|
rsp1202
|
|
« Reply #240 on: 07/08/2009 03:34 PM » |
|
I'm glad to see a successful anything in relation to Constellation, Mike's Launch Abort System or not.
|
|
|
|
yg1968
|
|
« Reply #241 on: 07/08/2009 03:43 PM » |
|
Here is the video of the launch on YouTube:
<![CDATA[<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/5xEshwVHnMY&rel=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/5xEshwVHnMY&rel=1</a>]]>
|
|
|
|
SpaceWarper
|
|
« Reply #242 on: 07/08/2009 04:14 PM » |
|
What purposes could MLAS support/handle after launch?
- deorbit
- landing
- something you don't think about?
|
|
|
|
edkyle99
|
|
« Reply #243 on: 07/08/2009 04:21 PM » |
|
the rockets are under it,and not on the sides?
This test had very little to do with an actual MLAS design. Motors were different and stabilization system was different.
Danny Deger
This was a test of the system that will be used to actually test the system. This test isn't a waste unless one thinks that MLAS itself is a waste. In the past, running parallel competitive design efforts like this for high-value programs has proven to be a good idea (Atlas-Titan, Thor-Jupiter, Corona-Samos, Atlas V-Delta IV, Cygnus-Dragon, etc.). Why not "kick the tires"? - Ed Kyle
|
|
|
|
Skyrocket
|
|
« Reply #244 on: 07/08/2009 06:03 PM » |
|
What purposes could MLAS support/handle after launch?
- deorbit
- landing
- something you don't think about?
Wouldn't work: - deorbit - too much thrust, too high acceleration, too heavy to take it to orbit - landing - not controlable
|
|
|
|
Danny Dot
|
|
« Reply #245 on: 07/08/2009 06:12 PM » |
|
the rockets are under it,and not on the sides?
This test had very little to do with an actual MLAS design. Motors were different and stabilization system was different.
Danny Deger
This was a test of the system that will be used to actually test the system. This test isn't a waste unless one thinks that MLAS itself is a waste.
In the past, running parallel competitive design efforts like this for high-value programs has proven to be a good idea (Atlas-Titan, Thor-Jupiter, Corona-Samos, Atlas V-Delta IV, Cygnus-Dragon, etc.). Why not "kick the tires"?
- Ed Kyle
I have no problem with a parallel effort, but this test didn't retire any of the risks of the MLAS motors or the MLAS stabilization system -- both of which are very high risk. At least they could have tested the grid fins during coast. It did show we can flip, jettison the cover, and land with chutes. None of these have any risk to them. I am not a big fan of the MLAS concept because I don't think it can be kept stable, especially at the very, very high dynamic pressures of Ares. Griffin may have a PHD in aero and I only a Masters, but he needs to go back to school on control problems in his conceptual designs. This test did zero in my mind to advance MLAS forward. Danny Deger
|
|
|
|
SpaceWarper
|
|
« Reply #246 on: 07/08/2009 07:22 PM » |
|
What purposes could MLAS support/handle after launch?
- deorbit
- landing
- something you don't think about?
Wouldn't work:
- deorbit - too much thrust, too high acceleration, too heavy to take it to orbit
- landing - not controlable
If you fire just 2 of 4 of the rockets you would get half (symmetric) thrust. If you can half the size and double these rockets you could have a 1/4 of thrust 4x the time. I think it's worth about thinking how to combine task of jettison, deorbit and landing. Does "not controlable" mean you can't shut them off? How about droping them or drop nozzles for less thrust? May be there is a reasonable way to improve it!
|
|
|
|
Jim
|
|
« Reply #247 on: 07/08/2009 07:38 PM » |
|
If you fire just 2 of 4 of the rockets you would get half (symmetric) thrust.
If you can half the size and double these rockets you could have a 1/4 of thrust 4x the time. I think it's worth about thinking how to combine task of jettison, deorbit and landing. Does "not controlable" mean you can't shut them off? How about droping them or drop nozzles for less thrust? May be there is a reasonable way to improve it!
No and no again and again. This has be stated on many threads. All those are unreasonable and not worth it. A. It overcomplicates a safety system, which is to be simple for reliability B. It will increase the weight of the system C. It will reduce payload to orbit. d. The booster cover needs to be jettisoned before on orbit
|
|
|
|
Skyrocket
|
|
« Reply #248 on: 07/08/2009 07:57 PM » |
|
If you fire just 2 of 4 of the rockets you would get half (symmetric) thrust. You can't. The MLAS would have the motors connected by an manifold, so that they fire all together as one motor to level out thrust differences. If you can half the size and double these rockets you could have a 1/4 of thrust 4x the time. See above. I think it's worth about thinking how to combine task of jettison, deorbit and landing. En contraire. The tasks are too different. Launch abort needs high thrust during a short time. Deorbit should be much gentler. And you have too large mass penalties, if you take the LA system to orbit. Does "not controlable" mean you can't shut them off? Exactly! These are solid fuel motors. How about droping them or drop nozzles for less thrust? May be there is a reasonable way to improve it!
No! Launch escape systems have to be as simple as possible to keep them at the highes possible reliability level. It has to work at onece, there would be no second chance.
|
|
|
|
robertross
|
|
« Reply #249 on: 07/08/2009 09:41 PM » |
|
Nice video. Nice launch & recovery.
If nothing else, maybe this will be the only test launch we see of something connected to the current CxP architecture??? Never know.
|
|
|
|
madscientist197
|
|
« Reply #250 on: 07/09/2009 04:20 AM » |
|
If nothing else, maybe this will be the only test launch we see of something connected to the current CxP architecture??? Never know.
Now that's an interesting thought.
|
|
|
|
spfrss
|
|
« Reply #251 on: 07/09/2009 05:21 AM » |
|
If nothing else, maybe this will be the only test launch we see of something connected to the current CxP architecture??? Never know.
Now that's an interesting thought.
Or ANY US manned spaceflight architecture, taking into account the state of the economy and, most important, the person you elected as president. Mauro
|
|
|
|
butters
|
|
« Reply #252 on: 07/09/2009 06:21 AM » |
|
If nothing else, maybe this will be the only test launch we see of something connected to the current CxP architecture??? Never know.
Now that's an interesting thought.
Or ANY US manned spaceflight architecture, taking into account the state of the economy and, most important, the person you elected as president.
Mauro
Riiight, I'm sure that McCain would have made NASA a top priority...
|
|
|
|
renclod
|
|
« Reply #253 on: 07/09/2009 10:06 AM » |
|
Nice video. Nice launch & recovery.
Yes it was. It was worth the long wait. If nothing else, maybe this will be the only test launch we see of something connected to the current CxP architecture??? Never know.
Pad Abort - One in New Mexico, Ares I-X in Florida and (not launch, but ground test) Development Motor - One in Utah You have a lot to endure just this year alone ... emoticon below :
|
|
|
|
jongoff
|
|
« Reply #254 on: 07/10/2009 11:42 PM » |
|
Question guys, I just heard that this test wasn't even of the actual abort motors, but just of the "boost vehicle and parachutes". Anyone have any information on that? Does the $30M for MLAS include another launch that actually tests MLAS itself? Or did we just blow half a DC-X program on the world's biggest model rocket (before Ares-1X)?
~Jon
|
|
|
|
