Ares 1X launch Oct 27th

Page 7 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

trailrider

Guest
According to one report, Bill Gerstenmeyer is quoted as saying the Shuttle SRB's "only use two chutes"!! :shock: Since when has this been the case? When I worked on the program each Shuttle booster used three (3) 136 ft. diameter main chutes. Did they change something, and if so when and why? With three chutes we had "single chute out" capability to recover the boosters. The remaining two were adequate to recover the booster, albeit with more damage to the aft skirt. I realize I have been away from the program for 20 years, but it sounds a bit strange to have reduced the number of mains on Shuttle boosters. (Did they go to two 150 ft. dia. mains, or something?) Please, Shuttleguy or someone with current info, reply.
 
C

Calrissian

Guest
trailrider":2ipkye4e said:
According to one report, Bill Gerstenmeyer is quoted as saying the Shuttle SRB's "only use two chutes"!! :shock: Since when has this been the case? .
As much as I like Gerst...he is wrong.

THREE chutes on those SRBs.

*go look at any one of the booster cam videos on youtube. On the upward view - see: 4min 23' , 3 chutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eUQ3YpljrA

Indeed, 3 is always a better idea, so the new SRB design will only have two ?
-

My view on the launch...

It certainly made a lot of noise, and entertained a lot of people, and I understand the warm/fuzzy feelings of many - myself included.

Yet...Solid fuel, for me, makes the basic concept rather pointless when one of the main selling points was of 'human safety'. My heart stops every time the Shuttle SRBs ignite, and to me, it just seems like NASA hasn't learn anything.

Or am I missing something here from a physics level? Is it simply not possible right for NASA to use liquid fuelled rockets all the way up?
-
I'm not too concerned right about the seperation issue. I'd think they can sort something out, and anyway, it was not a full test of an operational vehicle anyway.

Q. Does anyone know when the follow up tests (how many), might be? I'd hope at least something in 2010, otherwise, the pace of development would be painfully slow.

**Its been ages since I posted here, but I do enjoy reading all of the discussions here regularly. I think the one big hope for the 'space fans' is to see the Chinese take command of LEO. Only then might the US leadership wake up, and give adequate funding.
 
T

tanstaafl76

Guest
MeteorWayne":monu0lrs said:
It was 4 segment for this first test flight.
Hm, am I missing something then? Aren't the SRBs on the shuttle 4 segment versions? Why do they need to test one of those again?
 
Z

Zipi

Guest
Here is Florida Today's article which is rather good: http://www.floridatoday.com/content/blo ... fail.shtml

Ares 1 chute system was used and it have 3 chutes. Only one chute opened as planned:

"Only one parachute deployed properly. One parachute failed and wrapped around the third partially deployed parachute," according to an e-mail status report obtained by Florida Today
The dent is probably caused by rough hitting to water and the SRB has been bent at that moment. I guess that the chute failure is inheritage from the contact of first and second stages.

Ares 1 uses 5 segement SRB, 5.5 segment is planned for Ares 5 Heavy design.

And what comes to Ares 1-X test objectives... Well, please see the list:

-Demonstrating control of a dynamically similar vehicle using control algorithms similar to those used for Ares I.
-Performing an in-flight separation/staging event between an Ares I-similar First Stage and a representative Upper Stage.
-Demonstrating assembly and recovery of an Ares I-like First Stage at Kennedy Space Center (KSC).
-Demonstrating First Stage separation sequencing, and measuring First Stage atmospheric entry dynamics, and parachute performance.
-Characterizing the magnitude of integrated vehicle roll torque throughout First Stage flight.

The flight also had several secondary objectives, including:

-Quantifying the effectiveness of the first stage booster deceleration motors.
-Characterizing induced environments and loads on the vehicle during ascent.
-Demonstrating a procedure for determining the vehicle’s position to orient the flight control system.
-Characterize induced loads on the Flight Test Vehicle while on the launch pad.
-Assess potential Ares I access locations in the VAB and on the Pad.
-Assess First Stage electrical umbilical performance.

More from: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/354470main_aresIX_fs_may09.pdf

And what comes to crew safety, the next is my speculation, not facts: I believe launch escape system would been able to pull this off. Second stage engine cannot ignite if there is not enough clearance between the stages, since this is not a fire in a hole design rocket. LOS would have been activated when system sensed impact or when the second stage would have tried to start and the measurements were wrong (chamber pressure, etc.). Even the second stage tumbling there would be more than 50% change for LOS to work. The only scenario of second stage tumbling and LOS not able to rescue the crew I can imagine would be that LOS or the capsule to hit the first stage during LOS powered flight or before the start of it. I might be wrong about these LOS speculations since these are only my gut feeling.
 
