Slashdot Mirror


NASA Installing Shocks On Ares

caffiend666 writes "In order to abate the massive vibration issues of their new Ares I spacecraft, NASA is installing shock absorbers. 'The plan is to install 16 canisters in the bottom of the rocket with 100-pound weights attached to springs. Battery-powered motors will move the weights up and down to stop vibrations. Those are essentially remote-controlled shock absorbers, said Garry Lyles, who headed the team of NASA engineers tackling the shaking problem.' So, when the spaceship is a rocking, don't come a knocking?"

15 of 293 comments (clear)

  1. cost? by moderatorrater · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Will they then have to haul nearly a ton into space? That sounds like a very costly improvement to the shuttle.

    1. Re:cost? by pushing-robot · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Just about anything can be a "weight". It's in their best interests to make the weights serve (another) function.

      Also, the weights are almost all at the bottom of the rocket, so they should only affect the first stage.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    2. Re:cost? by Thelasko · · Score: 5, Informative
      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
  2. I'm not a rocket scientist by olddotter · · Score: 5, Interesting

    But adding 1600 lbs plus weight of electric motors to the weight of a space craft, seems like a last resort option.

    Nothing else worked?

  3. Next : by MRe_nl · · Score: 4, Funny

    Chrome rims and a spoiler. We might not be alone, so dress to impress!

    Btw, not 16, "a 17th shock absorber will be a ring of weights and springs near the middle of the rocket".
    Might not have a cannister though, or a switch ; )

    --
    "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
  4. More untested principles by damburger · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Lets review what we have so far:

    1. First attempt at building a man rated launcher with an entirely solid fueled stage
    2. Largest solid rocket booster ever flown
    3. First (I believe) aerodynamically unstable man rated launcher
    4. And now, first use of shock absorbers to dampen an otherwise lethal vibration in a launcher

    Considering how reverting to capsules was seen as a safe bet, and as taking advantage of existing technology and production lines, there is an increasing amount of experimental new technology involved.

    With the Shuttles headed towards retirement and the only remaining source of access to the ISS in jeopardy due to chilly relations with Russia, now doesn't seem like the best time to be getting experimental. Functional will do just nicely.

    I honestly think that a manned ATV might fly before Orion at this rate.

    --
    If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    1. Re:More untested principles by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 4, Informative

      3. Basically all space rockets are aerodynamically unstable. This is absolutely nothing new.

      4. Before it was eclipsed by an even worse event, Apollo 13 briefly scared the crap out of everyone involved when the center engine of the second stage nearly ripped the entire rocket to little pieces. It was experiencing pogo oscillation, flexing the massive thrust frame by three inches at 16Hz, experiencing 68 gees. Just before this incredible vibration destroyed the entire craft, a fuel sensor was falsely tripped and shut the engine down, saving the ship.

      Saturn V and Apollo were full of problems. Rocket science is hard, remember? I suggest that you get a clue before you mindlessly criticize.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    2. Re:More untested principles by AnomaliesAndrew · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Apollo missions definitely weren't entirely safe... but people didn't really care about it as much as they do today. They were driven to succeed at almost any cost, and to do so before the Russians.

      Now we have this culture of protection and safety that's we're too afraid to (accidentally) sacrifice a human even at the prospect of settling on the moon. Not saying it's wrong, but it complicates things more.

      --
      Move all sig!
  5. Why have they left it this late? by bugg_tb · · Score: 4, Informative

    Whilst I'm not overly surprised by the decision why have they left it this late, as its a well documented problem thats been around since the beginning of space flight.

  6. Re:This is not going to increase efficiency.... by Z00L00K · · Score: 4, Informative

    Their demise wasn't caused by a flaw in the rocket itself, it was because the capsule was using pure oxygen under low pressure in order to save weight.

    Unfortunately - materials that were flame-retardant or flameproof in normal air became extremely volatile in the 100% oxygen atmosphere in the capsule. They changed to a different mixture after that accident.

    Their accident also happened while on the ground during a test and not in space. Their accident was actually to honor them being designated Apollo 1. (as from what I have understood from at least one source, other sources does claim that it already was designated Apollo 1). So the only in flight accident with the Apollo program was Apollo 13 - and they did survive.

    So this actually tells us - beware us from accountants.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  7. Re:The Hell! 1600+ pounds additional weight? by flattop100 · · Score: 5, Informative
    NASA planned for this, you noobs:

    Altogether, the added equipment would reduce the lift capacity of the Ares I rocket's first stage by up to 1,400 pounds (625 kg), though the booster segment currently has a margin of about 8,000 pounds (3,628 kg) to work with, Cook said.

    There's a much more informative article on Space.com from yesterday: http://www.space.com/news/080819-nasa-ares1-vibration-update.html

  8. Re:Interesting tweak by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You think the Saturn V didn't have many tons of anti-vibration structure, anti-pogo devices, and other such things? Get real!

    Clueless computer types such as yourself might think that a rocket should be fuel tanks and an engine and nothing else, but that's not how it actually works in the real world. There's a reason that "rocket science" is used as an idiom to indicate something that's extremely hard, you know.

    --
    If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
  9. Re:Interesting tweak by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How much do you suppose a "small" damper on the fuel line weighs on a 6.7 million pound rocket? I couldn't find any answers, but it would not surprise me if the Saturn V's "small" pogo suppressors weighed over 1600 pounds in total.

    --
    If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
  10. Re:The Hell! 1600+ pounds additional weight? by AJWM · · Score: 5, Interesting

    some inefficiencies in other areas (like shock absorbers and weights) might be tolerable provided that such problems are not the result of more fundamental design flaws in the Ares rocket.

    Well that's the thing, see. These problems are the result of more fundamental design flaws in the Ares rocket -- specifically, designing the thing with a single solid first stage to start with.

    Solids give a notoriously rough ride. Liquid fuel engines are fed a smooth flow of fuel and are fine tuned to keep out any combustion instability or oscillation. Solids are just a big chunk of almost-explosive with a hole drilled down the middle -- once you light it, that's it. Except for ammunition (ICBMs, artillery rockets, etc), traditionally solids have been used in multiples, usually together with a liquid-fueled core. The advantage is that the thrust variations of multiple solids tends to average out -- you still get vibration, but not as bad. But Ares 1 went with a single, huge, solid stage. That's like designing-in a vibration problem.

    On top of that, the damn thing is a hammerhead design, wider at the top than at the bottom (look at the picture, it looks like a corn dog). Those are notoriously prone to stability problems of their own. With liquid fueled engines with some throttle range and gimballed for steering, that's a minor issue. With a solid whose idea of throttle control is cutting the right shape hole down the middle so as to expose different amounts of burning surface at different times, and whose gimballing ability is, well, limited at best -- you'd better hope you don't have any unexpected issues with that inherent hammerhead instability -- like wind shear, or oh say unexpected excessive vibration.

    The whole thing is a freaking kludge, and adding a ton of active dampening is just yet another kludge. The manned spacecraft division of NASA jumped the shark a long time ago, this is just further proof.

    --
    -- Alastair
  11. Re:This is not going to increase efficiency.... by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Close, but there's a bit more to it than just being a 100% Oxygen environment. One of the things being tested was that the capsule would function properly experiencing the same outward pressure that it would experience in orbit. When the craft was in space, it would be pressurized at about 2-3 psi or pure Oxygen. To simulate that on the ground, the cabin was pressurized to 18 psi, 2 psi more than air pressure at see level.

    In the aftermath, they realized just how stupid that was; at that pressure of pure O2, a bar of Aluminum would "burn like wood". Almost anything will burn, and many things will burn spontaneously. To make matters worse, almost every exposed surface of the module was covered in velcro for ease of use in zero-g. The problem is, the velcro was literally explosive at the Oxygen density used during the test.