Rolling Out Ares 1-X

What are the objectives of this launch of a bunch of mock-ups stacked on top of an off the shelf STS SRB after 4+ years and a lot of money, again?

And how does it relate to Ares-1, other than being of vaguely same shape?

"What are the objectives of this launch of a bunch of mock-ups stacked on top of an off the shelf STS SRB after 4+ years and a lot of money, again?"

It has essentially the same objectives as those animations they like to show -- to improve morale within the program and help sell it to those outside the program.

Too bad this little publicity stunt costs $350 million, which would have been enough to fully fund SpaceX's COTS-D proposal.

Folks:

This is the first time something other than a shuttle has been launched from Complex 39 since 1975 (Apollo-Soyuz).

Give the griping a break.
The money has been spent, there is no way to get any of it back.

All your dissing is non-productive with regards to the launch of Ares 1 X.

Cheer on your fellow Americans.

When the dust settles, then get on with building the Ares V or Ares IV or Direct.

The naysayers would have complained about the test launches of Redstone MR-1, MR-1A, MR-2 and MR-BD.

OK danwiththeplan....I guess, from your posts, that your plan is to criticize Ares-1X to death. I'm with esmithatty that it's time for a little encouragement to the team. It may not be what you want but data gathered is data analyzed and used (usually) for more than just the program for which it was obtained. Besides very little of that money went into hardware. It mostly goes into salaries, wages and benefits for the workers (and yes the stockholders of the companies involved).

And Chris, if the only thing that comes of this is a boost in morale for a bunch of scientists, engineers, etc. that are about to get the budget axe, then I say it's money well spent. After all the money we've wasted bailing out crooks and spending on useless programs, $400M is a drop in the bucket.

Godspeed, Ares 1-X team. My rant is over.

esmithatty,

I sympathize with your point. You never get anywhere if everyone keeps arguing forever. At some point, people need to accept a decision, even if they disagree with it, and pull in the same direction because *some* direction is better than none.

I just don't agree that it applies in this case. The money has been spent on Ares I-X, and there's no way to get it back, as you correctly point out. But not all the money has been spent on Constellation. We've spent $8 billion, but we still might save $24 billion (and even more later). Since the whole point of Ares I-X is to make it more likely that the next $24 billion is spent, I think it is absolutely worth complaining loudly about Ares I-X. It's just countering the $350 million dollar advertising campaign that is Ares I-X.

As to your claim that, "The naysayers would have complained about the test launches of Redstone MR-1, MR-1A, MR-2 and MR-BD." I respectfully disagree. We Ares I-X naysayers are not thoughtless morons who would complain about any new program. Most of us understand that every new program has its flaws, unexpected challenges, and budget and schedule slips. But we believe that not every program is created equal and it is possible to spot signs of programs with more than the usual level of problems. Whether we're right or wrong, I think it's useful to continue the discussion and irresponsible to claim that we would have complained about Redstone or any other test launches.

Chris, no one has called you a thoughtless moron. What I can't understand (maybe because I'm an engineer) is that many of the naysayers have not found one thing that they think is being done "right" with Ares or the Constellation programs.

Every endeavor of which I've been associated had some facets that were excellent even though it had more than its fair share of problems. We agree that not all programs are equal, still some of the naysayers would get more than a passing interest from me about their gripes IF once in a while they could acknowlege something being done right.

(Sorry, I'm afraid that saying let's go ahead and launch because we can't get the money back doesn't count).

In other words Ares I is a massive design screwup equal to any other of NASA's most-ill-conceived projects and Ares 1-X is an improvised flight article masquerading as a poor excuse for a mockup of an Ares 1.

This flight is a management PR stunt that does not reflect poorly on those who cobbled together this improvisation and are working hard trying to make it fly safely... but it does say all you need to know about the NASA management style that lies behind Ares 1.

Despite Bolden's effort to salvage something from this, the phrase "Wind tunnel" is not an accurate description of this test... however it is a very accurate description of the NASA verbiage attempting to justify this waste.

Unzip it at Max Q. Get some real and relevant data on STS-scale SRB aborts.

That's the best possible use of it at this late date.

MikeHilton, since you addressed me:
---------------------------------
What are the objectives of this launch of a bunch of mock-ups stacked on top of an off the shelf STS SRB after 4+ years and a lot of money, again?

And how does it relate to Ares-1, other than being of vaguely same shape?
--------------------------------
Please answer if you can.

