, yes. Did the rocket brush the tower, possibly. Did the two stages bump/collide, possibly. Did a chute fail, possibly. (I'm saying possibly because I haven't heard anything concrete yet.) Did this flight show problems that need to be addressed, sure. But, as I've said earlier today, this is a TEST FLIGHT! If problems are going to manifest themselves, this is the time and place for it. Yes, computer modeling is a wonderful thing, but sometimes it just helps to have real world data.
Now would I have rather seen the money used for other things, of course. But when the money was spent, contracts were finalized and the ship was built, I would have rather seen it flown than scrapped. Will it come to be that this was a complete waste of time/money? Of course that's possible. For all we know this could be the only flight Ares makes. But I do also think it may have been a good idea to kind of put NASA back on the radar of certain individuals that seem to always have other things to attend to. I happen to love my job and love what I do. I would work here for half of what I make now. And I would still happily work here if it was on shuttle, Ares I, Direct, EELV, HLLV, Shuttle C, "Not" Shuttle C, Ares V, Ares V "lite", Ares IV, etc. I don't care. I would just like SOMEONE to make a decision so I know if I might have a job in two years. So if this was a PR stunt like some think, so be it. I hope it has the effect that we need right now. Rant complete.
P.S. Jim, give me a hug man, you know you want to...
-
I've converted some video stuff from separation on my own.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LwZhyuTots
What do you think? ??? It seems to be falling the opposite direction of the tumbeling thruster!
-
I'm guessing that the "hinge column" is the pivot point on the tower for the RSS? just curious
Correct
....And on that note, I'm off to bed...
-
Hypothesis: There was no recontact, but the first stage disrupted the upper stage simulator *aerodynamically* and caused it to tumble when it's upper end exited the slipstream of the upper stage simulator.
-
Will it come to be that this was a complete waste of time/money? Of course that's possible.
The analysis of the staging deviance from modelling will be applicable to any future new NASA rocket design. TO/Acoustics data will be useful for any SDLV. Roll Torque data will help any future commercial SRB first stage designs like Athena variants. So it might be possible it's a complete waste of time and money but extremely unlikely ;). The other thing is credibility, it gives NASA very visible post-Shuttle credibility with the public and politicians and that can only help with getting more funds from the President and Congress. Jim just has to look at the bigger picture and see that his section too will ultimately benefit from association with this.
-
Hypothesis: There was no recontact, but the first stage disrupted the upper stage simulator *aerodynamically* and caused it to tumble when it's upper end exited the slipstream of the upper stage simulator.
Lee Jay, I suspect you might be right, especially after checking out klausd's video above. Like most people, my initial reaction at separation was recontact had caused the 2nd stage to tumble, but now on further review I'm not so sure. One thing is for sure, if Ares does fly again the 2nd stage aerodynamics are gonna need some refining...
In a related thought, would it be possible to get relevant data from a 1/8th or even 1/4 scale replica, perhaps baloon launched to get to altitude? You would think it would be many times more cost effective at maybe just a few mil per copy so you could fly quite a few trials for a lot less expense. It might be a reasonable way to look at separation dynamics. Heck, you could even call it Ares 1/X...:)
-
would it be possible to get relevant data from a 1/8th or even 1/4 scale replica, perhaps baloon launched to get to altitude?
When I hear about "baloon launched rocket" I am thinking of this video-clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qVuVix5kCE
I have been waiting for months for the event you can admire in the video and nothing till now. People who claimed to have built that strange rocket is keeping delaying the launch. I suppose they will never launch the rocket.
-
I really doubt the rocket hit the tower, cant see how it could have and still flown stable, or at least not without taking a good chunk of the tower with it. The "fly away" move should have taken the tower out of the equation. As for the stage sep, I dont think there was contact, from our odd angle of view it may have looked like it, more than likely just aerodynamics. Sorta like two NASACAR racers in a tight draft, when the front one pulls away it gets hit with more turbulence.
Hopefully on the full Ares I they will have the umbilical hook up either in the very front or very back, so all the arm has to do is swing away, so even if the rocket came back towards the tower and still would not hit the arms.
The program wont be scrapped, that much is clear, its here to stay. The fact that they are spending all this time and money building a new MLP and LUT should make that clear to even the most jaded among us.
-
"I think it was September 2013 originally...but 2014 is the more likely date as you mentioned "
After today's launch I find myself wondering when the next Ares launch will be and oddly looking forward to it though I have eagerly followed the shuttle since I was a kid, and haven't been thrilled about the stick's problems (schedule slips, taking stuff out of Orion, etc.). 5 years is a long time to wait. I remember seeing something on this forum about an "Ares I-X Prime" with a full 5 segment booster and a LAS abort test, could the program work that in for 2011-12 (I know depending on money)? And would the current SRB being retrieved in the Atlantic be refurbished and sent back for the next Ares launch, if the program lives?
-
They could even use this vehicle to launch re-supply vehicles (like Progress or like that thing Japan has). It has a lot of uses and uses stuff that they have been working with for 30 years (the J2X is basically a J2 and the SRB is old hat to them)
All I can say is from reading this board today its a good thing we did not have the Internet or the Web in the 60s, NASA would have gave up on the Moon if they had to take grief for every test flight they ran.
-
Wasn't there supposed to be an unmanned Orion vehicle for resupply purposes? I thought I saw that got axed, but I could be wrong.
-
US already has heavy lifters capable to place 20 000 kg in LEO.
