backtop


Print 22 comment(s) - last by grath.. on Oct 29 at 11:18 PM


10 seconds after launch  (Source: NASA)

  (Source: NASA)

View from Main Stage during sub-orbital flight  (Source: NASA)
The first test flight will hopefully not be the last

NASA's Ares I-X test rocket lifted off at 11:30 EDT earlier today from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The first stage lasted for two minutes of powered flight as planned, while the entire mission lasted approximately six minutes from launch to the splashdown of the first stage almost 150 miles away.

The Ares I-X rocket produced 2.6 million pounds of thrust, accelerating the rocket to nearly 3 G's and a top speed of Mach 4.76. The rocket reached a peak sub-orbital altitude of 150,000 feet after the separation the first stage from the main stage.

The Ares I is the first new rocket to launch from the Kennedy Space Center since the Space Shuttle in 1981.

"This is a huge step forward for NASA's exploration goals," said Doug Cooke, the Associate Administrator for the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate at NASA Headquarters in Washington.

"Ares I-X provides NASA with an enormous amount of data that will be used to improve the design and safety of the next generation of American spaceflight vehicles -- vehicles that could again take humans beyond low Earth orbit."

The Ares I-X mission was conceived almost four years ago as an early demonstration for the Constellation program, which envisions a manned return to the Moon. The Ares program includes the Ares I rocket which will carry crews into Earth orbit, and the much larger Ares V to launch cargo.

"I can't say enough about this team," Cooke added. "They've been together probably a little over three years now, and they went from a concept to flying this vehicle in that period of time, which is the first time this has been done by a human spaceflight team in a long time

Today's test flight will be followed by the Ares I-Y test flight in 2014, following years of data analysis and computer modeling. Flight engineers were especially concerned about roll torque, and will be carefully scrutinizing the data collected by over 700 onboard sensors.

A wide range of performance data was relayed to the ground during the flight and also stored in the onboard flight data recorder. This flight test engineering data will be examined to see how well it correlates with current computer models. The sensors gathered information during several key aspects of the mission, including assembly and launch operations, as well as the separation of the vehicle's first and second stages.

There was some initial speculation that the new kevlar parachutes being used for the first time did not deploy properly. They are part of the first stage which will be recovered for inspection. The simulated Upper Stage and boilerplate fell into the Atlantic Ocean as planned and will not be recovered.

"The most valuable learning is through experience and observation," said Bob Ess, the Ares I-X's mission manager. "Tests such as this -- from paper to flight -- are vital in gaining a deeper understanding of the vehicle, from design to development."

NASA was promoting the flight as an early opportunity to test and prove hardware, facilities, and ground operations.  However, there have been calls to scrap some test missions and even a push to abandon the Ares I rocket completely. This early test flight gives the Ares program significant public visibility, making it harder to cancel during the next round of budget cuts.

Overhanging the mission was a 157-page report by a panel ordered by President Obama to review the Constellation program. They found that the program was on an "unsustainable trajectory" due to insufficient funding and unrealistic schedules.

Instead of using the Ares I, the panel recommended relying on commercial crew transport services from companies like SpaceX. NASA would focus instead on developing heavy-lift rockets like the Ares V for deep space exploration.

Please refer here for more details regarding the Ares I rocket.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By delphinus100 on 10/29/2009 3:37:57 AM , Rating: 2
"It doesn't really matter which nation puts a man on the moon next, that's been done and any nation achieving it now should be publicly shamed for taking so damned long after it's been done, including the US."

Why? 'Hey, it's the first time for US .' is a valid response from whatever nation does it.

"The first nation to actually mine/occupy the moon, now that will be interesting. Yknow, do something else with it except look at rocks."

Now, this is true. I don't care so much about who gets there next as who does it in such a way as to make it stick. (And the current Constellation architecture will not let the U.S. do that...)

"There are far more interesting, and profitable, places to go to. And if we had put some more effort into it, all nations that is, we could've been reaching those places by now."

The Moon is still interesting. Don't let six Apollo landings four decades ago fool you, we're hardly finished with it yet. And international bureaucracies will suck money and time without results, even better than NASA can...as well as such projects being held hostage to the continued good will between all countries involved.


By grath on 10/29/2009 10:35:36 PM , Rating: 2
I believe Jack Schmitt of Apollo 17 said something like "We stopped just when we were getting good at it."

There is MUCH more of actual tangible benefit that can be accomplished on the lunar surface than any other destination, assuming of course that we go there to stay this time. The mining you speak of, actually building things there, in-situ resource utilization, these are not new concepts, they are the things we should have and could have been doing in the 70s.

quote:
(And the current Constellation architecture will not let the U.S. do that...)


Im not so sure about that. Once we have the vehicle to get there, its really about the payload we choose to send. The Altair lunar module reportedly has a uncrewed cargo capacity of 15 metric tons (wiki), and thats nothing to sneeze at.

There are also plans to design modular aspects into the descent stage such that hardware left behind can be reutilized for outpost operations, the airlock on the descent stage being one known feature. Also nice big gas tanks should be perfectly salvagable, and hopefully the frame itself will be modular spaceframe or erector set like pieces that can be disassembled and reused.

As far as payload, how much will it really take to establish a small permanent base?

- A solar power tower to erect on the tip of a permanently lit crater near the south pole

- Alot of cabling to run downhill to a flatter area

- Earthmoving (moonmoving) equipment like a dragline excavator to dig big holes

- One or more Bigelow-type inflatable habitat module to put in the holes

- A couple pressurized rovers, several more unpressurized

- A few emergency airlock shacks to tow around to EVA worksites

- Various robotics and communications equipment

Im no rocket scientist, but it would seem that with proper planning, modularity, and focus (and funding duh) such a small base could be established in less than 10 landings. Probably more like 6-8.


"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki