Ares 1X launch Oct 27th

[MeteorWayne]

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.

[nimbus]

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...

[radarredux]

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!!

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.

[job1207]

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.

[docm]

With solids MECO is an event without clear boundaries

Lots of pretty pictures....

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

I like this one....

[job1207]

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.

[trailrider]

With solids MECO is an event without clear boundaries

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!)

[davcbow]

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...

[nimbus]

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

[docm]

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.
>

[Leovinus]

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.

[ThereIWas2]

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

[nimbus]

Thanks Doc.

[EldonL]

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!

[Zipi]

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.

[CalliArcale]

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.

I know what you're seeing, but how can you say it was "clearly" a reignition? Engine plumes aren't always easily visible, especially on a tumbling solid. The thrust at the tail end of a solid's burn can be a tad erratic. I don't think the booster reignited; I think it just hadn't finished burning out yet, which should be expected and means they cannot consider this an unusual event; it will need to be considered when designing the final, production Ares 1 rocket.

To me, the first stage's burnout didn't look particularly unusual. You see exactly the same thing during Shuttle SRB sep. As docm put it, "With solids MECO is an event without clear boundaries."

[trailrider]

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.

I know what you're seeing, but how can you say it was "clearly" a reignition? Engine plumes aren't always easily visible, especially on a tumbling solid. The thrust at the tail end of a solid's burn can be a tad erratic. I don't think the booster reignited; I think it just hadn't finished burning out yet, which should be expected and means they cannot consider this an unusual event; it will need to be considered when designing the final, production Ares 1 rocket.

To me, the first stage's burnout didn't look particularly unusual. You see exactly the same thing during Shuttle SRB sep. As docm put it, "With solids MECO is an event without clear boundaries."

I don't see much unusual in the tailoff of the 1st stage...very typical of SRB tailoff on a shuttle flight. I have been looking on the YouTube video taken from a downrange aircraft (check NASAWatch.com for the link), and I just don't see any real contact on separation.

As to the parachute issue: There is no question that one chute failed immediately on deployment. Looks to me like the risers either broke or perhaps the main deck fitting released on one side of the chute (shades of STS-4???). The other two chutes seemed to deploy properly, but the dang thing went into clouds, and I can't get a clear picture at the moment the second and third chute fully deployed, but in the reefed condition. Something then went haywire with the second chute. It looks like either a blown panel or, again, some failure of the risers on one side. But I can't get a clear view of it. It might have been something dealing with the reefing line cutter. But since the second chute appears to have disreefed, albeit with one side out, it could be something else. The other thing that is interesting is that that second chute almost looks like it got a riser line over the top of the canopy. I can't tell if the chutes use one reefing line or two (like the shuttle SRB's). Looks like only one to me. It would be nice if we got some better information coming from Pioneer Aerospace and/or NASA.

Interesting, nonetheless.

[Zipi]

Here is the aerial video:



Parachute system starts working after 4min.

[trailrider]

Anybody hear anything more from NASA or Pioneer Aerospace on the chutes?

[docm]

In the Aviation Week article I quote in the "Ares I-Y canceled" thread it also states;

But when the three main chutes pulled out, the risers on one of them broke and the chute deflated. The whipping risers fouled a second chute, which only inflated about halfway, Hanley said.

As a result, the recovery system dropped the first-stage nozzle much closer to the water than planned, and the stage splashed down so hard that it probably would not have been reusable had that been required.