"Frickin' Fantastic" Launch of NASA's Ares I-X Rocket 383
coondoggie writes "With a hiss and roar, NASA's Ares I-X rocket blasted into the atmosphere this morning at about 11:33 am EST, taking with it a variety of test equipment and sensors but also high hopes for the future of the US space agency. The short test flight — about 2 minutes — will provide NASA an early opportunity to look at hardware, models, facilities and ground operations associated with the mostly new Ares I launch vehicle. The mission went off without a hitch — 'frickin' fantastic' was how one NASA executive classified it on NASA TV — as the upper stage simulator and first stage separated at approximately 130,000 feet over the Atlantic Ocean. The unpowered simulator splashed down in the ocean."
Re:Uh huh (Score:5, Informative)
AFAIK there were a few minor hitches. One of the cameras on the first stage went out and they had trouble telling if it had splashed down or not. Also, the weather was a hassle (as it should have launched yesterday :P) and there were quite a few lightning strikes last night they'd been worried about.
What's next? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Uh huh (Score:3, Informative)
The main article was posted before launch, I think the first paragraph is an addendum put in after the thing launched.
Re:economic stupidity (Score:5, Informative)
I'd say something scathing and then list all the things the space program has benefited humanity and your daily life with but luckily NASA still has enough time to explain it all nicely without being condescending like I would have been:
http://techtran.msfc.nasa.gov/at_home.html [nasa.gov]
Also... They have a particular section about helping humanity in general with feeding the world:
http://techtran.msfc.nasa.gov/at_home/formankind.html [nasa.gov]
Re:Test flight examination? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Test flight examination? (Score:3, Informative)
They will probably do all that, but the big thing in this flight was to characterize the structural dynamics -frequencies and amount of the flexing of the structure. They did that by doing programmed attitude changes that put forces on the structure, and then use accelerometers and gyros to see how much flex there was, at what frequencies it happens, and how quickly it damped out. Those things are all critical for both stress analysis, and control system design.
Brett
Re:Did it really go ok? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What's next? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Did it really go ok? (Score:5, Informative)
The booster is supposed to tumble after separation, that is its design. Look at its closest twin, the Shuttle SRBs, and you will notice that they tumble immediately after they are separated.
That is by design. On the shuttle, ,illiseconds after SRB separation, 16 solid-fueled separation motors, four in the forward section of each SRB and four in the aft skirt of each SRB, are fired for just over one second to help carry the SRB's away from the rest of the Shuttle. Each of the separation motors can produce a thrust of about 22,000 pounds.
The SRB's continue to ascend in a slow, tumbling motion for about 75 seconds after SRB separation, to a maximum altitude of about 220,000 feet. The SRB's then begin to quickly fall toward the Atlantic Ocean.
The Ares SRB derivative uses a very similar system. That in mind, 1st stage tumbling is okay.
As for second stage tumbling, that was almost certainly due to being an unpowered can, for all intents and purposes. While the mockup used in today's flight has the same mass and aerodynamic shape as the real thing, it does not have thrust.
There may also have been some contact, and it is there that something could well be learned. Could be that a stronger retro motor is needed on the second stage coupled with a stronger sep motor on the 2nd. That will come out in the reports that will be filed later.
This was a test, after all, and a good one: it proved that Ares can fly. It flew quite well for some time, and it looked smoother than we may have expected. No obvious pogo-ing, for example.
Re:What's next? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What's next? (Score:2, Informative)
The US has been doing it for decades too. But new rocket designs are always at least a bit dicey.
Re:economic stupidity (Score:3, Informative)
As opposed to the $23.7 trillion of taxpayer exposure [bloomberg.com] for all of the bailout programs, which has so far cost us over $12.8 trillion. [bloomberg.com]
Most economists say that all of this money has just postponed the inevitable and done nothing to truly fix the situation.
With $12.8 trillion we could launch one of those rockets every day for over 70 years.
NASA TV (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Full Circle? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Test flight examination? (Score:5, Informative)
That was expected... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Awe-inspiring next generation technology... (Score:5, Informative)
I wish we would back a design like Skylon. Now that would be something to get really excited about and it would fill even the general population with a sense of awe to inspire a whole new generation of space exploration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylon [wikipedia.org] [wikipedia.org]
Yeah sense of awe, as in WTF... the skylon is unrealistic for the following reasons:
1) Looking at the wikipedia article, first off, 50% faster than blackbird engines is a pure pipe dream. Material science has not improved enough for turbine blades to survive that, and the intakes required to decelerate incoming air to subsonic will either be too heavy, or impossible, or not distribute airflow evenly enough, etc etc. Tech and cad design help some, but not enough.
2) Second wiki article problem, twice the size (twice the wing area?) but three times the weight, that things going to be a real handful at take off.
3) The sabre engine probably will not work, as the designer himself only gives it a TRL of 2 or 3. By his own admission, that's right up there with warp drive proposals and telekinesis. The ISP is too low, the T/W is too low. Following the old 6-6-6 rule, whats wrong with 6% bigger fuel tanks and an off the shelf engine?
(The 6-6-6 rule is mach 6 (good f-ing luck) at 60Kfeet up (difficult to impossible for an air breathing engine) gets you a whopping 6% of the way to orbit)
Re:Test flight examination? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Did it really go ok? (Score:5, Informative)
This was a test, after all, and a good one: it proved that Ares can fly. It flew quite well for some time, and it looked smoother than we may have expected. No obvious pogo-ing, for example.
Actually it proved that a Space Shuttle SRB coupled with Atlas V avionics and a Peacekeeper missile's roll control can fly. The Ares I is actually an entirely different vehicle with almost nothing in common with what flew today, so it unfortunately doesn't answer questions with regards to things like the pogo-ing effect you describe. I'm sure it was an interesting education experience for NASA in how to design a launch vehicle, though.
Re:Uh huh (Score:5, Informative)
Feynman's attitude wasn't "never take risks", it was "Don't take stupid risks, and don't lie to yourself about what the actual risks are".
Re:What's next? (Score:5, Informative)
It's been quite a while since the U.S. developed a new man-rated booster. In the last decades, we have learned a LOT about spacecraft. Unfortunately, what we learned is that something like the space shuttle is nowhere as maintenance free as we thought/hoped and is fantastically more expensive.
Since we can't build a Saturn V anymore (we'd have to substitute enough obsolete parts that it would be a new design anyway) and we know building a new shuttle is too expensive, it is good to see that manned spaceflight has a future in some form in the U.S.
Ares and Orion are take two on a reusable spacecraft now that we have a better idea what parts are practical to reuse and what parts aren't.
Unlike the Soyuz rocket, Ares includes reusable components. The use of solid fueled 1st stage is expected to make it safer and easier to prep for launch. Things get more interesting once the 2nd stage is ready. It may not sound like much but the engine re-start capability is a big deal.
It's not really a step backwards so much as a lateral step away from a dead-end branch that seemed like a good idea at the time. Manned space flight isn't actually out of the experimental stage yet (and certainly wasn't when the space shuttle was designed). Sometimes progress in experimental engineering looks like a step back at first glance.
Re:What's next? (Score:4, Informative)
Would it be harder to take something like an Atlas 5 (that's got literally hundreds of flights under its belt) and modify it for human space flight then to build a completely new rocket (granted taking bits from lots of different rockets)?
It's technically more straightforward and easier, but politically about an order of magnitude more difficult. Using commercial vehicles like the Atlas V is covered in section 5.3.3 of the report [nasa.gov]. They estimated 3-5 years for a provider to achieve orbital crew capability. They also estimated a cost of $300 million - $1.5 billion per provider, so if they had contracts with three competing providers initially and one of them droppped out, that would be a total cost to NASA of $2-$2.5 billion. For comparison, NASA's current estimated development cost for Ares I+Orion is $35-$45 billion.