Just a Soyuz like cheap rocket is needed for carrying a crew of three and dock to 2 X 20 000 kg (cargo) crafts parked in LEO, form something like a small Space Station and go to the Moon and come back.
-
We need this system, ironically the shuttle is too expensive to use for what was its PRIMARY mission when developed: Fly to a space station (in fact one of the first STS missions was going to be a Skylab rescue mission).
We need something like the Russians have, a good cheap ship that gets us for point A to point B and back. No sense in driving the Porsche down to the local store for food when the Citation will do just find.
-
But at least a real launch has more of a WoW factor for the general public to it than some silly moon bombing thing!
Interesting choice of an accidental acronym. What was the relative amount of attention paid to World of Warcraft versus Ares 1-X today? Just something to ponder.
-
All I can say is from reading this board today its a good thing we did not have the Internet or the Web in the 60s, NASA would have gave up on the Moon if they had to take grief for every test flight they ran.
You create a false analogy. There was no other choice in the 60s. I'd be all for Ares 1 if as David Henkel points out just above the United States didn't already have cheaper, safe vehicles that can lift Orion. Ares is a redundant waste of money purveyed by narrow-minded, parochial interests. Period.
-
A "normal" upper stage doesn't get to be on its own until it's well out of the atmosphere. Because Ares-I's first stage is so weak, it's upper stage gets to fly while there still is significant q. If there was no recontact, doesn't the performance of the upper stage simulator indicate that's it's pretty severely aerodynamically unstable?
The Ares I-X staging altitude was about the same as a Proton's first stage jettison altitude (40 km versus 42.5 km). The staging velocity is in the same ballpark (1,488 m/s versus 1,797 m/s). Proton is considered "normal" enough. It's flown 348 times, and more times this year than any other commercial comsat launcher.
Ares I will stage higher (nearly 60 km) and faster (~2,000 m/s) than either Ares I-X or Proton. (Ares I staging will occur at roughly the same altitude as Saturn IB - a rocket that worked pretty well.) The Ares I first stage will also produce 1.25 times more total impulse than a Proton first stage, and 1.6 times more than a Saturn IB booster stage. Hardly "weak".
- Ed Kyle
-
We need something like the Russians have, a good cheap ship that gets us for point A to point B and back. No sense in driving the Porsche down to the local store for food when the Citation will do just find.
Citation? Never of THAT car before... Is it faster than the Pinto? :)
Anyways, back to topic. It's an understatement to say that the U.S. needs something that's efficient (and simple?) like the Soyuz. Ares doesn't look as elegant as the shuttle, but judging from today's launch, making the right refinements to the design here and there and receiving proper funding should give the U.S. a vehicle that's on the same level of reliability as the Russian's launch system.
Not to state the total obvious.
-
Hypothesis: There was no recontact, but the first stage disrupted the upper stage simulator *aerodynamically* and caused it to tumble when it's upper end exited the slipstream of the upper stage simulator.
Lee Jay, I suspect you might be right, especially after checking out klausd's video above.
I like the attempt at a higher-order physical explanation, but this is literally impossible at supersonic speeds. Such disturbances can only flow upstream at sonic speed (exactly) no matter the speed of the vehicle. So the USS could not have been disturbed by the flow of the FS since they were somewhere M~4.
-
should give the U.S. a vehicle that's on the same level of reliability as the Russian's launch system.
What part of 90 in a row (Atlas) don't you understand?
(knock wood, throw salt, turn around twice that I didn't just jinx them)
-
It's an understatement to say that the U.S. needs something that's efficient (and simple?) like the Soyuz.
Orion was not designed to do what Soyuz does (LEO taxi work for three Cosmonauts). It was designed to go to the Moon while carrying more than three astronauts. Building nothing but a micro-LEO crew ship like Soyuz would keep the U.S. in LEO indefinitely. It would mean not going to the Moon.
- Ed Kyle
-
should give the U.S. a vehicle that's on the same level of reliability as the Russian's launch system.
What part of 90 in a row (Atlas) don't you understand?
Atlas 5 currently has a consecutive success streak of only eight. It has only flown 18 times total.
- Ed Kyle
-
should give the U.S. a vehicle that's on the same level of reliability as the Russian's launch system.
What part of 90 in a row (Atlas) don't you understand?
(knock wood, throw salt, turn around twice that I didn't just jinx them)
Correction: Should give the U.S a vehicle that's on the same level of reliability as the Russians' MANNED launch system.
-
should give the U.S. a vehicle that's on the same level of reliability as the Russian's launch system.
What part of 90 in a row (Atlas) don't you understand?
Atlas 5 currently has a consecutive success streak of only eight. It has only flown 18 times total.
The customer considers AV-9 a success. It's not a vehicle, it's a culture. The Shuttle culture knows sustaining and cost-plus bloat where you can't even have a conversation about cost v. safety to send back a costly solution for an equally safe but cheaper one.
-
According to this table:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_mid-heavy_lift_launch_systems
An ATLAS V rocket can place a payload of 20 000 kg in LEO for a cost of 164 mil dollars.
A cargo moon craft with the total mass of 40 000 kg would cost 328 mil + the cost of the spaceship itself.
A Soyuz capsule launched in LEO with a crew of three could be 100 mil $, fully equipped. A lunar lander and return to moon orbit could be 300 mil $.
That cargo ship of 40 000 kg could cost 300 million itself (only the part that does not constitute lander)
So if we add all the costs, a moon mission might cost:
328 mil $ - to lift to orbit 40 000 kg of payload
300 mil $ - the payload itself (without the lander)
100 mil $ - the crew capsule
300 mil $ - the lander (the mass of the lander is included in those 40 tonnes of payload)
-----------------------------
1028 mil $ - a Moon mission!
