Orion PA-1 Flight Thursday Morning

[steve82]

Looks like all the final reviews are complete and the Orion Pad Abort-1 Test is ready to fly at 0700 MT (0900 EDT) on Thursday the 6th. This is a significant event insofar as it is the first flight of new human-rated flight hardware for an American spacecraft in many years. A Launch Abort System is a very sophisticated and necessary integral component for any manned space vehicle.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/const ... index.html

You can watch it on NASA TV or catch updates online. Here's another good graphic of the mission:
http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/myexp ... ndex2.html

I'm actually a little surprised this isn't getting more coverage among the various Space websites. There was even a successful parachute test last week that nobody is talking about.

 

[EarthlingX]

I noticed some discussion, concerning Boeing funding of the project, in a couple of places in SB&T.

Here's video, that's been on for a while on NASA TV :

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CEFHvFT59Y[/youtube]

 

[steve82]

I noticed some discussion, concerning Boeing funding of the project, in a couple of places in SB&T.

Here's video, that's been on for a while on NASA TV :

Yes, that's the jettison motor that pulls the spent LAS away from the spacecraft along with the Boost Protective Cover. It also has to pull the fully-loaded unused LAS and cover safely away from the spacecraft on every nominal mission and it will have to work perfectly every time. As such, it is arguably the most important rocket motor on the entire Orion.
The Abort motor itself, the one that pulls the CM away, is a very powerful beast with over 400,000 lbs of thrust.

 

[nimbus]

I'd never seen an abort simulation. That looks like an escape path with positive G all the way. Pretty cool!

 

[vulture4]

Because it has to pull the heavy Orion capsule away from a still-accelerating SRB, the Orion escape system is much larger, heavier, and more expensive than would be needed for a liquid-fueled booster. Since we have (hopefully) abandoned plans to launch people on a huge uncontrollable solid fueled rocket in the future, why are we spending all this money on a very large escape system that will never be used? I can think of lots of more useful things to spend the money on.

 

[steve82]

Because it has to pull the heavy Orion capsule away from a still-accelerating SRB, the Orion escape system is much larger, heavier, and more expensive than would be needed for a liquid-fueled booster. Since we have (hopefully) abandoned plans to launch people on a huge uncontrollable solid fueled rocket in the future, why are we spending all this money on a very large escape system that will never be used? I can think of lots of more useful things to spend the money on.

Because a relatively simple change of propellant mass, grain, and thrust profile could scale it to pull the Orion off whatever launch vehicle it might eventually use. And the validation of the Attitude Control for stabilizing a tumbling vehicle along with the jettison motor are applicable to any LAS configuration.

 

[Zipi]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czDwthupW8c[/youtube]

 

[trailrider]

My only question is the nature of the g-loads and rate of g-onset. As the spacecraft is turning around, it looks like there would be considerable sideloads on the occupants, rather than straight "eyeballs-in". Or am I missing something?

Ad LEO! Ad LUNA! Ad ARES! AD ASTRA!

 

[MarkStanaway]

I am very impressed with this system especially the attitude control motor with its variable thrust in eight different directions. This is a significant new capability which was not part of the old Apollo LAS.
The installation of the main booster motor 'upside down' and directing the thrust nearly 180 degrees thus saving the extra weight and length involved in mounting the system on a lattice tower demonstrates some original thinking.
Mark

 

[Ruri]

Because it has to pull the heavy Orion capsule away from a still-accelerating SRB, the Orion escape system is much larger, heavier, and more expensive than would be needed for a liquid-fueled booster. Since we have (hopefully) abandoned plans to launch people on a huge uncontrollable solid fueled rocket in the future, why are we spending all this money on a very large escape system that will never be used? I can think of lots of more useful things to spend the money on.

That and a solid is more dangerous when it is destroyed by the FTS.

A liquid destructed in flight mostly results in a fairly short lived fireball with out much of a pressure wave.
But the RSRM has around 45 ATM of pressure in it while operating which will produce a pressure wave and a lot of high speed flaming debris when you blow it up.