The 'sunk costs handwaving' should be a felony.

The touchy feely stuff is nonsense. Just answer how this cobbled together contraption justifies the exense and the time that we, the taxpayerd entrusted it for 5 yeas.

So we are to dance around it just because 2 of NASA's centers are not capable of any better?

And, heck it's supposed to be with us for another 30 years at least, no?

If so, NASA's HSF is dooomed.

Wondering about the computer systems and software. The PR seems to be emphasizing the "700 sensors" when Apollo & Shuttle had thousands.

There's an old article about Shuttle on-board software & methodology that's probably true for ground test & launch software that states:

They Write the Right Stuff
"The right stuff is the software...But how much work the software does is not what makes it remarkable. What makes it remarkable is how well the software works. This software never crashes. It never needs to be re-booted. This software is bug-free. It is perfect, as perfect as human beings have achieved. Consider these stats : the last three versions of the program -- each 420,000 lines long-had just one error each. The last 11 versions of this software had a total of 17 errors. Commercial programs of equivalent complexity would have 5,000 errors..."If the software isn't perfect, some of the people we go to meetings with might die.
"

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/06/writestuff.html#

Does Ares 1-X or CxP Flight & Ground computer hardware/software meet the same standards as Shuttle & what's the cost been so far?

zapkitty says, "Unzip it at Max Q. Get some real and relevant data on STS-scale SRB aborts."

I completely agree. The current plan for I-X will generate only some marginally useful data, even if we go ahead with Ares I. Letting the SRB blow at max Q would produce much more useful data that would be applicable not just to Ares I but to any of the proposals that would use shuttle-derived SRBs.

Mike Hilton say, "What I can't understand (maybe because I'm an engineer) is that many of the naysayers have not found one thing that they think is being done "right" with Ares or the Constellation programs."

Actually, I think most of the detailed engineering work on Ares and the rest of Constellation has been done right. The only gripe I have is with the highest-level decisions. Given the direction that was chosen, I think the NASA engineers did the best they could.

I think it highly likely that Ares I-X will fly as planned. I think the people working on Ares I-X succeeded in executing the plan. It's just a bad plan.

I also think that if we fully fund the program of record, Ares I, Ares V, Orion, and Altair will all work. I don't think they will be nearly as safe as NASA's management claims, and probably there will be some failures along the line, but overall, I think NASA's employees and contractors will make it work.

But I think that there are better plans, plans that would be safer and far cheaper. This would allow us to do much, much more, much sooner.

Dan:

I don't have to answer any of your questions because plenty of people have already answered them, starting several years ago when Ares was conceived. By the way, it was originally not supposed to be a one off flight but the first of a series of incremental test flights. Many times programs, budgets and yes politics change until there is only a shell of the former "plans". Still many of the original reasons are valid, from an engineering standpoint.

I have posted many times before that if you want to blame someone why don't you start with the politicians that have not been properly funding this endeavor for the last 40 years. Besides it's not Mike Griffin, Jeff Hanley, et. al that are to be blamed, rather you need to start with Richard Nixon and his budget team that led us down this sorry road.

Back to the point, I will answer any question that you have, provided you can come up with one good thing that this program offers as well as provide technical challenges to it's stated objectives. Your "vaguely same shape" and "cobbled together contraption" hand waving doesn't cut it.

Thanks Chris...that is the best post that I've ever reviewed from a "naysayer".

Well... NASA TV is about to go live regarding the rollout...

I have a bet that all of you are watching this.

The VAB was built to handle the processing of 4 Saturn Vs at once. Maybe, it will be configured to handle 4 Ares IVs or Vs...

At the very least, we have the beginning of the next generation of a US manned launch vehicle.

Whether this pans out to be Direct or a derivative of the Ares family, this is the beginning of the post-Shuttle era.

I know some of you armchair rocket men will correct me if needed, but if memory serves, NASA or more properly the Air Force "unzipped" two SRB's after Challenger's ET exploded in January 1986.

The rollout of Ares 1 X was really quite beautiful.

It is sad because this means that the STS program really is ending.

But, we now have no choice but to face the future and bring all the possible things that can happen to fruition.

I never thought the day would come where I would see a vehicle other than a shuttle out on the pad.

I better be around when we roll out an Ares V, Ares IV, or even a Direct Launcher.

The Challenger SRB's were destructed well after Max Q and with relatively little propellant remaining and only a few seconds left to burn.

