On the Bus to Crazy Town with Rep. Bishop

WOW! Keith, spot on with that NOTE I rarely agree with you but on this I do. It was a failed program and SOME people just get over it. But, that launch it was laughable not to mention partly plywood I mean come on all that money and they couldn't do anything more than plywood? On the brighter side they did produce some damn fine CGI.

Damn the Gravity!

As to Rep. Bishop's remarks about Lori Garver, while she did mention the items he cites (see below), Rep. Bishop does indeed put a negative spin on what was actually a positive assertion by Ms. Garver, one that specificly addresses the President's stated concerns about NASA being no longer relevant:

Rep. Bishop -- Lori Garver ... said NASA has changed their goals and seemed to indicate that the new goals of NASA will be to end poverty and hunger, create world peace, education, save the environment and in a note of bitter irony, creating new jobs.

Lori Garver -- The President’s budget ... will enable NASA to align with the priorities of the Nation and to more optimally contribute to our Nation’s future. These key national priorities that I am referring to are: (1) Economic development (poverty, hunger, jobs); (2) International leadership/geo-politics (world peace); (3) Education (societal advancement); and (4) Environment (future of planet and humanity).

Rep. Bishop's next sentence (see below) may indeed represent the view of many in the U.S., but it does not do justice to what NASA has done in the past 50 years, especially in terms of aeronautical advances and space spin-offs that help the hundreds of millions of U.S. citizens on the ground as well as the rest of the world.

Rep. Bishop -- Miss Garver perhaps should ... realize that since 1958 the goal of NASA has been space -- to be first in space science, first in space exploration, first in manned flight...

Looking at the "Policy and Purpose" part of the NASA charater (below), it would seem that BOTH Ms. Garver and Rep. Bishop can find room for agreement. Specifically:

Sec. 102(a) maps to Garver's point on "world peace".
Sec. 102(c) maps to Garver's point on "Economic development (jobs)".
Sec. 102(d)(1) maps to Bishop's point on "space science".
Sec. 102(d)(2) maps to Bishop's point on "manned flight" (part).
Sec. 102(d)(3) maps to Bishop's point on "manned flight" (part).
Sec. 102(d)(4) maps to Garver's point on "Education (societal advancement)".
Sec. 102(d)(5) maps to Bishop's point on "first in space" ("leader").
Sec. 102(d)(6) maps to security benefits, which neither cited.
Sec. 102(d)(7) maps to Garver's point on "International leadership".
Sec. 102(d)(9) maps to Bishop's point on "first in" ("preeminent").
Sec. 102(e) maps to Garver's point on the "Environment" (part).
Sec. 102(f) maps to medical benefits, which neither cited.
Sec. 102(g) maps to "Environment (future of planet)".

NASA CHARTER EXTRACT

NASA Charter

DECLARATION OF POLICY AND PURPOSE

Sec. 102 (a) The Congress hereby declares that it is the policy of the United States that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind.

(c) The Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (as established by title II of this Act) seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space.

(d) The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall be conducted so as to contribute materially to one or more of the following objectives:

(1) The expansion of human knowledge of the Earth and of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;

(2) The improvement of the usefulness, performance, speed, safety, and efficiency of aeronautical and space vehicles;

(3) The development and operation of vehicles capable of carrying instruments, equipment, supplies, and living organisms through space;

(4) The establishment of long-range studies of the potential benefits to be gained from, the opportunities for, and the problems involved in the utilization of aeronautical and space activities for peaceful and scientific purposes;

(5) The preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautical and space science and technology and in the application thereof to the conduct of peaceful activities within and outside the atmosphere;

(6) The making available to agencies directly concerned with national defense of discoveries that have military value or significance, and the furnishing by such agencies, to the civilian agency established to direct and control nonmilitary aeronautical and space activities, of information as to discoveries which have value or significance to that agency;

(7) Cooperation by the United States with other nations and groups of nations in work done pursuant to this Act and in the peaceful application of the results thereof;

(8) The most effective utilization of the scientific and engineering resources of the United States, with close cooperation among all interested agencies of the United States in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, facilities, and equipment; and

(9) The preservation of the United States preeminent position in aeronautics and space through research and technology development related to associated manufacturing processes.

(e) The Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the unique competence in scientific and engineering systems of [NASA] also be directed toward ground propulsion systems research and development. Such development shall be conducted so as to contribute to the objectives of developing energy-and petroleum-conserving ground propulsion systems, and of minimizing the environmental degradation caused by such systems.

(f) The Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the unique competence of [NASA] in science and engineering systems be directed to assisting in bioengineering research, development, and demonstration programs designed to alleviate and minimize the effects of disability.