Re:Some notes regarding the launch (Score:3, Informative)
Because the Bush administration asked them to that's why. Someone convinced him to want to go back to the moon and beyond. And also different contractors did in fact design the pieces. ATK for one. Thiokol has been building solid rocket boosters for a while now.
Actually, even under the Bush administration, at least when NASA was under Sean O'Keefe, the plan was to have private companies compete with each other to design the best system for launching crew to orbit and beyond. When O'Keefe was replaced by Mike Griffin though in 2005, Griffin opted to throw out all the prior work, directed NASA to pursue his own personal design, which has turned out to be an incredible screw-up. Besides the inherent flaws of the Ares I design, NASA works a lot better when its overseeing the design and development work of private companies than when it's trying to act as an overseer for itself.
Nice launch, when would the actual Ares I launch? (Score:3, Informative)
Given that this test, while useful, didn't actually use any of the components of a man-rated Ares I, I'm not that excited.
Ares I will use a new 5 segment Solid Rocket Booster (SRB), this was the good old STS 4 segment SRB.
Ares I will use the J2-x powered upper stage, this was a weight equivalent mock-up.
Ares I will use the Orion capsule and it's engine to finish up the orbit, again, just a mock-up with right szie and weight.
Ares I flight control software not built yet, but that's ok, as the hardware it will guide wasn't here either.
You know when the car companies build a clay mock up of that new model? That's about where this Ares I-x test was. Baby steps are ok, but I was hoping for more return on investment.
So I'm annoyed that the test program hasn't progressed further, but in reality, this is rocket science, and at least they got the thing off the ground in a reasonable fashion. The problems here go a lot further than my unease that NCSA isn't that far along for the time and money they've already spent. Here's a list of issues that they still have to face in making this a viable launch system:
What's the lifting capacity of the ARES I? 25mt? That was the declared goal. 24 mt? That was a compromise when other issues crept in. 20 mt? Where the current design is, but Ares I needs 25 mt of lift for an Orion capsule with safety features and lunar capability for 4 crew, and doesn't have it.
Also, when is the Ares I scheduled to fly with the Orion capsule, even in a non-man-rated test? 2013, as NCSA originally planned? 2016 as the Augustine commission recently claimed?? Before the Space shuttle stops flying? Before the ISS is de-orbited? Be nice for NCSA to have a way to get our astronauts to the ISS without "borrowing a Soyuz."
More importantly, how much has NCSA spent on the development of the Ares I to date? 5 billion? 6 billion? They still have to finish the 5 segment SRB design and tests, the J-2x Upper stage engine and tests, the new upper stage and tests and the Orion capsule and tests before any manned flights can take place. That's got to be another $5 billion easy. All this to get the lift capacity of an Atlas V or a Delta IV heavy and a theoretical better safety rating.
Lastly, one reason the Ares I was chosen was that it was supposed to be safer for the crew than any alternative. But there's this- http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/07/death-knell-for-nasas-ares-roc.html [newscientist.com]. I feel sorry for the hard-working engineers at NCSA, and I hope that the new management can get them back on track with a better design.
Re:Awe-inspiring next generation technology... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:And the AP fumbles the headline... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I, for one, (Score:2, Informative)
The SRBs are not the problem, it was putting the crew compartment beside them that was the problem. An Apollo-style capsule on top can use its abort rocket (that pointy thing on top of the capsule) to quickly get away from a failing booster. If it had been possible to put the boosters and ET below the shuttle, neither accident would have been fatal.
In the first accident, if it had been possible to instantly detach from the SRBs and ET, it might have been difficult for the ponderous shuttle to turn to an attitude capable of a safe landing, but that's still not the fault of using SRBs. The second accident wouldn't have happened with a capsule rocket, because the heat shield is inherently protected during launch due to its position in the middle of the stack.
I don't know how you can blame the SRBs for the second accident. The foam came from the ET. Requiring the Shuttle ET to use CFC-free foam (the amount of CFCs in one ET's worth of foam is probably infinitesimal compared to even one day's sales of spray cans and foam manufacturing) contributed to the foam problems that caused the second accident.
Maybe you should read an actual shuttle accident report sometime?