Z

Zipi

Guest
tanstaafl76":2hm4v9kg said:
MeteorWayne":2hm4v9kg said:
It was 4 segment for this first test flight.
Hm, am I missing something then? Aren't the SRBs on the shuttle 4 segment versions? Why do they need to test one of those again?
SRB has never been flown solo. This was rather good test to characterize the properties such big solid fueled booster. And they also tested plenty of other things, please see my previous post.
 
V

vulture4

Guest
An SRB forward skirt was dented on at least one shuttle flight due to an unusually hard water impact, but this looks considerably more dramatic. However, it begs the question; is it actually economically feasibe to recover the SRBs? Unlike the orbiter, the SRBs must be completely rebuilt for each mission, all parts disassembled and stripped to the bare metal, inspected and rebuilt. If anyone knows of an actual study on this question, it would be interesting.
 
S

stevekk

Guest
vulture4":2b4457fr said:
An SRB forward skirt was dented on at least one shuttle flight due to an unusually hard water impact, but this looks considerably more dramatic. However, it begs the question; is it actually economically feasibe to recover the SRBs? Unlike the orbiter, the SRBs must be completely rebuilt for each mission, all parts disassembled and stripped to the bare metal, inspected and rebuilt. If anyone knows of an actual study on this question, it would be interesting.
I think that is one of the major contributing factors in the cost to launch the shuttle. I always wondered how much they actually save by "recycling" the shells of the SRBs.

Of course, there is significant re-manufacturing of the Shuttle itself after each flight. I know they built Discovery or Endeavor out of existing spares, but it only cost around 1 billion for the replacement shuttle. I wonder if we could build another one from scratch for under 2 or 3 billion.
 
R

radarredux

Guest
vulture4":3te01u4o said:
However, it begs the question; is it actually economically feasibe to recover the SRBs?
I think I read some time ago that the answer is "they aren't sure", but at the same time they aren't counting on it. Besides, launch frequency will be so low (maybe twice a year at most) that it may not matter. Coming from very fuzzy memory here, there is also the issue of the 5 segment booster going higher and further down range as well, both which may complicate recovery and refurbishment efforts.
 
R

radarredux

Guest
mr_mark":10rnh0st said:
Calling this a failure is a total joke and people should be ashamed of playing so loosely with the facts. This test was to determine in flight characteristics of the Ares design.
I think you are right in that they learned/confirmed a lot of what they planned on. This launch was packed with sensors, so it will give them a chance to compare what they got with what their models said they should get.

The only concern I have is the separation issue. When the SRB separate from the Shuttle, they still have some residual burn, but it doesn't matter. I think this test showed that it is something to be concerned about with an inline second stage. But this might seem strange to some, I also see this as a "success" because discovering unknowns (or experiencing "potentials" for real) is one of the reasons they do tests like these.

Better to learn it now than to build out the entire program and discover it during the first launch with humans onboard.
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
It was after all a "test" flight, not an attempt to launch a satellite or humans. The goal was to acquire gobs of data, which seems to have been accomplished.
 
N

nimbus

Guest
tanstaafl76":2latvci6 said:
It reminds me of that failed SpaceX Falcon1 flight, where they didn't account for residual post-separation acceleration of the first stage.
That would be so ironic...
 
R

radarredux

Guest
MeteorWayne":3rydh9bs said:
It was after all a "test" flight, not an attempt to launch a satellite or humans. The goal was to acquire gobs of data, which seems to have been accomplished.
I remember being fairly nervous watching the very first launch of the Shuttle -- with humans onboard!! :eek:

I could scarcely believe they would do that then, and I sure hope we don't see stuff like that in the future. Whether it is Ares I with the first full Orion spacecraft, or Falcon 9 with Dragon, or whatever, I hope they get some automated and unmanned tests under their belts before they lunch with humans aboard.
 
J

job1207

Guest
Re: Ares 1X launch Oct 27th

Postby aphh » Thu Oct 29, 2009 1:08 pm
What I described is clearly visible in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lgaW4piSus (at 02:30).

Just when the staging takes place, there is a burst of residue that makes the 1st stage collide with the 2nd stage. This is no small issue.

The 1st stage is now very light, especially when separated, so only a tiny bit of boost will make it accelerate forward, whereas the 2nd stage is heavy so it won't get out of the way just like that. What a bummer.
This IS rocket science

As aphh notes, the first stage actually REIGNITES!!! and takes out the second stage. That is LOC, without a doubt. The interesting thing, is the reignition came quite a few seconds after meco.
 
