Ares-1 Orbital Insertion, Trajectory

Cygnus_2112 · May 22, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You seem to be deliberately being picky.  The point is that there are technologies available that can be used to increase the capabilities of the SRMs if there is a need to do so. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p> </p><p>I am not being picky.  This is the "criteria" and the sales pitch that has sold the shuttle SRB as the first stage booster for Ares I.  The "logic" used to chose the SRB as first stage negates the ability to upgraded the SRM which would invalidate the logic.   If the SRB changes too much then it has no LOC/LOM advantage over a new or derived liquid booster.  Which would make EELV's "competive". </p><p> I already think it has changed too much to be able to draw upon the flight experience.   I don't agree with  Ares I, it is a bad decision and is a bad design.</p><p>However;</p><p>"of known low risk, and use manufacturing technologies that are in place.  These technologies are on other large U.S. boosters -- Titan IV B, Delta II, Delta III, Pegasus to name a few. "</p><p> That is still not good enough for a manned vehicle.  A new manned launch vehicle would never have a new solid motor as a stage.  A new solid motor can't compete with a new liquid stage in terms of LOC/LOM numbers </p><p>  </p>

KosmicHero · May 22, 2008

<p>I have to agree that the Ares I was a bad idea.  It is an idea motivated by politics (the sheltered workshops that are NASA centers).  The reuse of Shuttle tooling and equipment, manpower, etc. was a saving-face move so that certain congressmen wouldn't have to lay off thousands of civil servants and could keep big-ticket, high-profile projects in their constituencies.  It would have been orders of magnitude to just re man-rate the atlas V (which is exactly what Bigelow is doing... actually its a huge boon for LM since they're working the Orion and now the bigelow transfer vehicle too).</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> kosmichero.wordpress.com </div>

Cygnus_2112 · May 22, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have to agree that the Ares I was a bad idea.  It is an idea motivated by politics (the sheltered workshops that are NASA centers).  The reuse of Shuttle tooling and equipment, manpower, etc. was a saving-face move so that certain congressmen wouldn't have to lay off thousands of civil servants and could keep big-ticket, high-profile projects in their constituencies.  It would have been orders of magnitude to just re man-rate the atlas V (which is exactly what Bigelow is doing... actually its a huge boon for LM since they're working the Orion and now the bigelow transfer vehicle too).  <br /> Posted by KosmicHero</DIV></p><p> </p><p>1.  It isn't civil servants that would be laid off, it is the larger contractor workforce.  At KSC, contractors out number civil servants almost 10 to 1.</p><p>2.  Bigelow isn't manrating the Atla nor is he paying for it.  That would be LM and ULA's task.  </p><p>3 "bigelow transfer vehicle" Huh?  LM hasn't stated that they are going ahead with this </p>

kyle_baron · May 22, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Not necessarily true.  If there was no air or mountains, a zero flight path angle would be better. <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV></p><p> </p><p><strong><font size="3">ROFLMAO!</font><font size="1">  Your flight plan, reminds me of the movie now on HBO "The Astronaut Farmer" with Billy Bob Thorton.  His 1st attempt to get to orbit, was EXACTLY what you stated, in a zero flight path angle!  <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" /></font></strong><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

DrRocket · May 22, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I am not being picky.  This is the "criteria" and the sales pitch that has sold the shuttle SRB as the first stage booster for Ares I.  The "logic" used to chose the SRB as first stage negates the ability to upgraded the SRM which would invalidate the logic.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">"The marketing "logic" used to justify an original decision seldom is enforced when changes are needed or desired.  Logic which is basically political in the beginning becomes quite flexible afterwards.  If the right people want or need the change it can and will happen.</font> </p><p> If the SRB changes too much then it has no LOC/LOM advantage over a new or derived liquid booster.  Which would make EELV's "competive". </p><p><font color="#0000ff">LOC/LOM numbers like all calculated reliability numbes are subject to a number of assumptions and can be made to tell whatever story you desire.  Objectively solids and liquids are each in the 96%-98% category.  And making EELV's competitive is not necessarily bad, but does reflect the usual bickering between NASA and the services.  I doubt that the Air Force would want to turn the EELVs into a manned system.  If they did that and there was a failure it could shut down the system that they depend on to put up spy satellites.  The additinal scrutiny that goes with the manufacture of a man-rated system might also increase EELV costs to the Air Force.  So there is good reason to keep the systems separate.  </font> </p><p> I already think it has changed too much to be able to draw upon the flight experience.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">I would agree that the changes made dictate a full qualification of the new designs.  But I think you go to far to say that it is not righ to draw on the flight experience.  There is a lot of data for subsystems and specific desigh elements that is directly applicable.</font> </p><p>   I don't agree with  Ares I, it is a bad decision and is a bad design.</p><p>However;"of known low risk, and use manufacturing technologies that are in place.  These technologies are on other large U.S. boosters -- Titan IV B, Delta II, Delta III, Pegasus to name a few. " </p><p>That is still not good enough for a manned vehicle.  A new manned launch vehicle would never have a new solid motor as a stage.  A new solid motor can't compete with a new liquid stage in terms of LOC/LOM numbers </p><p><font color="#0000ff">As noted above I think you can make those numbers tell whatever story you want them to.  Solids and liquids have similar demonstrated reliability history, and I find the calculated numbers at best questionable. I never been on a failure investigation in which the actual failue mode was anticipated in the FMECA.</font></p><p>Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Cygnus_2112 · May 23, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><br /><font color="#0000ff">"The marketing "logic" used to justify an original decision seldom is enforced when changes are needed or desired.  Logic which is basically political in the beginning becomes quite flexible afterwards.  If the right people want or need the change it can and will happen.</font> <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p> </p><p>Not when still selling the product.  Ares I hasn't reached the point of no return.  other vehicles can still be used vs trying to put lipstick on a pig </p>

Cygnus_2112 · May 23, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'></p><p>1.  <font color="#0000ff">LOC/LOM numbers like all calculated reliability numbes are subject to a number of assumptions and can be made to tell whatever story you desire.  </font></p><p><font color="#0000ff">2.  Objectively solids and liquids are each in the 96%-98% category.  </font></p><p><font color="#0000ff">3.  And making EELV's competitive is not necessarily bad, but does reflect the usual bickering between NASA and the services.  I doubt that the Air Force would want to turn the EELVs into a manned system.  </font></p><p><font color="#0000ff">4.  If they did that and there was a failure it could shut down the system that they depend on to put up spy satellites.  </font></p><p><font color="#0000ff">5. The additinal scrutiny that goes with the manufacture of a man-rated system might also increase EELV costs to the Air Force.  So there is good reason to keep the systems separate.  </font>  <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p> </p><p>1.  Incorrect.  The numbers can be used for relative comparisons.  I agree that the absolutes are not valid</p><p>2.  Solids are not the same as liquids but lower.  Solid have lower demonstrated reliability. </p><p>3.  Not true.  There is no bickering.  </p><p>4.   Not true.  It would depend on the failure and not whether it happened on a manned or unmanned vehicle.  The USAF could still launch since its risk acceptance would be different than NASA's</p><p> 5.  There isn't any differences in processes.  No <font color="#0000ff"> additianal scrutiny required.  This was the position for OSP.  Even Griffin had stated that there isn't any real differences in launching a billion spacecraft vs a manned spacecraft</font> </p>

MeteorWayne · May 23, 2008

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> 1.  Incorrect.  The numbers can be used for relative comparisons.  I agree that the absolutes are not valid2.  Solids are not the same as liquids but lower.  Solid have lower demonstrated reliability. 3.  Not true.  There is no bickering.  4.   Not true.  It would depend on the failure and not whether it happened on a manned or unmanned vehicle.  The USAF could still launch since its risk acceptance would be different than NASA's 5.  There isn't any differences in processes.  No  additianal scrutiny required.  This was the position for OSP.  Even Griffin had stated that there isn't any real differences in launching a billion spacecraft vs a manned spacecraft <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV><br /><br />Welcome back to the the new improved pluck SDC, jim <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

DrRocket · May 23, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> 1.  Incorrect.  The numbers can be used for relative comparisons.  I agree that the absolutes are not valid2.  Solids are not the same as liquids but lower.  Solid have lower demonstrated reliability. 3.  Not true.  There is no bickering.  4.   Not true.  It would depend on the failure and not whether it happened on a manned or unmanned vehicle.  The USAF could still launch since its risk acceptance would be different than NASA's 5.  There isn't any differences in processes.  No  additianal scrutiny required.  This was the position for OSP.  Even Griffin had stated that there isn't any real differences in launching a billion spacecraft vs a manned spacecraft <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV></p><p>You are rather dogmatic in these statements.  Also mistaken about what happens in practice.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Cygnus_2112 · May 23, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are rather dogmatic in these statements.  Also mistaken about what happens in practice. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Can't be mistaken in what happens in practice with these items since I have been emmersed in them for over 25 years.  Worked OSP, nuclear powered and USAF spacecraft launch vehicle integration for many of those years.  I know the issues and facts.  Have been the in military (USAF), a civil servant and worked for a commercial company.  Seen it all. </p>

Cygnus_2112 · May 23, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Welcome back to the the new improved pluck SDC, jim <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>it sucks </p>

ThereIWas2 · May 23, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>it sucks  <br /> Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV></p><p>Something we can all agree with Jim about.  A first! <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><span class="postbody"><span style="font-style:italic"><br /></span></span></p> </div>

windnwar · May 23, 2008

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Something we can all agree with Jim about.  A first! <br />Posted by ThereIWas2</DIV><br /><br />Omg the world has ended, I'm in agreement with Jim on that too! <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-tongue-out.gif" border="0" alt="Tongue out" title="Tongue out" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font size="2" color="#0000ff">""Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein"</font></p> </div>

shuttle_guy · May 23, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Now we get to the main problem for payload performance.  "Flight path angle is variable".  Say, for example, that range safety, and g-loads are taken care of.  My question as before is, does taking a higher flight path angle, increase payload capacity, all other things being equal?  Dr. Rocket seems to agree with me, I think.  <br />Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>You maximize payload capability by launching due east to gain 100% of the Earth's rotational velocity for your launch site. Increasing or decreasing the angle from due east decreases the payload capability.</p><p> </p><p>"Ok, let me see if I have this correct.  As the Earth rotates, the orbit of the space station will pass over Florida.  That orbit is 52 Deg. with respect to the equator.  At this time, the shuttle would launch in the direction (North-west to South-east for example) to intercept this orbit?"</p><p>Yes, the Shuttle would launch into the ISS orbit as the earth rotates through the ISS orbital plane.</p><p>"Another question is, the shuttle follows the Earth's rotation, and gains 1,000 mph. for free?  How does that work?  The 1,000 mph isn't much compared to the 17,000+ mph needed for orbital insertion.  That's like getting only 6% additional speed."</p><p>The added velocity of 1,000 mph is <strong>very</strong> significant. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

MeteorWayne · May 23, 2008

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>."The added velocity of 1,000 mph is very significant. <br />Posted by shuttle_guy</DIV><br /><br />Particularly if you want to carry as much payload (i.e. non propellant) as possible <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

DrRocket · May 23, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Can't be mistaken in what happens in practice with these items since I have been emmersed in them for over 25 years.  Worked OSP, nuclear powered and USAF spacecraft launch vehicle integration for many of those years.  I know the issues and facts.  Have been the in military (USAF), a civil servant and worked for a commercial company.  Seen it all. <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV></p><p>Not everything.  I think I may have seen a bit too.  And if you are certain that you " can't be mistaken" then you almost certainly are.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Swampcat · May 23, 2008

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Welcome back to the the new improved pluck SDC, jim <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV><br /><br />Same ol' Jim. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-undecided.gif" border="0" alt="Undecided" title="Undecided" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

MeteorWayne · May 23, 2008

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Same ol' Jim. <br />Posted by Swampcat</DIV><br /><br />A SERIOUS Zombie!! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

kyle_baron · May 23, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>  The 1,000 mph isn't much compared to the 17,000+ mph needed for orbital insertion.  That's like getting only 6% additional speed."The added velocity of 1,000 mph is very significant. <br />Posted by shuttle_guy</DIV></p><p> </p><p>Yeah, I suppose so.  However, why does it have to happen on the 1st stage (Ares-1) which flies through the densest part of the atmosphere?  I would think the service module of Orion would be more efficient at the highest altitude.  Then, flying due east through the thinest part of the atmosphere (or space), at a zero flight angle.</p><p> </p><p><br /><br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

shuttle_guy · May 23, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Yeah, I suppose so.  However, why does it have to happen on the 1st stage (Ares-1) which flies through the densest part of the atmosphere?  I would think the service module of Orion would be more efficient at the highest altitude.  Then, flying due east through the thinest part of the atmosphere (or space), at a zero flight angle.   <br />Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p> </p><p>The 1000 mph due east at a KSC pad is the velocity that the vehicle has sitting on the pad. Launching at any angle other than due east means you loose a percentage of that velocity because the vehicle must take out the north or south component of the 1000 mph to get into the higher inclined orbit. ( higher that the 28.5 deg orbit it would get headed due east) </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Cygnus_2112 · May 24, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Yeah, I suppose so.  However, why does it have to happen on the 1st stage (Ares-1) which flies through the densest part of the atmosphere?  I would think the service module of Orion would be more efficient at the highest altitude.  Then, flying due east through the thinest part of the atmosphere (or space), at a zero flight angle.   <br /> Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>Because the whole vehicle is going 1000 mph as it sits on the ground. There is no selecting of when it is applied to vehicle.   You are going 1000 mph right now wrt orbital velocity  </p>

kyle_baron · May 24, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> The 1000 mph due east at a KSC pad is the velocity that the vehicle has sitting on the pad. Launching at any angle other than due east means you loose a percentage of that velocity because the vehicle must take out the north or south component of the 1000 mph to get into the higher inclined orbit. ( higher that the 28.5 deg orbit it would get headed due east)   <br />Posted by shuttle_guy</DIV></p><p> </p><p>Ok, can you tell me the flight path angle of the Shuttle SRB's when going to the ISS?  Or, is that classified?<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

Cygnus_2112 · May 24, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Ok, can you tell me the flight path angle of the Shuttle SRB's when going to the ISS?  Or, is that classified? <br /> Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>  </p><p>The flight path angle is the angle between the longitudual axis of the launch vehicle ( the whole vehicle, ET, SRBs and Orbiter)  and the horizon.  It is at 90 degrees at  launch and is near zero at SSME burnout.  The flight path angle is moves towards zero during ascent.  It is not really fixed.  </p><p> So I don't quite understand the question or what you are trying to ask </p><p> Also, the flight path angle is not a function of going to the ISS, HST, or other orbits. inclinations, etc </p>

kyle_baron · May 24, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>  The flight path angle is the angle between the longitudual axis of the launch vehicle ( the whole vehicle, ET, SRBs and Orbiter)  and the horizon.  It is at 90 degrees at  launch and is near zero at SSME burnout.  The flight path angle is moves towards zero during ascent.  It is not really fixed.   So I don't quite understand the question or what you are trying to ask  Also, the flight path angle is not a function of going to the ISS, HST, or other orbits. inclinations, etc <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV></p><p> </p><p>That tells me what I wanted to know.  You gave a very thorough answer.  Thanks!  <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

wubblie · May 29, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> The 1000 mph due east at a KSC pad is the velocity that the vehicle has sitting on the pad. Launching at any angle other than due east means you loose a percentage of that velocity because the vehicle must take out the north or south component of the 1000 mph to get into the higher inclined orbit. ( higher that the 28.5 deg orbit it would get headed due east)   <br /> Posted by shuttle_guy</DIV></p><p> </p><p>My question: Would it be possible to change the ISS's orbital inclination? The Russians can launch their Soyuz from Guiana now, so why not have the Russians use the equatorial spaceport and lower the ISS's inclination.  </p>

Ares-1 Orbital Insertion, Trajectory

Cygnus_2112

Guest

KosmicHero

Guest

Cygnus_2112

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

Cygnus_2112

Guest

Cygnus_2112

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

Cygnus_2112

Guest

Cygnus_2112

Guest

ThereIWas2

Guest

windnwar

Guest

shuttle_guy

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

shuttle_guy

Guest

Cygnus_2112

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

Cygnus_2112

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

wubblie

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page