PDA

View Full Version : Goodbye Direct/Jupiter, Hello Ares I



JimMcDade
08-19-2008, 01:42 PM
This news is a stake through the heart of the DIRECT 2.0 nonsense. As Steve Cook says here, "It pounds it flat" :

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0 xmlns="#DEFAULT" pcv="http://prismstandard.org/namespaces/1.2/pcv" pim="http://prismstandard.org/namespaces/1.2/pim" prl="http://prismstandard.org/namespaces/1.2/prl"><TBODY><TR><TD class=articletitle>Ares I Engineers Believe They Have Fix For Thrust Oscillation Problem</TD></TR><TR><TD class=articlebody>AWIN First</TD></TR><TR><TD class=location>08/18/2008</TD></TR><TR><TD>

</TD></TR><TR><TD class=author>Frank Morring, Jr. </TD></TR><TR><TD class=author></TD></TR><TR><TD>http://www.aviationweek.com/media/images/x.gif</TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD class=deck></TD></TR><TR><TD>

</TD></TR><TR><TD class=articlebody>Ares I engineers are scheduled to present their final recommendation this week on fixing a potentially dangerous thrust oscillation on the new crew launch vehicle.

“Conservative” analysis last year predicted potentially dangerous vibrations in the Orion cabin triggered by harmonic vibrations across the stack in the final few seconds that the solid-fuel first stage is burning.

After considering mounting the first-stage recovery parachutes on springs to “detune” the stack, the engineering team assigned to tackle the problem has settled on an approach designed to minimize changes to the Orion vehicle by handling almost all of the vibration in the first stage. The earlier approach also would have required changes to the seat suspensions in the Orion cabin to reduce vibrations experienced by crew members.

NASA still is gathering flight- and ground-test data on the phenomenon. But for a worst-case scenario, the Ares I project and its first-stage contractor – ATK – would develop an active tune mass absorber that would detect the frequency and amplitude of the thrust oscillation with accelerometers, and use battery-powered motors to move weights up and down to damp it out. The concept calls for mounting 16-20 of the devices on the aft skirt of the Ares I first stage (Aerospace DAILY, June 17).

Garry Lyles, an experienced launch vehicle engineer at Marshall Space Flight Center who heads up the effort to fix the thrust oscillation problem, said the approach will be able to reduce vibration loads on the crew in Orion to 0.25 gs, which is considered low enough for astronauts to be able to read displays and react to changing conditions effectively. It also would be able to handle variations in the vibrations produced by a given motor with “a lot of capability to tune in on the frequencies that were being generated.”

Steve Cook, exploration launch vehicles project manager at Marshall, said upcoming testing and analysis, including centrifuge tests at Ames Research Center that may update the Project Gemini-vintage human-loads guidelines, could eliminate the need for an active-damping concept.

Lyles’ team has also studied passive damping in the aft skirt, which may be sufficient for handling the actual loads. A passive “compliance structure” – essentially a spring-loaded ring that would detune the stack by softening the interface between the first and upper stages – also is included in the design concept.

The active aft-skirt tune mass absorber would weigh about 6,500 pounds and the compliance structure would add another 6,000 pounds. Both would drop away with the first stage, Cook said, meaning the maximum hit to overall vehicle performance in terms of payload to orbit would be 1,200-1,400 pounds. That is within performance margin maintained at this point in vehicle development, Cook said, and could drop if new data reveal the fixes are more than is needed.

“The first thing we’re going to look to see if we can leave off is the compliance ring,” Cook said. “Then we’d like to be able to go from an active system down to a passive system, and then the last thing we would do is to take the whole thing off as we go forward. So we’ve got a series of off-ramps with this design.”

Cook said the thrust oscillation issue did not play into NASA’s recent decision to push back its internal first-flight date for a crewed Ares I by a year (Aerospace DAILY, Aug. 12). The Ares I is in the final stages of preliminary design review (PDR), with a final PDR board tentatively set for Sept. 10. But the thrust oscillation issue will be handled in a “delta PDR” next spring, and developing the mitigation designs should fit within the overall schedule.

“The solution we’ve got works,” Cook said. “It pounds it flat, and it gives us a lot of flexibility, and we can handle it from a performance perspective.”

Source article (by subscription)

http://www.aviationweek.com/search/AvnowSearchResult.do?reference=xml/awx_xml/2008/08/18/awx_08_18_2008_p0-75136.xml (http://www.aviationweek.com/search/AvnowSearchResult.do?reference=xml/awx_xml/2008/08/18/awx_08_18_2008_p0-75136.xml)
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

J.McDonald
09-02-2008, 05:12 AM
Interesting! Has any other LV used active shock absorbers like this?

JimMcDade
09-03-2008, 11:59 AM
Not sure, off-hand. There's a first time for everything, particularly in space programs.

Me2
09-03-2008, 12:13 PM
There aren't any on otherbecause they didn't need to crutch a bad design

Rick
09-03-2008, 12:23 PM
Me2,
I am curious if there is anything that NASA has planned post shuttle that you like or agree with?

BTW, welcome to the site. We appreciate your presence.

JimMcDade
09-03-2008, 01:14 PM
Quote: "There aren't any on otherbecause they didn't need to crutch a bad design"
<HR style="COLOR: #d1d1e1; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #d1d1e1" SIZE=1>
So, you are claiming that any solution that is applied without precedent is bad, regardless of how effective it may be? That kind of antediluvian attitude would certainly discourage innovation of any kind. The Apollo program was all about using new and untried solutions. The decision to use anti-pogo solution applied to eliminate Saturn V oscillations was not that different from the active aft-skirt tune mass absorber. Was the Saturn V a bad design as well?