J

job1207

Guest
yes, well that is why the main engine took out the second stage. Splat, LOC, end of flight. You can see it clearly on that video. and it was clearly a re ignition.
 
T

trailrider

Guest
docm":1afa3w6e said:
With solids MECO is an event without clear boundaries :p

Lots of pretty pictures....

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/1 ... es_ix.html

I like this one....

Yeah, that is "interesting". In my personal experience it is nothing compared to crawling inside the hatch at the base of a ballistic missile firing submarine with the nozzles (4) of a Polaris A-1E (exercise...read dummy payload) missile about three feet above your face (1961). Or going down to the bottom of a Minuteman I launch tube and looking up at the four nozzles of the first stage of that! Of course there was no danger... :?

IMHO, the fact that they were able to recover the Ares I-X booster at all with 1-1/2 main parachutes deployed and a 15% overweight factor is a tribute to Pioneer's (whatever Pioneer Parachute is now called) work. Interesting...these 150 ft. dia. chutes are made of Kevlar. When there was talk of replacing the Shuttle SRB's with "Light-weight" ones (filament wound cases), Pioneer was going to go to 115 ft. dia. Kevlar chutes instead of the 136 ft. dia. nylon ones. Never happened though...at least on my watch! If nothing else it will give more data for whatever future applications there are for recovering large payloads by parachute.

Again, I say congratulations to the Ares I-X team for a successful TEST flight. And I STILL DON'T LIKE SOLID ROCKETS FOR HIGH-VALUE PAYLOADS (humans especially)!

Ad LEO! Ad Luna! Ad Ares! Ad Astra! (In that order, thank you!)
 
D

davcbow

Guest
My thoughts on the Ares 1x mission are that it was a test of the 1st stage rocket booster... I agree that it looks like it bumped into the upper stage dummy at separation. We have to remember that it had no guidance systems, no power and was just an empty shell filled with ballast for weighting purposes for the flight.... So when the separation occurred it simply fell back into the 1st stage booster which still had its guidance going and still was going forward. I think that if the upper stage had power and guidance that wouldn't have occurred because it would have its guidance system going and firing its engines to keep going and get out of the way....Yes I agree the parachute problem will be looked into and tested and any other problems the team detected will be looked into and tested to make sure they never occur again... :cool:
 
N

nimbus

Guest
Does anyone have or know where to find pics of the pad after launch?
 
D

docm

Guest
nasaspaceflight.com article....



Pad 39B suffers substantial damage from Ares I-X launch – Parachute update

October 31st, 2009 by Chris Bergin

Pad workers have begun to evaluate what is being described as substantial heat damage to Pad 39B, following the launch of Ares I-X. Meanwhile, the damage to Ares I-X’s First Stage was the result of splashing down at high speed and at an angle, due to only “one and a half” of its three main parachutes providing deceleration to the booster.
>
 
L

Leovinus

Guest
I was only 1 when Alan Shepard flew in Mercury. The first launch I remember seeing on TV was a Gemini. Gemini's were flying so often that I expected one every day. Eventually I grew up enough to learn about what they heck they were doing. I've been a space nut ever since.

Now I may not be old enough to remember the start of the first drive to leave the Earth, I am very glad to have witnessed the inception of this second effort. It was a thrilling launch to watch.
 
T

ThereIWas2

Guest
Is SRB exhaust more corrosive than kerolox or H/O exhaust? Considering the nasty chemicals involved, I would not be surprised.
 
E

EldonL

Guest
I guess the biggest thing I do not understand is why just "waste" the second stage mock-up section? Could they not have used it for other testing? As an example to test of the crew module escape system, after seperation they could have simulated a second stage main engine failure (basically what this was since there was no second stage engine to burn) lit up a functioning escape system ( it has already gone through ground tests) and also tested the crew module decent parachute and crew module recovery systems. It seems like a husge waste not to test more than one system at a time when the tests do not direclty overlap and failure of any one would not affect any of the testing streams prior to it, the rest would be considered a bonus!
 
Z

Zipi

Guest
EldonL":gamqdsuw said:
I guess the biggest thing I do not understand is why just "waste" the second stage mock-up section? Could they not have used it for other testing? As an example to test of the crew module escape system, after seperation they could have simulated a second stage main engine failure (basically what this was since there was no second stage engine to burn) lit up a functioning escape system ( it has already gone through ground tests) and also tested the crew module decent parachute and crew module recovery systems. It seems like a husge waste not to test more than one system at a time when the tests do not direclty overlap and failure of any one would not affect any of the testing streams prior to it, the rest would be considered a bonus!
I'm not sure, but I think LES had some measurement instrumentation inside which is not present in real working LES.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY