Ares I-X Updates

[Dambuster]

Urwumpe:On the topic of SRBs, at 0:37 in the video one of the boosters doesn't look like it's putting out any exhaust - is that why that Delta blew up?

 

[Urwumpe]

Urwumpe:On the topic of SRBs, at 0:37 in the video one of the boosters doesn't look like it's putting out any exhaust - is that why that Delta blew up?

No, 3 boosters are air-lit out of nine, they are ignited later than the others for keeping acceleration low and having more effective thrust.

The Delta blew up because a 2m gap opened inside one of the SRBs, because of a manufacturing error it seems.That kind of failure is a case burst, a typical danger of SRBs, since they are under high pressure inside...a tamed bomb.

 

[Donamy]

I think the main thrust, so to speak, of the commission report, is to show congress there is no space program without alot more funding.

 

[Urwumpe]

I think the main thrust, so to speak, of the commission report, is to show congress there is no space program without alot more funding.

Yeah, though I think people should spend more time just shouting "No bucks, no Buck Rogers" at their own local congressmen.

 

[Moonwalker]

For those who didn't came across this yet: below you'll get footage of the complete Ares I-X test flight, including the parachute sequence and splashdown, which "shows" the cause of the dent. The footage was made with a gyro-stabilized high-definition camera from onboard a Cessna Skymaster.

---------- Post added at 01:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:57 AM ----------

I think it is likely that the guys and girls who work on it might think about packing the parachutes a different way...

 

[Andy44]

Great vid, MW, thanks for posting.

Check out the transonic vapor cloud at 3:55! Never thought I'd see that.

Too bad about the chute failure. This thing really did look like a giant model rocket. ALl they needed was to put some poor frogs in the USS.

 

[tblaxland]

I think it is likely that the guys and girls who work on it might think about packing the parachutes a different way...

It'll be interesting to see what the root cause is. They look pretty clean at 5:00 but one starts to look ugly at 5:01. It is almost as if one of the suspension lines let go.

 

[Thunder Chicken]

As a former AF parachute rigger, it does look like a good deployment, but the one canopy looks like it blew out (over pressurized and tore the canopy fabric). The other two looked OK, but it sure hit faster and harder than was intended, I'm sure.

 

[SiberianTiger]

Excellent! This video proves that the stages did not touch each other after initial separation.

 

[garyw]

Excellent! This video proves that the stages did not touch each other after initial separation.

There are a couple more videos on NSF L2 which prove that there was no recontact between lower and upper stages. Hopefully these videos will be public in the next few days.

For those who have L2 -> http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=19325.0

 

[Sky Captain]

It seems one chute ruptured or the attachment rope broke. Also at the moment of separation it looks like the solid booster was still firing. Maybe it would be better to wait few seconds after burnout till the residual thrust dies down ans separate then.

 

[garyw]

It seems one chute ruptured or the attachment rope broke. Also at the moment of separation it looks like the solid booster was still firing. Maybe it would be better to wait few seconds after burnout till the residual thrust dies down ans separate then.

SRB's have residual burn all the way down to the water. It's just one more fun feature of SRBs.

 

[Urwumpe]

It seems one chute ruptured or the attachment rope broke. Also at the moment of separation it looks like the solid booster was still firing. Maybe it would be better to wait few seconds after burnout till the residual thrust dies down ans separate then.

Solid rocket motors don't instantly stop burning, the remaining fuel inside the SRMs will keep on burning, just like other inflammable substances. At separation the thrust of the first stage is already down to 50,000 pounds 5 seconds later it is half of it, 10 seconds later 1/4th...etc.

 

[SiberianTiger]

Maybe they should consider "hot" separation scheme then? Saving on ullage is another plus.

 

[Urwumpe]

Maybe they should consider "hot" separation scheme then? Saving on ullage is another plus.

Would not be needed though, if you plan to have vernier thrusters.

 

[JamesG]

Would also be detrimental to the SRB's reuseability.

 

[Andy44]

It's all academic, as it doesn't look like the SRB had any problems opening the distance up using it's sep motors.

 

[agentgonzo]

There are a couple more videos on NSF L2 which prove that there was no recontact between lower and upper stages. Hopefully these videos will be public in the next few days.

For those who have L2 -> http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=19325.0

Gary, do you know if these vids have made it out of L2-land by now? I had a look on NSF but couldn't find any better than the aerial view of the whole 1-X launch.

 

[garyw]

Gary, do you know if these vids have made it out of L2-land by now? I had a look on NSF but couldn't find any better than the aerial view of the whole 1-X launch.

I've seen the SRB descent one with the tangled chute out of L2 on NASA's iphone/itouch app but it was a lower res version.

MOD NOTE: Thread now unsticked as the flight has occurred.



---------- Post added at 12:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:34 PM ----------

Here you go -> http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2009/11/video-aerial-vi.html

---------- Post added at 12:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:35 PM ----------

Ahh, apologies, this video was already posted earlier in the thread!