Will such a mission be cheaper using ARES?
-
We need something like the Russians have, a good cheap ship that gets us for point A to point B and back. No sense in driving the Porsche down to the local store for food when the Citation will do just find.
Well, with some additional funding and luck, we might just have that. Before Ares-1 flies, even. And quite a bit cheaper.
I am referring to the other (commercial) capsule in development right now.
I'm sure NASA can get the Ares I to work. The question is if it will be worth the expense.
-
Nice photos at mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov
-
Hypothesis: There was no recontact, but the first stage disrupted the upper stage simulator *aerodynamically* and caused it to tumble when it's upper end exited the slipstream of the upper stage simulator.
Lee Jay, I suspect you might be right, especially after checking out klausd's video above.
I like the attempt at a higher-order physical explanation, but this is literally impossible at supersonic speeds. Such disturbances can only flow upstream at sonic speed (exactly) no matter the speed of the vehicle. So the USS could not have been disturbed by the flow of the FS since they were somewhere M~4.
Aren't bow shocks generated in front of an object traveling supersonically? I.e. a higher pressure region *some distance* in front of the front end of the SRB? If so, what if one side of the USS aft end dipped into this region? Don't know much about fluid dynamics, just wondering if that's possible here.
Either way, looking at klausd's video at 50% speed it's pretty clear the booster deceleration motors didn't give enough kick to the SRB because they only made it clear the USS by a finite distance at which point I assume residual thrust nulled out the separation rate and the two stayed at about the same fixed distance (or worse, started approaching each other).
-
We'll have to wait to know for sure - if the forward SRB section shows anything, and the data verifies any contact.
Right now, though, having seen a number of HD and slow motion video replays of the separation, I don't believe there was any contact.
It looked to me like there may have been some off-center forces from the separation event, and once the US started rotating from that, aerodynamic forces quickly took over and rapidly accelerated the rotation. It was just coincidence that the booster stage rotation happened to match almost identically while they were still relatively close to each other.
-
Unless I was very much mistaken, Ares-I-X went through the sound barrier at about 30 seconds after lift-off. That was a lot faster than the shuttle. Just out of interest, what was the peak g-loading on the stack during ascent?
-
You only have to accelerate at 1.1 g for 30 seconds to reach the speed of sound.
Jeff
-
You only have to accelerate at 1.1 g for 30 seconds to reach the speed of sound.
Which of course means that if you're flying vertically (as is the case after liftoff) you in fact need and average T/W ratio of 2.1 G.
-
Either way, looking at klausd's video at 50% speed it's pretty clear the booster deceleration motors didn't give enough kick to the SRB because they only made it clear the USS by a finite distance
You were expecting the FS to be separated from the USS by an infinite distance? ;)
-
We need this system, ironically the shuttle is too expensive to use for what was its PRIMARY mission when developed: Fly to a space station (in fact one of the first STS missions was going to be a Skylab rescue mission).
We need something like the Russians have, a good cheap ship that gets us for point A to point B and back. No sense in driving the Porsche down to the local store for food when the Citation will do just find.
How cheap is Soyuz (LV and capsule) really? If the US had proceeded with the original Saturn I (with the kerolox second stage), and had flown something like a Big Gemini on top of it, how cheap would it be now?
-
The program wont be scrapped, that much is clear, its here to stay. The fact that they are spending all this time and money building a new MLP and LUT should make that clear to even the most jaded among us.
That is not true. It will likely be scrapped if the President acts per Augustine Commission.
As for building hardware, that doesn't mean anything, see X-33.
-
They could even use this vehicle to launch re-supply vehicles (like Progress or like that thing Japan has). It has a lot of uses and uses stuff that they have been working with for 30 years (the J2X is basically a J2 and the SRB is old hat to them)
No, EELV's would be cheaper. Ares I has one use only, to launch Orion.
-
We need this system, ironically the shuttle is too expensive to use for what was its PRIMARY mission when developed: Fly to a space station (in fact one of the first STS missions was going to be a Skylab rescue mission).
We need something like the Russians have, a good cheap ship that gets us for point A to point B and back. No sense in driving the Porsche down to the local store for food when the Citation will do just find.
We don't need it and it isn't cheap. This is not the Citation, this is the Bentley.
-
Ares I will stage higher (nearly 60 km) and faster (~2,000 m/s) than either Ares I-X or Proton. (Ares I staging will occur at roughly the same altitude as Saturn IB - a rocket that worked pretty well.) The Ares I first stage will also produce 1.25 times more total impulse than a Proton first stage, and 1.6 times more than a Saturn IB booster stage. Hardly "weak".
It still doesn't matter, the delta V split for Ares I is not optimal.
-
Beautiful launch, beautiful vehicle, despite the ELV naysayers.
-
Ares I will stage higher (nearly 60 km) and faster (~2,000 m/s) than either Ares I-X or Proton. (Ares I staging will occur at roughly the same altitude as Saturn IB - a rocket that worked pretty well.) The Ares I first stage will also produce 1.25 times more total impulse than a Proton first stage, and 1.6 times more than a Saturn IB booster stage. Hardly "weak".
It still doesn't matter, the delta V split for Ares I is not optimal.
Nor would the split be optimal for an EELV, unless a higher thrust upper stage were developed.
