PA-1 Launch (Pad Abort)

[CaptnKirk]

Suprised that no one posted this, or that there is such a lack of attention to our Space Program.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfKzAZY2tTk

NASA Pictures:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/multimedia/pad_abort_050610/orion_pa1_launch.html


Ares may be a dead player as the rocket booster, but the Orion Capsule and Human Space Flight development is continuing.

 

[ElFenix]

op-ed about shuttle retirement from the program manager when the shuttle was in design

 

[Dr. Zaus]

This kind of thing makes me question Obama's dedication to science; a lack of such dedication is a key reason I could not vote for Palin to be one, old cancerous old man's, heartbeat away from being president.

 

[CaptnKirk]

op-ed about shuttle retirement from the program manager when the shuttle was in design

Well, let's see now - the decision to terminate the Shuttle was made 6 years ago by Bush, who not only decided to kill it,
he also presented the concept of flying back to the Moon and to Mars, but failed to fund the Constellation to make it viable.

Obama and all the NASA advisors, except one (Griffin) agreed that the Moon and Mars missions were not able to be made
with current technology and the curtailed funding - they had only had 6 years to make that transition but didn't pay for it.
Obama wants to salvage the useable parts - the Orion Capsule, and replace the rocket now, and make it capable of being
launched in an unmanned configuration for deployment as an emergency rescue 'Life-Boat' and position it on the ISS to return
Astronauts from the ISS to Earth, so as not to have to depend on the Russian Soyuz vehicle which sometimes returns in
a 'Balistic Re-Entry' mode, where the riders are subjected to as much as 9 G's of force.

Obama has increased NASA funding for space flight by $ 6 Xillion for immediate relief, and the Shuttle budget will fold into that
when the Shuttle flights end later this year.
What Obama wants is to development an advanced rocket and propulsion system that is capable of flying manned flights to their
destinations within fewer years, instead of the 10 year out timeframe for the Moon, and the 20+ year timeframe for Mars.
A trip to mars using the Ares/Constellation combination would take 6 months going out, and 9 months for return - a year and a half round trip.
To land on Mars you have to assemble a landing craft in Mars orbit to ascend, and then depart to a rendesvous position for
crew transfer for the return flight. It would take several years just to prepare the Lander/Departure Craft and lift that
into position for preparation to attempt the first landing.
You have to be able of launching from the Martian surface and the associated gravity well to get back up and off the planet.

A mission to one of the Martian Moons provides the location and the proximity to acturally make that part of a mission possible.

The Space Fantasy plan that was in place and cancelled was not a viable preformable option. Water alone for the round trip
flight just to keep the Astronauts hydrated would have cost at least $4 Billion.
A 6 mont flight, with supply stops every 2 months for replenshment of food and water, and transfer of waste from the capsule
means that you had to pre-position 3 supply modules along the way going out, and another 4 on the path coming back
- that's 7 supply craft and their associated launch rockets and costs for each manned excursion.

By targeting LaGrange Points you might be able to reduce that to 2 stops going out and 3 stops for the return,
but the between flight segments increase in duration to meet each position.

Obama's desire to have advanced vehicles that can fly out on 2 months and return in 3 months, and positon construction
points on asteroids or on planetary satellites is a much more feasable target, it pulls the timeframe of performance in, and
reduces the cost per launch and total flight requirements by 2/3rds.

Shuttle is a dead player, the External Tank line was shut down a year ago, and to re-start the line would take 2 years to yield the first tank.
There are only 2 Shuttle flights left, and only 3 tanks in existance.

If the choice is made to revive the 'Shuttle-C' or any of those derivatives for use, it would take an 4 years to produce the first unit.

Right now the unmanned Orion can fly on either an Atlas V or on the Delta IV by simply making a 'Spacecraft Adapter' and
that vehicle can be flown up to the ISS in late 2012 of early 2013 to position the Orion as the 'Life-Raft'.
Building an 'Ares V-Lite' instead of a cargo hauler lets us move forward with manned Orion launches by 2014, and that vehicle
can further evolve into the 'Ares V - Heavy' for deployment of equipment into holding position for rensezvous years ahead
of when we place the next generation of Orion Capsules onto faster rockets for deep space missions.
LEO (Low Earth Orbit) is one thing, EDV (Earth Departure Vehicle) is another more complex development.