(g) The Congress declares that the general welfare and security of the United States require that the unique competence of [NASA] be directed to detecting, tracking, cataloging, and characterizing near-Earth asteroids and comets in order to provide warning and mitigation of the potential hazard of such near-Earth objects to the Earth.

Sorry Keith, but Rep Bishop did not use the phrase "NASAs tested replacement", it would seem it was SpaceRef.com that used that phrase. Rep Bishop's statement was (as provided by both your link and the youtube video link at SpaceRef:

"Lori Garver is the number two Administrator at NASA who is a political appointee that has been given credit as the prime author of the program to cut the Constellation. In a speech in Maryland a fortnight ago, she said NASA has changed their goals and seem to indicate that the new goals of NASA will be to end poverty and hunger, create world peace, education, save the environment and in a note of bitter irony, creating new jobs. It would seem that Miss Garver perhaps should look at her door and realize that since 1958 the goal of NASA has been space- to be first in space science, first in space exploration, first in manned flight, and the Constellation program is the program that works with an emphasis on human safety to accomplish this. Miss Garvers plan would cede control of the heavens to the Russians and the Chinese probably for most of our lifetime and has the unintended consequence of hurting education, aerospace, ironically enough- defense and jobs. Mr. Speaker, we can and should do better."

So I guess your whole attack on his "statement" doesnt really make sense, since he did not make the statement you attribute to him. Also, your complete dismissal of Ares I-X as a valid test flight is just inexplicable.

Editor's note: Read this link on his official website - the website that speaks officially for him. The link is here: http://robbishop.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=178791 The post on SpaceRef is a verbatim repeat of what is on his official website. As for my Ares 1-X comments, keep drinking that koolaid.

Ok Keith, I have sat quiet on this one long enough. Your flat out misrepresentation of what happened with Ares I-X is a disservice to your readers.

"That's right - the same one that flew a strange profile after staging and had parachute failures."

Every model for final design of Ares I-X showed the upper stage beginning an immediate tumble after separation. It had no separation motors or active guidance. Most of the ballast was in the bottom (simulating the LH2), and the simulated frustrum remained attached (as planned, but not what would happen on Ares) making it aft heavy and thus basic physics took over. With no force to continue pushing it or thrusters to guide it, the heavy end is going to want to flip around. Put a paper cone on a baseball and try and throw it (with no spin) so that cone stays "forward", it can't be done.

The pretty little CGI movie put together by the graphics folks that showed the upper stage simulator flying straight after separation was based on an older design for I-X that had continuing active guidance post separation from the RoCS modules that included aft facing thrusters. Those were eliminated in lieu of using an "off the shelf" system for the RoCS modules (leftover peacekeeper parts) since this flight was not a test of the Ares upper stage avionics system, and thus post separation was not a data point that was needed or worth spending the money on.

To quote Steve Davis, "Yes (it was nominal). We ballasted the upper stage. We predicted this. Our 2nd stage was a dummy. Our dynamic pressure was 10 times what you’ll see (on Ares I), and we had a different separation point,” Mr Davis answered.

“The separation we saw was in the realm of possibilities. It wasn’t unexpected to us. The engineers put animation together that showed this before the launch."

The photo you post beside every article involving Ares I-X of the separation is also misleading. That angle makes it appear as if there was recontact, or makes it appear that the rocket "broke" in the middle. If you look at any other angle, or the on board video, you can see that there is a great deal of distance between the first stage and the upper stage. Why don't you pick a photo that shows the truth!

As far as the chute failure, it was a bad sensor on the reefing line cutter, not the chute itself. Either way, thats what flight testing is for! It was successful in finding a failure mode. Heck, ONE chute carried the entire load till splashdown, it just couldn't decelerate it enough on its own to prevent damage to the first stage. I still think that single chute is an amazing achievement all on its own!

"As for my Ares 1-X comments, keep drinking that koolaid."

You should be disgusted with yourself because of this comment. The Ares I-X completed all of its mission goals and more. The point of the flight was the verify the aerodynamic modeling software that NASA had developed. I have no idea if the final report is public yet, but I can tell you from reading it personally, that the flight verified the model, mathematics, and assumptions behind it.

Failing to convince you with all that, especially if you don't have access to the report, the models and software the Ares I-X flight verified can be used by ANY future rocket design, either NASA derived or COMMERCIAL, thus monumentally reducing the cost of any future testing program. Give credit where credit is due, and acknowledge how significant that kind of advancement is. It's not the most glamourous achievement to the outside observer, but internally its one heck of a feat. The entire Ares I-X team, along with the modeling software folks, should have nothing but pride for what they have achieved. Their hard work will benefit the entire industry for decades to come, and they did it on an extremely limited budget and were creative in achieving it by using "left-over parts". I mean seriously, if they had designed all the hardware from scratch, and drove the costs up because of it, you would be complaining about that as well!