- Ed Kyle
-
full coverage of Ares 1X launch, capture from nasa tv (in 500kbts)
captured in 3 parts, to the start of the retransmition, to 1 hour after launch (include all replay aired so )
part 1: 431 mo - 1h55 http://www.megaupload.com/?d=NC0Z5DW4
part 2: 503 mo - 2h14 http://www.megaupload.com/?d=9TF6J190
part 3: 725 mo - 3h14 http://www.megaupload.com/?d=MHQ3AZ2B
and sorry for my poor english, i am french !
-
Is the dual engine Centaur still in production?
-
Is the dual engine Centaur still in production?
I'm not sure - but just so you're clear, the Ares I-X yesterday (i.e. the point of this thread) was not using a dual engine Centaur for launch.
-
I know, I was thinking about Ed's comment about a higher thrust upper stage for EELV.
-
I'm not sure - but just so your clear, the Ares I-X yesterday (i.e. the point of this thread) was not using a dual engine Centaur for launch.
Yes, in fact it's a real rarity to see a two stage vehicle with one engine in total nowadays.
-
Is the dual engine Centaur still in production?
No it isn't. It would require a development effort that wouldn't necessarily be cheap, but I guess that's a relative term if it cost us $400+ million to get to yesterday's launch. It would be a lot less than that to re-establish the dual engine capability on Atlas/Centaur.
-
Vehicle Cam 1 proved no good for staging, lost signal right at staging.
Interesting trick there, I would say! One transmitter for 2 cameras.
What we see as "Cam 1" is in fact video signal from two different cameras.
Before staging, video came from the camera on the frustum, looking down.
After staging, video auto switched to the camera on 5SS (fifth segment simulator), looking up.
-
Is the dual engine Centaur still in production?
No it isn't. It would require a development effort that wouldn't necessarily be cheap, but I guess that's a relative term if it cost us $400+ million to get to yesterday's launch. It would be a lot less than that to re-establish the dual engine capability on Atlas/Centaur.
Let's also note that it took billions to get to this point, not just $400 million. $445 or so is just for costs associated with launching this specific hardware, which as we all know shares almost no commonality with Ares I other than exterior dimensions. Ares I has churned up billions and will continue to churn of tens of billions more if we choose to let it.
-
Vehicle Cam 1 proved no good for staging, lost signal right at staging.
Interesting trick there, I would say! One transmitter for 2 cameras.
Hardly unusual or a first, other vehicles use it as well. Typically two transmitters total.
-
$445 or so is just for costs associated with launching this specific hardware, which as we all know shares almost no commonality with Ares I other than exterior dimensions.
Is there a breakdown of this $445M anywhere?
-
I'm not sure - but just so your clear, the Ares I-X yesterday (i.e. the point of this thread) was not using a dual engine Centaur for launch.
Yes, in fact it's a real rarity to see a two stage vehicle with one engine in total nowadays.
LOL
Analyst
-
A "normal" upper stage doesn't get to be on its own until it's well out of the atmosphere. Because Ares-I's first stage is so weak, it's upper stage gets to fly while there still is significant q. If there was no recontact, doesn't the performance of the upper stage simulator indicate that's it's pretty severely aerodynamically unstable?
The Ares I-X staging altitude was about the same as a Proton's first stage jettison altitude (40 km versus 42.5 km). The staging velocity is in the same ballpark (1,488 m/s versus 1,797 m/s). Proton is considered "normal" enough. It's flown 348 times, and more times this year than any other commercial comsat launcher.
Ares I will stage higher (nearly 60 km) and faster (~2,000 m/s) than either Ares I-X or Proton. (Ares I staging will occur at roughly the same altitude as Saturn IB - a rocket that worked pretty well.) The Ares I first stage will also produce 1.25 times more total impulse than a Proton first stage, and 1.6 times more than a Saturn IB booster stage. Hardly "weak".
- Ed Kyle
I didn't realize Proton was a 2-stage. :D
-
I'm not sure - but just so your clear, the Ares I-X yesterday (i.e. the point of this thread) was not using a dual engine Centaur for launch.
Yes, in fact it's a real rarity to see a two stage vehicle with one engine in total nowadays.
LOL
Analyst
Ahhh... Now I understand all that PAO "Historic" folderol.
;)
-
Wow, I've been waiting for about 24 hours now for somebody to post replay videos of the launch here, and this is all that there is? This is going to take me like 24 hours to download! Didn't anybody else want to post a more compact version of the video for all of our benefit?
-
Thanks Ed for answering a good question?
I have worked on numerous NASA GSFC missions.
Developed UARS for STS-48 launch and a 15 year mission.
The UARS program -- $750,000,000
under budget and on schedule.
NASA doesn't have unlimited funds!!
Please, it NOT nonsense!!!!
$450,000,000 for this test
Can someone show me the pieces that added up to the total?
If this is "Nothing like Ares-1" (for manned flight) then what is it for?
Will there be an all up unmanned launch of Ares-1?
What will that cost?
This is cheaper than STS flights?
On May 5, 1961, Alan Shepard was launched suborbitally to an altitude of over 116 miles, 303 statute miles down range from Cape Canaveral. His 15 minute 28 second flight achieved a velocity of 5,134 miles per hour and pulled a maximum of 11G's.2
The UNMANNED 327-foot tall Ares I-X test vehicle produced 2.6 million pounds of thrust to accelerate the rocket to nearly 3 g's and Mach 4.76. It capped its easterly flight at a sub-orbital altitude of 150,000 feet after the separation of its first stage and splashed down nearly 150 miles down range.
Seems little progress has been made in 48 years
Nonsense. Please. Just stop.
