Ares 1-X Ready On Pad, Launch Set For 1200 GMT

DynaSoar writes "NASA's new Ares I-X rocket is undergoing final preparations for its planned launch test Tuesday, October 27. Launch time is scheduled for 8 AM EDT (1200 GMT). As of noon Monday it appeared that there was a 60% chance of showers and/or high altitude clouds interfering. However, the launch has a an eight hour window of opportunity through 2000 GMT, and would require only 10 minutes of clear skies within that time to fly. Of interest to engineering types, both those who favor the new vehicle's design and its critics, will be to see whether the predicted linear 'pogo stick' oscillation will occur, and whether the dampening design built into it prevents damaging and possibly destructive shaking. Extensive coverage is being presented by Space.com; for NASA TV streaming video, schedules and downlink information, visit nasa.gov/ntv." Update 15:37 GMT by timothy: The weather did not cooperate; today's planned launch has been scrubbed.

Comments

Re:Awesome

[damburger]

As a demonstration of US technical prowess, Ares I is pathetic; its got similar capabilities to Saturn I and took much longer to develop. It anything its a demonstration of US decline...

More NasaTV Feeds and launch data

[agentgonzo]

NasaTV Feeds at different resolutions:
100k/s, 320/240
200k/s, 320/240
500k/s, 480x360(I think)
1200k/s, 640/480
All Windows Media format

Real media format
Quicktime

Launch data

Re:Rockets are impressive, but the VAB is insane

[Richard_at_work]

Because you can build lighter structures if you assume that certain loadings can be rejected - if you assemble it horizontally, then the joins and internal support structures must be strengthened to support the dyanmic weight in the raising of the entire structure, rather than just supporting the weight of the structures above it in a static way.

Re:Rockets are impressive, but the VAB is insane

[blackchiney]

If they did it circular, like the Gerkin tower in London, the wind shear actually twists the building like a rope. So you would have to get into more exotic support systems. Building it square means you can use regular beams for crossbracing.

Number one in what exactly?

[nietsch]

This 'new' rocket is basically a solid booster from the space shuttle, that needs to be extended with a 5th segment, but it now flies with a 5th dummy segment. On top of that is more dummy weight. This is just a test of an existing and older booster. Now why do you think there is some kind of competition in rocketry that the US can be number one in? Or are you just happy you or your parents paid taxes for this upcoming show?
Or am I a 'hater' because I a a little sceptic about this project of NASA because you cannot understand discourse? Personally, I am much more impressed with SpaceX and Armadillo, who seem to come up with nice projects for much less money. Wasn't there a new SpaceX big rocket on the launchpad soon?

Re:Number one in what exactly?

[Thag]

Comparing the Falcon 9 to the N-1 is like comparing a Honda Civic to a Trabant.

The N-1 was a half-assed design from the beginning, it didn't even have the fuel tanks integrated into the structure of the rocket because the Soviets were too cheap to build the tooling necessary. So they built it with spherical tanks like a Goddard rocket, giving it a lousy mass to thrust ratio. Then the Soviets compounded the problem by only testing selected engines out of each production batch, instead of test-firing all of the engines. Lastly, their design didn't cope with engine failure at all well, which is a problem when your testing regimen guarantees engine failure.

The Falcon 9, on the other hand, uses a thoroughly modern design. Its engines are more reliable than the N-1's, and have been test-fired as a group successfully. Plus, it shares many components with the now-proven Falcon 1a design.

It is possible that they will still have problems with the Falcon 9, just like they did with the Falcon 1, but I think it is very likely that they will overcome them.

Vortex shedding

[AliasMarlowe]

A cylindrical structure is subject to unstable wake flows, where small asymmetries in the flows around the structure lead to alternating vortices behind it. This is commonly termed vortex shedding, and leads to substantial lateral loads which vary fairly quickly and may cause resonance problems in the structure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_shedding. That's why tall smokestacks nowadays usually have corkscrew fins - to deliberately introduce turbulence, so that the load is less variable and resonant load frequencies have negligible amplitudes.

Solid Rocket Vibrations Are Not Pogo

[jstults]

The vibrations that are commonly called 'pogo' in big rockets are caused by a feedback / resonance of thrust oscillations with inlet pressure of the turbopumps, see this extensive discussion. Pogo is fixed by adding dampers to the propellant lines. Ares I, like every big solid, has combustion instabilities that cause thrust oscillations, but there's no feedback like in a liquid rocket. Only danger is hitting one of the structural resonances and ringing the rocket like a bell (and possibly causing the structure to 'diverge').

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but your "lolz" make you unqualified to comment on any serious matter and be taken seriously.

Re:Tragically, We Cannot Afford This Now

[MxTxL]

I am hard-pressed to think of any great advances in knowledge that were not already known from by the time the cruddy but long-surviving MIR burned up in the atmosphere.
I hate it when people like you pull the what-have-you-done-for-me-lately schtick. Listen, just because you can't think of anything doesn't mean there isn't useful science coming out of NASA EVERY DAY.

You should look at the NASA Spinoff page. http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/

NASA is pushing the state of the art in materials, robotics, communications, structural engineering, environment and many others. Things that have real-world impact on our lives today. It's not just Tang and Velcro.

The ISS, despite all it's flaws and short comings, gives us lessons every day in how to survive and thrive in the harshest of all environments. It will give us the technology and know-how to do longer range and longer duration missions than were ever before possible.

Re:What is the point?

[icebrain]

Well, Delta and Atlas don't keep former shuttle employees busy. And everyone knows that reusing large components of something entirely different will make the end result cheaper... because you never have to do rework and the reused components are always optimal for the design.

Oh, I'm sorry, I'll wipe up the extra sarcasm I spilled there...

Re:Tragically, We Cannot Afford This Now

[Geoffrey.landis]

Though I have always adored the thought and reality of space travel--this is just a luxury we cannot afford now. There is no pressing problem that would cause this need to travel to the Moon or Mars to occur.

No, actually, space exploration is essentailly done on the bubble-gum budget of the US. Deleting NASA or doubling NASA would have no noticible effect on the US budget-- the funding level is down in the noise compared to the main budget items.

Re:Rockets are impressive, but the VAB is insane

[evanbd]

Most launch vehicles are optimised to the point where they are basically balloons. They can't support themselves unless their tanks are pressurised and then only in one direction.

I read that US engineers watched with amazement when a Russian booster was winched off a truck at an air show supported horizontally by two cables, one at either end.

Actually, that is *not* true in general. It was true for the original Atlas, and is true for the Centaur high-energy upper stage, but most other modern launchers avoid balloon tanks. Most modern designs are very fragile, but self-supporting when unpressurized. That doesn't mean you can hoist them any way you please, but it's still a vast improvement in ease of handling. One of the requirements on the Shuttle External Tank design was that it not be a balloon tank. It was later discovered (to much embarrassment and annoyance) that the ET is self-supporting when empty or full, but that there is a partially-full intermediate range where it isn't, so it has to be filled while pressurized.

Some smaller launchers are assembled horizontally; in particular, SpaceX's Falcon I and Falcon 9 are. They're still fairly fragile, but they're closer to the Russian design approach in a variety of ways. Trading more structural margin, and hence lower payload fraction, for easier operations and hence lower cost per payload mass is one of those.

Further Delay

[cmiller173]

Just announced cargo ship in the range will need up to 90 min to clear the area.

Re:I'm a rocket, man!

[mcgrew]

It's about bloody time they got this thing started

Actually, it's past time.

NASA test flight delayed, bad weather still looms

By MARCIA DUNN, AP Aerospace Writer Marcia Dunn, Ap Aerospace Writer - 59 mins ago

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. - NASA's newest rocket is on the verge of blasting off on a test flight, but minor problems are causing last-minute delays.

The Ares I-X rocket is set to lift off Tuesday morning. But forecasters are monitoring upper-level winds and clouds that could delay the experimental flight. It's already 1 1/2 hours late because of extra time needed for the countdown and minor communication system trouble.

This is the first step in NASA's effort to return astronauts to the moon.

The flight will last two minutes. Parachutes will drop the first-stage booster into the Atlantic for recovery. The upper portion of the rocket -- all fake parts -- will fall uncontrolled into the ocean.

NASA expects to learn a lot, even if it's for another type of rocket. The White House is re-evaluating the human spaceflight program.

Re:What is the point?

[demachina]

Solid-fuel boosters keep jobs in the state of Utah so you can count on Orrin Hatch, very powerful senator from Utah supporting NASA's budget....

Someone said on a previous thread the Ares 1 has such a goofy look because the SRB's built in Utah have to pass through a train tunnel so they can't be increased in diameter which is why it looks so top heavy.

There is certainly a benefit to SRB's in that you don't have all the complexities of cryogenic fuels, and having to fuel before launch. That's why the Air Force uses them in ICBM's, they are extremely simple to launch. They are also somewhat safer than liquid fuels in some respects. It certainly remains to be seen if they will work the way NASA is trying to use them, especially how bad the vibration will be.

It certainly would have been better if NASA could have finished the SRB facility in Mississippi, which was killed twice, so they could be shipped to Kennedy on barges and the diameter constraints would have been removed. I wager Utah's senators helped kill it to keep the jobs in Utah.

NASA's manned space program is 90% jobs program, 10% space program at this point, in case you hadn't noticed.

Russians do it with Soyuz

[fantomas]

"Can you imagine the lateral stress on the structure if you attempted to build it horizontally and then hoist?

Ask the Russians, that's how they rig the Soyuz rockets. Been doing it pretty successfully for 40 years or so now.

Scrub

[burisch_research]

Launch scrub for today due to weather.

Re:Awesome

[DynaSoar]

As a demonstration of US technical prowess, Ares I is pathetic; its got similar capabilities to Saturn I and took much longer to develop. It anything its a demonstration of US decline...