It was strictly a safety decision as they were heading out of bounds.

The questions that have arisen since then concern the actual behavior of STS-class SRB debris fields when unzipped at Max Q, with millions of pounds of still-burning propellant remaining, and comparing that behavior with the proposed escape plans of the various launch vehicle candidates.

A previous study of a comparably large SRB unzip by the 45th Space Wing indicated that the Ares 1 Launch Abort System couldn't even escape the SRB debris field... much less deliver the crew to safety.

You might recall there was a whole thing on NASA Watch about that... and while the Ares I-X has been sufficiently reinforced (and weighed down) to allow it to launch with assurance that the Range Safety electronics won't be rattled into uselessness by TO... the original facts behind the 45th's study remain unchallenged and need to be studied.

(NASA's monotonous insistence that their supercomputers show that they have everything under control notwithstanding.)

Ares I supporters might choose to regard the very concept as a slam, but it really is the one good thing that Ares I-X might do and it would produce very relevant data for all launch systems that use STS-scale SRB's.

Thanks for setting me straight on the Challenger SRBs. For the record, right and left were commanded to destruct with the right "unzipping" @ +110.2 seconds and the left apparently self destructing milliseconds later.

I'm still amazed that there is such a focus on the case of an exploding SRB being fatal in the +30~+60 MET time frame for Ares, yet none of the naysayers that use the Air Force case study have any problems accepting, not one, but two SRB's on their own preferred rockets (Shuttle, Shuttle C, Direct, etc.) Just so we are clear, an exploding SRB in the current configuration on the Shuttle means 100% probability of LOC with the other vehicles having their own "black zones".

The Air Force examination of Ares in an SRB explosion merely confirmed ATK's own assessment of LOC in that scenario. No surprise here but it does raise valid engineering questions concerning the "correctness" of the assigned reliability numbers.

To the point of "relevant data", we have plenty of data from the Titan IV explosion without adding an unneeded "unzipping" of Ares 1X to the mix. It must be relevant and sufficient data since it's being used to determine what would happen to Ares and why it's the "wrong approach".

from Mike Hilton:

I'm still amazed that there is such a focus on the case of an exploding SRB being fatal in the +30~+60 MET time frame for Ares,

You're starting from some confusion... this is not a case of "What if an SRB explodes?"

This is a case of "What if anything at all were to happen that would trigger an LAS activation between 20 and 75 seconds MET?"

THAT is the background of the study. NOT an "SRB explosion."

The problem is that in order to activate the LAS for any reason whatsoever for any SDLV the SRB(s) must be terminated. And that termination creates the debris field. The debris field that is the problem if your particular LV is at too high a Q number... Q being max dynamic pressure.

Between 20-75 seconds MET the risks are high for Ares I... and between 30-60 seconds the risks become high for other SDLVs... but Ares I in turn becomes a guaranteed deathtrap.

It's called a black zone.

And it's discovery was really gruesome justice for the NASA administration that lied about black zones for other launch vehicles in order to lock Ares I in as their LV of choice.

... yet none of the naysayers that use the Air Force case study have any problems accepting, not one, but two SRB's on their own preferred rockets (Shuttle, Shuttle C, Direct, etc.)

Er, no. Actually, everyone I'm aware of on a variety of forums who's discussed the issue has agreed that further research and testing needs to be done on the subject with regards to *all* shuttle-derived vehicles.

But the simple fact is that only Ares I has the automatic black zone in this situation due to its unusually high Q environment during launch.

Just so we are clear, an exploding SRB in the current configuration on the Shuttle means 100% probability of LOC with the other vehicles having their own "black zones".

And as stated above "exploding SRBs" have nothing to do with the subject.

The Air Force examination of Ares in an SRB explosion merely confirmed ATK's own assessment of LOC in that scenario.

Do you mean ATK's own assessment... of an "exploding SRB?"

To the point of "relevant data", we have plenty of data from the Titan IV explosion without adding an unneeded "unzipping" of Ares 1X to the mix.

Hmmm... Who says that we have "plenty of data"?

It must be relevant and sufficient data since it's being used to determine what would happen to Ares and why it's the "wrong approach".

I know that you don't have many valid discussion options left at this point but that was so lame it hurt to listen to it.

"The data available shows severe problems with Project A so therefore since Project A will be canceled no further study on this subject is needed."

Uh huh...