- Ed Kyle
-
ya know i think my favorite part about yesterday's launch was when at T-7 seconds he studdered and was like woops not a shuttle, no "we have main engine start" just thought that was awesome.
-
Wow, I've been waiting for about 24 hours now for somebody to post replay videos of the launch
Why have you been waiting? John44 reposted them, quite compactly, on his site yesterday.
http://www.space-multimedia.nl.eu.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=category§ionid=1&id=1&Itemid=2
-
The launch was uploaded within 10 minutes of it launching! This thread shouldn't even be here, as it's an external download. Moving it.
-
I heard the stutter also, I thoght he just got ahead of himslef in the count.
I was odd not hearing the H2 flares fire up at T-10. Really shows how loud a SRB is, when it fired it sounded like a bomb went off.
-
As you can see in the picture, excepting an already existent one Space Shuttle engine, the entire AREX I-X is just a simulator (inert mass).
If you don't have the slightest idea of what you are talking about, it's better to not talk.
-
The launch was uploaded within 10 minutes of it launching! This thread shouldn't even be here, as it's an external download. Moving it.
Call me crazy, but I don't think that visitors to the site should be forced to search through 46 pages of thread postings to find a link to the launch video. Is that not the whole point of the video portion of this forum?
-
Pad B opened back up after another significant toxic leak this morning...
-
It's an understatement to say that the U.S. needs something that's efficient (and simple?) like the Soyuz. Ares doesn't look as elegant as the shuttle, but judging from today's launch, making the right refinements to the design here and there
What exactly did you judge from today's launch? I only saw the proof of the already known aerospace truth that if you push anything hard enough, it will fly.
and receiving proper funding should give the U.S. a vehicle that's on the same level of reliability as the Russian's launch system.
US *already* *has* such a vehicle, even two: Delta and Atlas. Hopefully soon will have F9. How many more rockets do we need in 25 ton class??
-
Image ATK/Nasa just tweeted of the SRM.
-
That would most likely be from the the impact with the pad that looks like happened from the "tilt" question I posed earlier. In addition I hear the nozzle has a dent.
How would they know if the nozzle has a dent? The SRB nozzle extension is separated just prior to splashdown and is not recovered.
-
NASA have proven for the first time that an SRB can be used as an unassisted 1st stage (ie without SSME assistance).
Well, actually the Minuteman ICBM, first flown in the early 1960s, has an unassisted SRM for the first, second and third stages. Granted, at 60 feet, it's rather much smaller than ARES, but it's still no slouch of a rocket.
-
NASA have proven for the first time that an SRB can be used as an unassisted 1st stage (ie without SSME assistance).
Well, actually the Minuteman ICBM, first flown in the early 1960s, has an unassisted SRM for the first, second and third stages. Granted, at 60 feet, it's rather much smaller than ARES, but it's still no slouch of a rocket.
Polaris did it before that. ;)
-
Image ATK/Nasa just tweeted of the SRM.
That was posted yesterday - keep an eye on the NASA.gov homepage for many more imagery.
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/397883main_AIX%20Floating.jpg
-
If you don't have the slightest idea of what you are talking about, it's better to not talk.
I suppose that this was just pure arrogance and nothing more.
No, that was intelligence. For someone with only 15 posts, I think you sound more like arrogance.
There's much more to Ares I-X than the SRB and inert mass.
-
If you don't have the slightest idea of what you are talking about, it's better to not talk.
I suppose that this was just pure arrogance and nothing more.
No, that was intelligence. For someone with only 15 posts, I think you sound more like arrogance.
There's much more to Ares I-X than the SRB and inert mass.
I think many of the people here live to bash NASA.
-
I think many of the people here live to bash NASA.
No, just want NASA not to waste the taxpayers' money. There is nothing wrong with being critical of NASA. Just must have a basis for it.
-
If you don't have the slightest idea of what you are talking about, it's better to not talk.
I suppose that this was just pure arrogance and nothing more.
No, that was intelligence. For someone with only 15 posts, I think you sound more like arrogance.
There's much more to Ares I-X than the SRB and inert mass.
ummm
sexy avionics :P
sexy parachutes :P
did we recover this bird from a higher apogee or is that the next test flight?
learn alot doing that
lots of info on Ares 1 over at L2
-
We need this system, ironically the shuttle is too expensive to use for what was its PRIMARY mission when developed: Fly to a space station (in fact one of the first STS missions was going to be a Skylab rescue mission).
We need something like the Russians have, a good cheap ship that gets us for point A to point B and back. No sense in driving the Porsche down to the local store for food when the Citation will do just find.
How cheap is Soyuz (LV and capsule) really? If the US had proceeded with the original Saturn I (with the kerolox second stage), and had flown something like a Big Gemini on top of it, how cheap would it be now?
I like Soyuz a lot, and Saturn even more, but while the 1B was (is) much more powerful than the Soyuz, and the planed upgrades (single F-1/F-1A on the LS, reducing the tanks from 9 to 2, dropping the 8 fins, and using the J-2S on the upper stage) would have made it even more powerful, the Ares is supposed to be yet even more powerful for the same (or even less? Hmmmm) cost as Soyuz. And that's about the most gracious thing I've ever said about da stick.
The last 1B put 16,700 kg into a 140 mile orbit. (sorry to mix systems there) Ares is supposed to put 25,000 kg into LEO, and I assume that means to the ISS which would make the power difference even more remarkable. (sorry if my figure for Ares mass to the ISS is off, I don't have a mind for the minutia like some here do.)
-
Can you post that pic so we can see?
-
That was posted yesterday - keep an eye on the NASA.gov homepage for many more imagery.
I just saw a picture via e-mail of a lovely, large dent in the side of the motor. No missing paint or displaced metal, so it likely was due to simple water impact. Location is right about the aft center/aft segment field joint.
Has this kind of thing been seen before?
Stupid question: Is it even conceivable that this could have happened at ignition?
-
We need this system, ironically the shuttle is too expensive to use for what was its PRIMARY mission when developed: Fly to a space station (in fact one of the first STS missions was going to be a Skylab rescue mission).
We need something like the Russians have, a good cheap ship that gets us for point A to point B and back. No sense in driving the Porsche down to the local store for food when the Citation will do just find.
How cheap is Soyuz (LV and capsule) really? If the US had proceeded with the original Saturn I (with the kerolox second stage), and had flown something like a Big Gemini on top of it, how cheap would it be now?
I like Soyuz a lot, and Saturn even more, but while the 1B was (is) much more powerful than the Soyuz, and the planed upgrades (single F-1/F-1A on the LS, reducing the tanks from 9 to 2, dropping the 8 fins, and using the J-2S on the upper stage) would have made it even more powerful, the Ares is supposed to be yet even more powerful for the same (or even less? Hmmmm) cost as Soyuz. And that's about the most gracious thing I've ever said about da stick.
The last 1B put 16,700 kg into a 140 mile orbit. (sorry to mix systems there) Ares is supposed to put 25,000 kg into LEO, and I assume that means to the ISS which would make the power difference even more remarkable. (sorry if my figure for Ares mass to the ISS is off, I don't have a mind for the minutia like some here do.)
I have been thinking on this some as well. The Ares I, when built, will have a re-usable first stage. Not too bad an idea, actually. if we had a way to re-use the 2nd and crew stage, would be a full RLV.
-
There has been quite a few posts regarding Ares' tower avoidance maneuver. It didn't look at all "aggressive" to me, but for comparison, here's a simple montage.
-
I have been thinking on this some as well. The Ares I, when built, will have a re-usable first stage.
It is a recoverable first stage, that has to go through extensive refurbishment and rebuilding.
-
We need this system, ironically the shuttle is too expensive to use for what was its PRIMARY mission when developed: Fly to a space station (in fact one of the first STS missions was going to be a Skylab rescue mission).
We need something like the Russians have, a good cheap ship that gets us for point A to point B and back. No sense in driving the Porsche down to the local store for food when the Citation will do just find.
How cheap is Soyuz (LV and capsule) really? If the US had proceeded with the original Saturn I (with the kerolox second stage), and had flown something like a Big Gemini on top of it, how cheap would it be now?
I like Soyuz a lot, and Saturn even more, but while the 1B was (is) much more powerful than the Soyuz, and the planed upgrades (single F-1/F-1A on the LS, reducing the tanks from 9 to 2, dropping the 8 fins, and using the J-2S on the upper stage) would have made it even more powerful, the Ares is supposed to be yet even more powerful for the same (or even less? Hmmmm) cost as Soyuz. And that's about the most gracious thing I've ever said about da stick.
The last 1B put 16,700 kg into a 140 mile orbit. (sorry to mix systems there) Ares is supposed to put 25,000 kg into LEO, and I assume that means to the ISS which would make the power difference even more remarkable. (sorry if my figure for Ares mass to the ISS is off, I don't have a mind for the minutia like some here do.)
I have been thinking on this some as well. The Ares I, when built, will have a re-usable first stage. Not too bad an idea, actually. if we had a way to re-use the 2nd and crew stage, would be a full RLV.
I wasn't talking about 1B, I was talking about original Saturn 1, which had 6x RL-10 upper stage, and particularly the unbuilt original proposal, with a kerolox upper stage. I also have some question about calling the RSRM "reusable." When we talk about RLVs, we generally talk about something that essentially needs some repair, followed by refueling, to be reused. Not something that has to be broken down into its constituent parts and essentially remanufactured between flights.
-
I just recieved the same pics that padrat is talking about, definitly a good sized dent on the side. But yeah hard to tell from what. Could the water dent it like that? Do the shuttle SRBs get that beat up?
Sorry cant attach it, posting this from my phone
-
We need this system, ironically the shuttle is too expensive to use for what was its PRIMARY mission when developed: Fly to a space station (in fact one of the first STS missions was going to be a Skylab rescue mission).
We need something like the Russians have, a good cheap ship that gets us for point A to point B and back. No sense in driving the Porsche down to the local store for food when the Citation will do just find.
How cheap is Soyuz (LV and capsule) really? If the US had proceeded with the original Saturn I (with the kerolox second stage), and had flown something like a Big Gemini on top of it, how cheap would it be now?
I like Soyuz a lot, and Saturn even more, but while the 1B was (is) much more powerful than the Soyuz, and the planed upgrades (single F-1/F-1A on the LS, reducing the tanks from 9 to 2, dropping the 8 fins, and using the J-2S on the upper stage) would have made it even more powerful, the Ares is supposed to be yet even more powerful for the same (or even less? Hmmmm) cost as Soyuz. And that's about the most gracious thing I've ever said about da stick.
The last 1B put 16,700 kg into a 140 mile orbit. (sorry to mix systems there) Ares is supposed to put 25,000 kg into LEO, and I assume that means to the ISS which would make the power difference even more remarkable. (sorry if my figure for Ares mass to the ISS is off, I don't have a mind for the minutia like some here do.)