The main rocket can be made smaller for use on an EELV.
If they choose to use the 30 or 40T Delta IV-H upgrade might as well leave it as is since this version of the delta has for GEM-60 SRMs.

These are not as dangerous as the RSRM but as seen on a delta II in 1997 they can quickly destroy the launch vehicle.

 

[steve82]

My only question is the nature of the g-loads and rate of g-onset. As the spacecraft is turning around, it looks like there would be considerable sideloads on the occupants, rather than straight "eyeballs-in". Or am I missing something?

Ad LEO! Ad LUNA! Ad ARES! AD ASTRA!

Pretty good g-loads, about 16 in the test this week. And an in-flight abort would result in a lot of "eyeballs out" g-load at abort motor cutoff if it occurred at max-Q. Potential for lots of tumbling too, that's why the attitude control test was so import. A rough, but survivable ride out.

 

[shuttle_guy]

That and a solid is more dangerous when it is destroyed by the FTS.

A liquid destructed in flight mostly results in a fairly short lived fireball with out much of a pressure wave.
But the RSRM has around 45 ATM of pressure in it while operating which will produce a pressure wave and a lot of high speed flaming debris when you blow it up.

The main rocket can be made smaller for use on an EELV.
If they choose to use the 30 or 40T Delta IV-H upgrade might as well leave it as is since this version of the delta has for GEM-60 SRMs.

These are not as dangerous as the RSRM but as seen on a delta II in 1997 they can quickly destroy the launch vehicle.[/quote]

You are mis informed. The SRBs do not "........produce a pressure wave and a lot of high speed flaming debris when you blow it up." because the Flight Termination System (FTS) does not blow the RSM up, it simply cuts the side out of the motor as shown when the FTS was fired during the Challenger accident. You are thinking of the air force study that assumed the RSM blew up. An exolosuin of the rsm is extremely unlikly since it is designed with a higher factor of safety
than a GEM. And the case is steel not composit.

 

[newsartist]

...but as seen on a delta II in 1997 they can quickly destroy the launch vehicle.

If you watch the range footage of this, and other, solid booster explosions you'll notice something interesting.

The first stage, next to the booster, was destroyed. Upper stages continued up out of the fireball intact, and had to be destroyed by Range Safety. It is significant that the destruct system was undamaged, and functioned properly.

An abort system fired, even after the explosion, would have probably saved a crew.

 

[steve82]

Realize also that there is a lot of Ares 2nd stage (liquid) and Service module between the Orion and the SRM in an Ares stack. This might offer a buffer between the center of the explosion and the LAS ignition. An important part of the Orion system that was not demonstrated this week is the Abort Decision Logic. This is a huge chunk of complicated software that will automatically initiate a LAS abort on the way up as soon as (within a fraction of a second) the flight path has gone divergent or certain othr things, if the crew or range safety haven't already.
I thought that the Air Force "study" a few months back was ill-conceived because it didn't fully take the capabilities of the Orion abort system into consideration. It's release seemed like it was mainly allowed to be used as fodder for Ares bashers and the Orion team didn't get a chance to respond.

 

[shuttle_guy]

We are hearing that Ares 1 will fly 3 more times in 2012,13 nd 14 to go ahead with LAS testing. Max Q abort, late abort just before or just after second stage sep etc. This has not been approved as yet.

 

[Zipi]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWm5bjjaxwc[/youtube]

And finally really good video collection from Orion PA-1 launch:

http://vimeo.com/11631855

 

[trailrider]

We are hearing that Ares 1 will fly 3 more times in 2012,13 nd 14 to go ahead with LAS testing. Max Q abort, late abort just before or just after second stage sep etc. This has not been approved as yet.

Shuttle guy, are those more A1X 4-segment test vehicles? Granting "this hasn't been approved as yet" is there indication that this would go on in spite of Obama's proposed cancellation of Constellation? IF Constellation's cancellation was confirmed, would there still be funding left from the cancellation to complete this series? For a "sick horse" that the Administration is trying to "euthanize", this critter Constellation is sure showing signs of at least partially surviving, providing, of course, that Congress will step up and appropriate sufficient funds and direction to get America's manned space program back on a track to somewhere definite...preferrably the Moon in the near term, Mars and the asteroids LATER!