Case in point, when you post on Falcon, you don't show the image of all the cork falling off during the tanking test. An issue that was solved two decades ago by NASA, and which the reports are available via FIA requests. Nor did you grill them about their secrecy over their testing and their initial unwillingness to disclose the problems they had with their rocket. What are they trying to hide? What are they STILL hiding? I think you should demand a live feed from their firing room for all future tests, just like NASA does, especially if public tax payer money is being invested. Where is your brand of scrutiny in this situation Keith?

So why don't YOU stop drinking the "Kool-aid" Keith, and stop being such a sensationalist. Your negative bias is obvious, and it's quickly eroding your credibility as a journalist.

Editor's note: So .... I do not have the right to express my opinion? That's odd. When did that happen? If you don't like NASA Watch, by all means find another website to read.

I think the important thing to keep in mind when discussing ARES I-X is the fidelity between it and the "operational" vehicle.

I think the issue is whether "test flight" is an accurate description of what has taken place. Test Flight would seem to leave folks with a sense that it was something that it wasn't. Perhaps "experiment" is a better term.

For the term test flight to be used there would have to be a great deal more fidelity with the eventual vehicle. In wind tunnel testing, a model replicating the outer mold lines is used to gather valuable data. But to call such an experiment a "flight" of the aircraft would leave the wrong impression.

My fear is not that others outside the program will misinterpret the accomplishments of ARES I-X (as Time magazine did in dramatic fashion)...But that folks INSIDE the program will believe such "propaganda". That is a BAD thing when it comes to engineering...

(I am not using this word to inflame...I use it because it is very descriptive => Propaganda: information that is designed to mislead or persuade.)

"Miss Garvers plan would cede control of the heavens to the Russians and the Chinese"

The Russians first off, will have an American Astronaut on almost every launch after we have retired the shuttle.So its not like they are riding into space with their middle finger pointed toward the US.

The Chinese paranoia I just don't get, has anyone screaming lookout for the Chinese actually looked at what they have done with HSF. Its laughable.Sorry Those McCarthyesc tactics worked during the 60's but the with the age of the internet, the US people can't be misinformed anymore and just take it to heart.

Damn the Gravity!

"The point of the flight was the verify the aerodynamic modeling software that NASA had developed."

I think it is great that the Ares-1X folks were able to get the rocket off before the program was placed on cancellation notice. Hey, I too would want to light the fuse on it. And I do agree that it is great to be able to test analysis software against the real thing. Predicting nonlinearities is difficult. And the flight of the Ares-1X does help for this task.

However, as far as verifying aerodynamics is concerned, the Ares-1 has an ogive nose and the Ares-1X has a cone shaped nose. At supersonic speeds an ogive can have between 10% to 20% (25%?) less pressure drag. Plus, if there are nonlinearities, such as those that can be induced by the LAS, they will also be different. If the nonlinearities are different, then the aerodynamic codes are not being tested properly against the real thing.

So, my question is, why wasn't the outer mold line of the Ares-1X a better representation of the Ares-1?

As for the profile after staging, I think the NASA engineers can predict that, assuming the initial conditions for the separation trajectory occurred within the engineers expectations, i.e., separation was clean. The case of staging is an example of the P.R. side of NASA not knowing what the engineers are saying, and/or vice versa, (and the managers not caring) and thus the audience is mislead. Of course, for the audience to be mislead, it too must be ignorant. I'll admit I didn't think it would rotate at the rate that it did. If I remember right, the q at separation is about 1/10th of sea level pressure. Of course it would rotate, since it was most likely unstable. But I missed the rate.

Of course I'm also interested in knowing how close the actual tumble rate was to the mean predicted tumble rate in terms of standard deviations. After all, the initial conditions for the trajectory are very important and no one knows what they will be precisely. Thus, Monte Carlo simulations are run.

"Editor's note: So .... I do not have the right to express my opinion? That's odd. When did that happen? If you don't like NASA Watch, by all means find another website to read."

I think part of the confusion is some people think that NASA Watch is a news site instead of your own opinion. Most sites will display "Commentary" or "Opinion" to let the readers know.

Editor's note: DUH that is why I use "Editor's note" or "Keith's note"

... You should be disgusted with yourself because of this comment. The Ares I-X completed all of its mission goals and more. The point of the flight was the verify the aerodynamic modeling software that NASA had developed. I have no idea if the final report is public yet, but I can tell you from reading it personally, that the flight verified the model, mathematics, and assumptions behind it.