I have been thinking on this some as well. The Ares I, when built, will have a re-usable first stage. Not too bad an idea, actually. if we had a way to re-use the 2nd and crew stage, would be a full RLV.
I wasn't talking about 1B, I was talking about original Saturn 1, which had 6x RL-10 upper stage, and particularly the unbuilt original proposal, with a kerolox upper stage. I also have some question about calling the RSRM "reusable." When we talk about RLVs, we generally talk about something that essentially needs some repair, followed by refueling, to be reused. Not something that has to be broken down into its constituent parts and essentially remanufactured between flights.
I only cited the 1B as a way of making the point that these early class of rockets - the Soyuz and the comparable Saturn I - and the much, much more powerful Saturn 1B are still not in the power class of the Ares I.
But I guess that's the $10 billion ($40 billion?) question. How much power does one really need? Clearly, just to get three bodies to the ISS all you need is Soyuz.
But, IMO, if a new motor were to be invested in, then the five seg SRM is a dud and dead end. I'd echo the comments of Larry Williams of SpaceX:
“If we had the F-1 back, that would be a game-changer, in my opinion, in terms of cost of access to space.” That could be done, he said, for “a relatively small investment” spread across several agencies.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1329/1
And that would allow a series of rockets with many varieties of capabilities, instead of the fixed capacity the Ares I locks NASA into.
-
Bill Harwood has the picture in his latest story.
-
The same pictures and two more are also in Todd Halvorson's (FloridaToday) last "Flametrench" post. He's also referring to internal E-Mails that he obtained, which indicate that only one of the three parachutes deployed properly (http://www.floridatoday.com/content/blogs/space/).
This is my first post, so please advise me if anything is amiss ...
-
The same pictures and two more are also in Todd Halvorson's (FloridaToday) last "Flametrench" post. He's also referring to internal E-Mails that he obtained, which indicate that only one of the three parachutes deployed properly (http://www.floridatoday.com/content/blogs/space/).
This is my first post, so please advise me if anything is amiss ...
No, that's fine...direct link:
http://www.floridatoday.com/content/blogs/space/2009/10/live-at-ksc-ares-i-x-parachutes-fail.shtml
-
It is a recoverable first stage, that has to go through extensive refurbishment and rebuilding.
I haven't been following Ares I development that closely, but I seem to recall that first stage reusability was at risk of being dropped. Also, is the Orion vehicle still expected to be reusable, or is that TBD at this point?
-
It seems that the success that ARES I-X had determined some people to start thinking of a modified version called ARCARES (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=19261.0)
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=19261.0
What about the ISP of that rocket? Is it greater than the ISP of a similar space vehicle which uses an ordinary solid fuel booster?
-
Are there any remotely likely scenarios where they would have to press 39-B back into service to finish the Shuttle Program?
Obviously, 39-A would have to be seriously unusable and yet at the same time the Shuttle it last launched would have to safely complete its mission. I don't see Shuttle flights ever resuming in the aftermath of a third Shuttle disaster.
Perhaps in a case where serious foundation damage on the pad or significant RSS/FSS corrosion were discovered? Structural collapse imminent.
To get 39B back in service, my understanding is that the 39B Payload Changeout Mechanism would have to be re certified. (Or could the 39A PCM be relocated to 39B?) The LO2 vent hood and crew access arm would have to be re-installed.
Could all of this even be possible in time to support finishing out the STS manifest?
I would say it is pretty certain that 39B will never launch another shuttle. The amount and type of mods that were done for Ares I-X pretty much sealed the deal. Obviously the GOX vent hood and OAA would have to be replaced, however the OAA mounts have been removed, not to mention the large VSS platform in the way now. Not sure how much of the PCR has been cannabilized. pretty soon we are going to start safing and inerting the hyper system, then start pulling components off of the structure. Plus other issues that have been found that need to be addressed just from age and corrosion. 39B has seen it's last launch for quite some time.
-
A "normal" upper stage doesn't get to be on its own until it's well out of the atmosphere. Because Ares-I's first stage is so weak, it's upper stage gets to fly while there still is significant q. If there was no recontact, doesn't the performance of the upper stage simulator indicate that's it's pretty severely aerodynamically unstable?
The Ares I-X staging altitude was about the same as a Proton's first stage jettison altitude (40 km versus 42.5 km). The staging velocity is in the same ballpark (1,488 m/s versus 1,797 m/s). Proton is considered "normal" enough. It's flown 348 times, and more times this year than any other commercial comsat launcher.
Ares I will stage higher (nearly 60 km) and faster (~2,000 m/s) than either Ares I-X or Proton. (Ares I staging will occur at roughly the same altitude as Saturn IB - a rocket that worked pretty well.) The Ares I first stage will also produce 1.25 times more total impulse than a Proton first stage, and 1.6 times more than a Saturn IB booster stage. Hardly "weak".
- Ed Kyle
I didn't realize Proton was a 2-stage. :D
Of course it isn't. It uses lower energy propellants in its upper stages. What is your point?
- Ed Kyle
-
That was posted yesterday - keep an eye on the NASA.gov homepage for many more imagery.
I just saw a picture via e-mail of a lovely, large dent in the side of the motor. No missing paint or displaced metal, so it likely was due to simple water impact. Location is right about the aft center/aft segment field joint.
Has this kind of thing been seen before?
Stupid question: Is it even conceivable that this could have happened at ignition?
I was wondering if, with the mention of paint bubbling, the high heat of the casing caused it to buckle from the impact into the cold Atlantic (if it impacted straight down and the water couldn't fill up inside the case).
-
I was wondering if, with the mention of paint bubbling, the high heat of the casing caused it to buckle from the impact into the cold Atlantic (if it impacted straight down and the water couldn't fill up inside the case).
The paint bubbling is from entry and is standard
-
I was wondering if, with the mention of paint bubbling, the high heat of the casing caused it to buckle from the impact into the cold Atlantic (if it impacted straight down and the water couldn't fill up inside the case).
The paint bubbling is from entry and is standard
I know ...I was using it as a reference for the high heat ;)
-
A "normal" upper stage doesn't get to be on its own until it's well out of the atmosphere. Because Ares-I's first stage is so weak, it's upper stage gets to fly while there still is significant q. If there was no recontact, doesn't the performance of the upper stage simulator indicate that's it's pretty severely aerodynamically unstable?
The Ares I-X staging altitude was about the same as a Proton's first stage jettison altitude (40 km versus 42.5 km). The staging velocity is in the same ballpark (1,488 m/s versus 1,797 m/s). Proton is considered "normal" enough. It's flown 348 times, and more times this year than any other commercial comsat launcher.
Ares I will stage higher (nearly 60 km) and faster (~2,000 m/s) than either Ares I-X or Proton. (Ares I staging will occur at roughly the same altitude as Saturn IB - a rocket that worked pretty well.) The Ares I first stage will also produce 1.25 times more total impulse than a Proton first stage, and 1.6 times more than a Saturn IB booster stage. Hardly "weak".
- Ed Kyle
I didn't realize Proton was a 2-stage. :D
Of course it isn't. It uses lower energy propellants in its upper stages. What is your point?
- Ed Kyle
Most 2-stage rockets have a more even delta-V split than Ares-I.
-
Most 2-stage rockets have a more even delta-V split than Ares-I.
There aren't many purely two-stage rockets. There have been 61 orbital launch attempts so far this year, for example. Only 8 were two-stage rockets and only 6 of those were LEO-bound.
At least half of those 6 flights were performed by rockets with a substantially less than even delta-v split. The other half were relatively limited in payload capacity.
Examples of two stage rockets with less than even delta-v split for LEO include Atlas 5-401, Delta 4 Medium, Taurus 2, KSLV-1, etc. Zenit 2, Saturn IB, and Ares I all have/had less than even delta-v splits as well.
Real rockets are constrained by available propulsion, etc. Perfect delta-v splits only happen on spreadsheets.
As for Ares I, it is attempting to do with two stages (payload mass-wise) something that no other two-stage rocket can, or ever has, done. One might argue that it should have been a three-stage rocket, though at greater operational cost. That it isn't "perfect", given the limited choices in U.S. high-thrust propulsion, is not surprising.
- Ed Kyle
-
I was wondering if, with the mention of paint bubbling, the high heat of the casing caused it to buckle from the impact into the cold Atlantic (if it impacted straight down and the water couldn't fill up inside the case).
The paint bubbling is from entry and is standard
So what does that say for Ares I first stage reusability... I remember reading on here considerable concern about the heating of the first stage as it reenters, since the "real" Ares I stages considerably higher and faster... which means a faster, hotter reentry...
At what point does the entry heating do bad things to the strength of the casing (like heat annealing)?? Thanks! OL JR :)
-
I've converted some video stuff from separation on my own.
...
What do you think? ??? It seems to be falling the opposite direction of the tumbeling thruster!
some small dynamics...
-
As for Ares I, it is attempting to do with two stages (payload mass-wise) something that no other two-stage rocket can, or ever has, done. One might argue that it should have been a three-stage rocket, though at greater operational cost.
Isn't Ares-1 essentially a three stage vehicle, with the second stage intentionally leaving Orion in an "orbit" that intersects the atmosphere? Or is that delta-V split insignificant? Where is the line usually drawn?
And why would a "three stage vehicle" have "greater operational cost" than a Ares-1 with its solid motor, and cryogenic and hypergolic engines?
-
Most 2-stage rockets have a more even delta-V split than Ares-I.
There aren't many purely two-stage rockets. There have been 61 orbital launch attempts so far this year, for example. Only 8 were two-stage rockets and only 6 of those were LEO-bound.
At least half of those 6 flights were performed by rockets with a substantially less than even delta-v split. The other half were relatively limited in payload capacity.
Examples of two stage rockets with less than even delta-v split for LEO include Atlas 5-401, Delta 4 Medium, Taurus 2, KSLV-1, etc. Zenit 2, Saturn IB, and Ares I all have/had less than even delta-v splits as well.
Real rockets are constrained by available propulsion, etc. Perfect delta-v splits only happen on spreadsheets.
Who says perfect delta-v splits are even desirable? Given that 1st stage engines have to work at sea level pressure, but the majority of flight is in near vacuum, and (especially LH2) upper stages have higher Isp, asymmetric delta-v split should be the norm, not the exception.
As for Ares I, it is attempting to do with two stages (payload mass-wise) something that no other two-stage rocket can, or ever has, done. One might argue that it should have been a three-stage rocket, though at greater operational cost. That it isn't "perfect", given the limited choices in U.S. high-thrust propulsion, is not surprising.
- Ed Kyle
Umm, Saturn INT-21? I think it orbited just a little more mass than Ares I could. By about 50 tonnes! And that was still way less than it's maximum of 118 tonnes.
-
Getting real close to locking this thread as it's run its course and some people insist on going off topic (not that anyone has alerted it, so we can be sure everyone's happy about that.....right ;)).
(It's ran its course. I'll create a follow up area today or at the weekend - Chris).