Ad LEO! Ad LUNA! Ad Ares! AD ASTRA!

 

[shuttle_guy]

We are hearing that Ares 1 will fly 3 more times in 2012,13 nd 14 to go ahead with LAS testing. Max Q abort, late abort just before or just after second stage sep etc. This has not been approved as yet.

Shuttle guy, are those more A1X 4-segment test vehicles? Granting "this hasn't been approved as yet" is there indication that this would go on in spite of Obama's proposed cancellation of Constellation? IF Constellation's cancellation was confirmed, would there still be funding left from the cancellation to complete this series? For a "sick horse" that the Administration is trying to "euthanize", this critter Constellation is sure showing signs of at least partially surviving, providing, of course, that Congress will step up and appropriate sufficient funds and direction to get America's manned space program back on a track to somewhere definite...preferrably the Moon in the near term, Mars and the asteroids LATER!

It is my understanding that these flights are with the 5 segment booster. Congress plans to sell this plan as test flights of Heavy Lift harware. There is a news conference on this plan tomorrow.

Ad LEO! Ad LUNA! Ad Ares! AD ASTRA!

 

[nimbus]

SG - Any idea if the public will see pics of the LAS lawndarted as reported by Marsblog?

 

[trailrider]

We are hearing that Ares 1 will fly 3 more times in 2012,13 nd 14 to go ahead with LAS testing. Max Q abort, late abort just before or just after second stage sep etc. This has not been approved as yet.

Shuttle guy, are those more A1X 4-segment test vehicles? Granting "this hasn't been approved as yet" is there indication that this would go on in spite of Obama's proposed cancellation of Constellation? IF Constellation's cancellation was confirmed, would there still be funding left from the cancellation to complete this series? For a "sick horse" that the Administration is trying to "euthanize", this critter Constellation is sure showing signs of at least partially surviving, providing, of course, that Congress will step up and appropriate sufficient funds and direction to get America's manned space program back on a track to somewhere definite...preferrably the Moon in the near term, Mars and the asteroids LATER!

It is my understanding that these flights are with the 5 segment booster. Congress plans to sell this plan as test flights of Heavy Lift harware. There is a news conference on this plan tomorrow.

Ad LEO! Ad LUNA! Ad Ares! AD ASTRA!

Fascinating! Any rumors if Congress might approve continuation of the J-2X and upper stage for these...ah...tests?

Maybe, if Congress got real ambitious about it, they might want "tests" to include a "test vehicle" with a payload that completely "simulates" the original Orion design, including EECOM, etc., and even seats! :? :roll: I can even suggest a name for such a test vehicle: "Zombie 1" (you know...zombie= the un-dead Orion)! :roll:

Ad LEO! Ad LUNA! Ad Ares! AD ASTRA!

 

[steve82]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWm5bjjaxwc[/youtube]

And finally really good video collection from Orion PA-1 launch:

http://vimeo.com/11631855

Love those slo-mos and close-ups from the range cams. Notice how the cant on the Abort motor deflects enough of the plume away that the CM itself comes out relatively clean, even though it looks like it's engulfed in a ball of fire on the way up. And the Attitude Control motor rocks-looks it was steering as soon as they left the pad.

 

[vulture4]

The Constellation program is pushing hard to demolish the Shuttle pad at LC-39B this month to drive a stake through the heart of the Shuttle program, and is using billions in supposed "closeout" funding to plan five (5) "test" flights up to and including a manned launch to ISS! This will put Constellation in the position of claiming that it is now the only "man rated" vehicle available and anyway so much has now been invested it deserves to be again made the program of record. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears Constellation Program management, with the help of lobbyists and congressional supporters, is proceeding full speed ahead and spending large sums of money in direct opposition to the stated plan of the President.

 

[MeteorWayne]

vulture4
Your comment is unrelated to the topic of this discussion. This is not about Constellation or the shuttle program. There are plenty of relevant topics in the Space Business and Technology forum. Please post the in the appropriate place.

TIA

Wayne