Failing to convince you with all that, especially if you don't have access to the report, the models and software the Ares I-X flight verified can be used by ANY future rocket design, either NASA derived or COMMERCIAL, thus monumentally reducing the cost of any future testing program. ...

Compare to:

NASA says October test launch affirms Ares 1 concept

BY STEPHEN CLARK
SPACEFLIGHT NOW

Posted: December 3, 2009

Managers in charge of the Ares 1-X test flight told reporters on Thursday the $445 million October mission confirmed NASA's concept for the Ares 1 crew launch vehicle will work as designed.

Credit: NASA-KSC

"This proves the concept really does work," said Bob Ess, Ares 1-X mission manager.

Ess cautioned the data was preliminary, but officials provided remarkable detail on key measurements collected throughout the flight.

...

Engineers studied two periods of projected thrust oscillation and found maximum frequencies of 15 hertz and 29 hertz, one-third and one-half the predicted values, respectively.

( But no mention of thrust oscillation amplitudes. --DD )

...

The rocket's damping characteristics were also put under the microscope during the Ares 1-X test. Engineers planned a programmed nozzle deflection to bend the rocket and gauge how long it took for the motion to dampen out.

Data shows the damping was about 20 percent lower than during simulations. Smith said engineers will further study the unexpected damping rate.

( Meaning that the Ares body needed additional stiffness, implying additional structural weight? --DD )

The Ares 1-X team plans two more intermediate reports in late January and late February before turning over the data to the Ares 1 rocket designers to incorporate in their work. ...

http://spaceflightnow.com/ares1x/091203update/

Could you please point us to the January and February 2010 reports mentioned above? If these reports haven't been published yet, how long is a reasonable period of time to wait for publication?

And how does one obtain access to the models and software the Ares I-X flight verified?
In order for COMMERCIAL designers of large solid rocket motors or doctoral candidates looking for dissertation material to use this good stuff, they have have to be able to read it.

... can be used by ANY future rocket design, either NASA derived or COMMERCIAL ...

OK, so when will the stuff be available?

With all due respect to Rep. Bishop, there is not one shred of evidence to back up the ridiculous claim that Lori Garver is manipulating the end of human spaceflight. Will somebody either put up or shut up these divisive attacks that get us nowhere?

So you are admiting that the Obama plan is the end of NASA human space flight? Because I don't think that is what we are saying. What we are saying is that good or bad she is the architect of this plan. As evidence I will point out that there was no discussion during Bolden's confirmation hearings about canceling Constellation nor any discussion by him during the 6 months he was in charge before this budget was rolled out. Also the complete lack of details for the "new plan" and the shocked surprise of the NASA HSF center directors tells me this wasn't the recommendation they had crafted and presented to OMB. The only credible author for this plan I can find is Ms. Garver. I care who the author is so I know who to trust when I am trying to figure out what to do with the rest of my future.

Well then half the work we did in my group at Patuxent River was experiments and not test flights because we spent a lot of time and effort validating aerodynamic models that were used for developing simulator software. I think test flight is an entirely accurate characterization of Ares-1X.

Cool, maybe you can help shed some light on this for me. The Ares-1X nose/capsule has three conical shaped segments making up the outer mold line (Not including LAS sting). The Ares is an ogive. At supersonic speeds an ogive has less pressure drag. (expansion is occurring on the sides of the ogive, thus reducing drag). How much less pressure drag does the nose of the Ares 1 have compared to the Ares 1X?

"I care who the author is so I know who to trust when I am trying to figure out what to do with the rest of my future."

That's understandable. I agree with Frank: Why single her out? What about someone at OSTP, who would have the science policy background *and* be closer to the Oval Office? What about someone at OMB, which has always had an ax to grind about NASA?

CML

Ex Navy, I admit no such thing, perhaps in large measure because under the Obama budget a new field of human spaceflight is being born, and for the first time ever funds are to be made available for the research aboard the ISS that is the whole point of the program.
You and others here have repeatedly failed to provide specific credible evidence that Garver is out to destroy human spacelfight or is the "author" of that part of the budget with which you disagree. Please cite me specific meetings, proposals and statements of hers that call for the end of human spaceflight.
No such thing exists, and until it does, I think pounding away at Garver is simply unfair.

Sorry but I am not an aerodynamist so I can't answer your question. I was the test pilot doing the data collection on the flights and the data was processed by our flight test engineers who then passed it on to the simulator engineers for validating and updating their models for the E-2 and C-2 simulators. I was just trying to point out to Sky's the limit that data collection for model verification is a valid test flight objective. The fact that the test vehicle isn't an actual match for the operational vehicle doesn't automatically invaidate the test.