Since you are comparing launch vehicles rather than stage 1 boosters, I'll take it you mean Saturn C-1 which had the Saturn 1 first stage. It was the first of the Saturn family to fly. For comparison purposes we'll use that vs. the Ares 1-X CLV presently sitting on Pad 39B

Capabilities:
Saturn C-1: 19,800 lbs to LEO
Ares: 54,000 lbs to LEO

Development (proposal to first launch)
Saturn: 'Proposal for a National Integrated Missile and Space Vehicle Development Plan'; Werner von Braun 30 DEC 1957, to 27 OCT 1961 = ~46 months
Ares CLV: Initial design proposed September 2005 to (not yet flown but on pad 4 days ahead of schedule and awaiting a clear launch window) now = ~49 months

The 6.5% longer Ares development time is insignificant considering the August 2006 redesign from proven 4 segment SRB booster + shuttle main engine sustainer to untried 5 segment
SRB derivative + J-2S sustainer. The C1 didn't change significantly during development from the originally proposed cluster of Redstone airframes/tanks and engines.

As an aside, if the parent was posted with prior knowledge of these facts, the post itself the being purposefully false with the intent to instigate otherwise unnecessary replies, it would be a 'troll'. If the parent was posted in ignorance of the facts but simply intended to initiate arguments, it would be 'flamebait'. Intentionally or not, parent is quite the opposite of 'informative'. Sadly we do not have a '-1 misinformative' mod.

I'll not speculate on your intentions or on your possible state of ignorance/intellectual impairment, as time will produce a result more definitive than my mere opinion. I will note that like both the dummy payload carrying Saturn C1 and Ares 1-X, you appear to be capable of accomplishing little more than blowing a lot of smoke out of your ass.

Re:What is the point?

[k6mfw]

> SRB's size was determined by the width or a horse's rear-end. I talked to someone that worked at Thiokol (now ATK) for eight years. He said diameter was set in the 1950s based on largest size that can be moved by trucks [ with a big trailer ]. I've not taken measurements but those SRBs look a lot thicker than a width of a train tunnel. He also said ATK is also removing the word "Thiokol" from the history.

Some notes regarding the Ares I-X (and Ares I)

[FleaPlus]

Some items to note:

• The rocket is the tallest (and possibly most expensive, at $450 million) suborbital rocket ever assembled, consisting of a solid rocket motor from the Space Shuttle and an Atlas V avionics system, with a non-functional upper stage put on top.
• The Ares I-X has roughly the same shape (but different internal components) compared to NASA's planned medium-lift Ares I, which is scheduled to be completed after 2017 with an estimated cost of $1-$2 billion per launch. A lot of people have been calling this a flight test of the Ares I, but considering how drastically different the Ares I would be in flight, it's really quite a stretch. If anything, it's more similar to a full-size wind tunnel test.
• Even though the fate of the Ares I itself (and the overall future direction of NASA spaceflight) is uncertain, the >700 sensors on the Ares I-X should provide data useful for validating computer models used by NASA."
• For all its faults, it's still worth noting that this is somewhat of an accomplishment for NASA, as its the first new launch vehicle design they've attempted to launch in 30 years, after a long string of failed designs (X-30, X-33, X-34, National Launch System, Space Launch Initiative, Orbital Space Plane). Actually, now that I think about it, the DC-X successfully launched, although I suppose that was constructed by McDonnell Douglas for the DOD before it was transferred to (and canceled by) NASA. Of course, one could still ask why NASA is trying to internally design a new vehicle when the private sector has a much better track record over the past 30 years of bringing new launch vehicle designs into service, but I imagine it's still been a learning experience for NASA. Hopefully they'll learn the right lessons from it, whatever those are.

Re:Question for those in-the-know

[Nyeerrmm]

The Augustine commission offered the administration about 10 options, some of which continue Ares V development, while others don't. All options that remain within the current budget (not the extra $3B required to do anything impressive according to the report) continue Ares V development.

However, all of the options presented push for a heavy lift capability. Other options include
- 'Ares V Lite': a lower-performance version of Ares V that would be human rated and could potentially reduce development costs primarily by eliminating the need for Ares 1
- Shuttle-derived: Either a sidemount cargo vehicle (probably requiring something like an Ares 1 for crew launch), or a top-mount shuttle derived design like Jupiter. These would be less capable than Ares V, but still powerful and potentially cheaper -- you could achieve a lunar mission with 2 or 3 launches.
- EELVs: Creating larger Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles from the Delta or Atlas family. These would be the least capable. These are also the biggest question mark because cost savings would come in a large part from a restructuring of rocket development to a DoD style model, where contractors are given requirements, not designs.

All of these, in combination with various targets and schedules were analyzed by the committee. None of the options comes out as a clear winner as cheaper or better, since Ares V has some considerable sunk costs that make its cheaper relative to the others, while designing even a sidemount cargo pod is more expensive than some probably think. Personally I like EELVs because it forces a change in the way business is done, but thats me.