 

[Trianon]

Well, let's see now - the decision to terminate the Shuttle was made 6 years ago by Bush, who not only decided to kill it,
he also presented the concept of flying back to the Moon and to Mars, but failed to fund the Constellation to make it viable.

Obama and all the NASA advisors, except one (Griffin) agreed that the Moon and Mars missions were not able to be made
with current technology and the curtailed funding - they had only had 6 years to make that transition but didn't pay for it.
Obama wants to salvage the useable parts - the Orion Capsule, and replace the rocket now, and make it capable of being
launched in an unmanned configuration for deployment as an emergency rescue 'Life-Boat' and position it on the ISS to return
Astronauts from the ISS to Earth, so as not to have to depend on the Russian Soyuz vehicle which sometimes returns in
a 'Balistic Re-Entry' mode, where the riders are subjected to as much as 9 G's of force.

Obama has increased NASA funding for space flight by $ 6 Xillion for immediate relief, and the Shuttle budget will fold into that
when the Shuttle flights end later this year.
What Obama wants is to development an advanced rocket and propulsion system that is capable of flying manned flights to their
destinations within fewer years, instead of the 10 year out timeframe for the Moon, and the 20+ year timeframe for Mars.
A trip to mars using the Ares/Constellation combination would take 6 months going out, and 9 months for return - a year and a half round trip.
To land on Mars you have to assemble a landing craft in Mars orbit to ascend, and then depart to a rendesvous position for
crew transfer for the return flight. It would take several years just to prepare the Lander/Departure Craft and lift that
into position for preparation to attempt the first landing.
You have to be able of launching from the Martian surface and the associated gravity well to get back up and off the planet.

A mission to one of the Martian Moons provides the location and the proximity to acturally make that part of a mission possible.

The Space Fantasy plan that was in place and cancelled was not a viable preformable option. Water alone for the round trip
flight just to keep the Astronauts hydrated would have cost at least $4 Billion.
A 6 mont flight, with supply stops every 2 months for replenshment of food and water, and transfer of waste from the capsule
means that you had to pre-position 3 supply modules along the way going out, and another 4 on the path coming back
- that's 7 supply craft and their associated launch rockets and costs for each manned excursion.

By targeting LaGrange Points you might be able to reduce that to 2 stops going out and 3 stops for the return,
but the between flight segments increase in duration to meet each position.

Obama's desire to have advanced vehicles that can fly out on 2 months and return in 3 months, and positon construction
points on asteroids or on planetary satellites is a much more feasable target, it pulls the timeframe of performance in, and
reduces the cost per launch and total flight requirements by 2/3rds.

Shuttle is a dead player, the External Tank line was shut down a year ago, and to re-start the line would take 2 years to yield the first tank.
There are only 2 Shuttle flights left, and only 3 tanks in existance.

If the choice is made to revive the 'Shuttle-C' or any of those derivatives for use, it would take an 4 years to produce the first unit.

Right now the unmanned Orion can fly on either an Atlas V or on the Delta IV by simply making a 'Spacecraft Adapter' and
that vehicle can be flown up to the ISS in late 2012 of early 2013 to position the Orion as the 'Life-Raft'.
Building an 'Ares V-Lite' instead of a cargo hauler lets us move forward with manned Orion launches by 2014, and that vehicle
can further evolve into the 'Ares V - Heavy' for deployment of equipment into holding position for rensezvous years ahead
of when we place the next generation of Orion Capsules onto faster rockets for deep space missions.
LEO (Low Earth Orbit) is one thing, EDV (Earth Departure Vehicle) is another more complex development.

You know your stuff!

 

[CaptnKirk]

Newest viseo - Super Slow-Mo, you can see the steering rockets and the separation.

http://vimeo.com/11631855


Use 'Full Screen'

 

[Perknose]

You know your stuff!

The good Capn, besides being a Vietnam vet with a son who served in Iraq, is a hella' good guy who has never believed the neocon's lies and, btw, an engineer who damn well does know what he's talking about! :thumbsup:

 

[Brovane]

The good Capn, besides being a Vietnam vet with a son who served in Iraq, is a hella' good guy who has never believed the neocon's lies and, btw, an engineer who damn well does know what he's talking about! :thumbsup:

So I have to ask. Not really being a expert on the space program, why are astronauts like Neil Armstrong so against Obama's change in direction with NASA?

 

[Trianon]

The good Capn, besides being a Vietnam vet with a son who served in Iraq, is a hella' good guy who has never believed the neocon's lies and, btw, an engineer who damn well does know what he's talking about! :thumbsup:

It's just great to see that there are ppl on AT with genuine EXPERT opinion, not just adolescents with "an opinion" based on what they saw on TV. Salut to CaptnKirk!

 

[CaptnKirk]

So I have to ask. Not really being a expert on the space program, why are astronauts like Neil Armstrong so against Obama's change in direction with NASA?

Ingrained in their ways, resistant to change. Just keep doing it the way they are comfortable with.
After all, the Shuttle has been around for some 30+ years, and it does work.

But it's not advancing anything and is confined to low Earth orbit, it can barely reach up to 600 Kilometers where the Hubble is,
and that's only 375 miles.
The ISS is at 200 - 215 miles up, that's not very far at all.
To reach a geosynchronous orbit, you have to go out 22,236 miles, and a velocity of
6,985 miles per hour.
You have to go much faster in low orbits like the shuttle does - around 17,000 MPH.

 

[Brovane]

Ingrained in their ways, resistant to change. Just keep doing it the way they are comfortable with.
After all, the Shuttle has been around for some 30+ years, and it does work.

But it's not advancing anything and is confined to low Earth orbit, it can barely reach up to 600 Kilometers where the Hubble is,
and that's only 375 miles.
The ISS is at 200 - 215 miles up, that's not very far at all.
To reach a geosynchronous orbit, you have to go out 22,236 miles, and a velocity of
6,985 miles per hour.
You have to go much faster in low orbits like the shuttle does - around 17,000 MPH.

But why is Armstrong speaking out now? Literally Armstrong doesn't really speak out on anything until now. If you look at the list of people speaking out about this change in direction by the Obama administration. It reads like a who's who of the US space program. They are all speaking out about the cancellation of the Constellation program. Are they all just stuck in the old way on thinking? They are not speaking out against the shuttle missions stopping. They are speaking out about the Constellation program being canceled. Several of the people on this list know exactly what it is like to go beyond LEO and actually orbit something besides the earth.

Neil Armstrong
Commander, Apollo 11

James Lovell
Commander, Apollo 13

Eugene Cernan
Commander, Apollo 17

Walter Cunningham
Apollo 7

Chris Kraft
Past Director JSC

Jack Lousma
Skylab 3, STS 3

Vance Brand
Apollo-Soyuz, STS-5,
STS-41B, STS-35

Bob Crippen
STS-1, STS-7,
STS-41C, STS-41G
Past Director KSC

Michael D. Griffin
Past NASA Administrator

Ed Gibson
Skylab 4

Jim Kennedy
Past Director KSC

Alan Bean
Apollo 12, Skylab 3

Alfred M. Worden
Apollo 15

Scott Carpenter
Mercury Astronaut

Glynn Lunney
Gemini-Apollo Flight Director

Jim McDivitt
Gemini 4, Apollo 9
Apollo Spacecraft Program Manager

Gene Kranz
Gemini-Apollo Flight Director
Past Director NASA Mission Ops.

Joe Kerwin
Skylab 2

Fred Haise
Apollo 13,
Shuttle Landing Tests

Gerald Carr
Skylab 4

Jim Lovell
Gemini 7, Gemini 12,
Apollo 8, Apollo 13

Jake Garn
STS-51D,
U.S. Senator

Charlie Duke
Apollo 16

Bruce McCandless
STS-41B, STS-31

Frank Borman
Gemini 7, Apollo 8

Paul Weitz
Skylab 2, STS-6

George Mueller
Past Associate Administrator
For Manned Space Flight

Harrison Schmitt
Apollo 17,
U.S. Senator

Gene Cernan
Gemini 9, Apollo 10,
Apollo 17

Dick Gordon
Gemini 11, Apollo 12

 

[CaptnKirk]

History - not future, you can't go forward by trying to celebrate living in the past.

Follow 'NASA Watch' to get a feeling for the dynamics of politics.
http://www.nasawatch.com/

In an erie way, it's like celebrating the '72 Dolphins season every year because nobody has matched their past achievements.

Are you satisfied with repeating the '69 lunar landing?
What does it bring to the table that is new?
That was 41 years ago, and today that would still be at least 4 years off, and only if
they make a special separate rocket
to take a lander to the moon for the Orion capsule to dock with, and then transfer a crew for a landing attempt.
Then after a few days on the Moon, coming back up to the Orion, and returning to Earth.
None of that is new, aand none af that is within 4 years at best.

A different propulsion system is needed, not trying to salvage the SRB's from the Shuttle and ET Stack, excessive risk.
You can't shut down a solid rocket, it either burns out or blows up.
Challenger displayed the risk if utilizing solid propellant rocket SRB's, you don't get a good outcome if things go wrong.

The 5 unit stack proposed for the Ares I (Shuttle SRB's are a pair of 4 stacks) introduced a 'POGO' oscillation
where the thrust deviation of the rocket changed by over 100,000 Lbs of thrust in the plus then minus augmentation
of realized thrust, which accured at a rate of about 5 or 6 times a second - this 'Vibration' a low frequency pulse
rate that could not only shake thing apart, but could cause the crew to lose consciousness, and in a worst case scenario
cause irreversible damage to the brain - shake induce hemorrhaging, a potentionally fatal stroke like injury.
(This has in fact happened to drivers of dragsters when they encounter 'Tire Shake')

New propulsion development - IF FUNDED - could move us forward faster than trying to go back to the future.

 

[Brovane]

History - not future, you can't go forward by trying to celebrate living in the past.

Follow 'NASA Watch' to get a feeling for the dynamics of politics.
http://www.nasawatch.com/

In an erie way, it's like celebrating the '72 Dolphins season every year because nobody has matched their past achievements.

Are you satisfied with repeating the '69 lunar landing?
What does it bring to the table that is new?
That was 41 years ago, and today that would still be at least 4 years off, and only if
they make a special separate rocket
to take a lander to the moon for the Orion capsule to dock with, and then transfer a crew for a landing attempt.
Then after a few days on the Moon, coming back up to the Orion, and returning to Earth.
None of that is new, aand none af that is within 4 years at best.

A different propulsion system is needed, not trying to salvage the SRB's from the Shuttle and ET Stack, excessive risk.
You can't shut down a solid rocket, it either burns out or blows up.
Challenger displayed the risk if utilizing solid propellant rocket SRB's, you don't get a good outcome if things go wrong.

The 5 unit stack proposed for the Ares I (Shuttle SRB's are a pair of 4 stacks) introduced a 'POGO' oscillation
where the thrust deviation of the rocket changed by over 100,000 Lbs of thrust in the plus then minus augmentation
of realized thrust, which accured at a rate of about 5 or 6 times a second - this 'Vibration' a low frequency pulse
rate that could not only shake thing apart, but could cause the crew to lose consciousness, and in a worst case scenario
cause irreversible damage to the brain - shake induce hemorrhaging, a potentionally fatal stroke like injury.
(This has in fact happened to drivers of dragsters when they encounter 'Tire Shake')

New propulsion development - IF FUNDED - could move us forward faster than trying to go back to the future.

Yes I am satisified with repeating the 1969 landing because they would have built on it and not walked away like we did in 1972. From my point of view NASA abandoned the moon and went back to LEO instead of pushing forward in 1972. The Saturn V was a great launch system and they pushed the launch system throughout the Apollo missions to launch higher payloads to the moon. They then just abandoned the system to go with a reusable shuttle that turned out be a whole lot less re-usable than anyone thought. Unfortunately we have been distracted for the last 4 Decades by the shuttle and we have been stuck in LEO. The Lunar missions they where looking at would have been longer duration than any of the Apollo lunar landings. They would have continued building from there. We could have used the moon as a building block to further long range missions. I am concerned that we are trying to make a jump from LEO to asteroids and then to the Mars.

I am also concerned with NASA being continually jerked around. They get one set of directions under each administration and start spending billions to develop the necessary technology. Now they are being told to stop what they are doing and change directions. I am not even sure if Congress will go along with Obama's proposed changes. How can NASA develop a consistent space program when they are being jerked around at the whim of the different administrations? I just have a feeling that at the end of the day we will be stuck hitching rides from the Russians to ISS and we will get to see the Chinese land on the moon while we are stuck jerking around in LEO.

I am no rocket scientist and I don't understand a lot about all the space technology. However at the end of the day I don't trust Obama and this administration. However it gets my attention when these many famous and not so famous astronauts and space program pioneers all come out and say that these changes stink. Especially when you have some one like Armstrong who literally never really has anything to say comes out so strongly against the proposed change in direction. When a normal very quiet famous man speaks out against something that get's my attention compared to somebody famous who is always shooting there mouth off. So at the end of the day I will side with people like Armstrong and Lovell because I trust them.