My friend, you are allowing your enthusiastic prejudice against Ares I to paint yourself into a corner. Don't allow your pre-determination that Ares I is a "bad design" to cloud your thinking. This active aft-skirt tune mass absorber story is not good evidence to support the claim that Ares I is a bad design. It's just rocket science as usual.

J.McDonald
09-03-2008, 05:53 PM
Quote: "There aren't any on otherbecause they didn't need to crutch a bad design"
<hr style="color: rgb(209, 209, 225); background-color: rgb(209, 209, 225);" size="1">
So, you are claiming that any solution that is applied without precedent is bad, regardless of how effective it may be? That kind of antediluvian attitude would certainly discourage innovation of any kind. The Apollo program was all about using new and untried solutions. The decision to use anti-pogo solution applied to eliminate Saturn V oscillations was not that different from the active aft-skirt tune mass absorber. Was the Saturn V a bad design as well?

My friend, you are allowing your enthusiastic prejudice against Ares I to paint yourself into a corner. Don't allow your pre-determination that Ares I is a "bad design" to cloud your thinking. This active aft-skirt tune mass absorber story is not good evidence to support the claim that Ares I is a bad design. It's just rocket science as usual.

Saturn was breaking ground because they were trying to do something nobody had done before.

Ares isn't.

Me2
09-06-2008, 01:40 PM
1. So, you are claiming that any solution that is applied without precedent is bad, regardless of how effective it may be? That kind of antediluvian attitude would certainly discourage innovation of any kind. The Apollo program was all about using new and untried solutions. The decision to use anti-pogo solution applied to eliminate Saturn V oscillations was not that different from the active aft-skirt tune mass absorber. Was the Saturn V a bad design as well?

2. This active aft-skirt tune mass absorber story is not good evidence to support the claim that Ares I is a bad design.

1. Wrong. Pogo suppression was used on many other launch vehicles before the Saturn V. It wasn't unique to the Saturn V. the SSME's have pogo suppression. It is not just for crew vehicles. Also pogo suppression is passive.

2. It is exactly that. Being an active systems reduces the reliability of the system and which decreases the LOM/LOC numbers. An SRM as a 1st booster on a CLV is a bad design.

Me2
09-06-2008, 01:43 PM
Me2,
I am curious if there is anything that NASA has planned post shuttle that you like or agree with?

BTW, welcome to the site. We appreciate your presence.

I like that the CEV is a capsule. NASA shouldn't be in the launch vehicle business. The experts are in industry and not at MSFC. NASA buys commercial LVs for its other spacecraft, it can for its manned spacecraft too. This was the plan for OSP.

JimMcDade
09-06-2008, 11:09 PM
I did not say that POGO suppression was not used prior to Saturn V. The Apollo program did use a lot of unprecedented technology. That was my main point.

The active aft-skirt tune mass absorber probably won't be needed anyway, but your point about LOM/LOC is speculative at best. Active systems can and do actually improve safety and reliability in many applications.

BTW- Can you offer numbers to support the claim that Ares I oscillations are a show stopper. I know you can't, because such numbers do not exist.

Contrary to your opinion, Ares I is indeed breaking new ground. The use of solids to completely power a manned vehicle stage is unprecedented.

Your statement that, "The experts are in industry and not at MSFC." is evidence that you are unable to accept anything coming out of NASA. One of my jogging buddies was a Douglas Saturn third stage guidance engineer who told me about his low opinion of some of the NASA engineers. He also had a low opinion of some of the Douglass and Boeing engineers. A former Apollo era NAA Downey engineer that I worked with and studied under, told me that he thought the NASA CM engineers were better than NAA's CM engineers. Anecdotal opinions are fun, but they only reflect one's personal experience.

I seem to recall that Redstone/MSFC helped develop a few rockets that put our first satellite in space, our first astronaut in space, and our first man on the moon. I think they have done OK. The got stuck with a dangerous beast called the Space Transportation System in the early 1970s, but they did a pretty good job on that under the circumstances.

Your opinion of NASA is clearly fixed, so there is no point in addressing anything that you post- as far as I am concerned. Your thought processes are clouded by your prejudice against NASA.

The absolute air of certitude that comes across in your statement that, "The experts are in industry and not at MSFC", indicates a fixed state of mind on your part. You are entitled to hold that thought pattern as long as you like. I don't know how you arrived where you are. I suppose that somebody at NASA hurt your feelings or maybe you lost a job or something. You seem quite dedicated to contradicting anybody who supports NASA in any way. I am not sure that is a good career decision, but maybe it is. Best of luck.

Me2
09-07-2008, 02:29 AM
1. but your point about LOM/LOC is speculative at best. Active systems can and do actually improve safety and reliability in many applications.

2. BTW- Can you offer numbers to support the claim that Ares I oscillations are a show stopper. I know you can't, because such numbers do not exist.

3. Your statement that, "The experts are in industry and not at MSFC." is evidence that you are unable to accept anything coming out of NASA.

4. One of my jogging buddies was a Douglas Saturn third stage guidance engineer who told me about his low opinion of some of the NASA engineers. He also had a low opinion of some of the Douglass and Boeing engineers. A former Apollo era NAA Downey engineer that I worked with and studied under, told me that he thought the NASA CM engineers were better than NAA's CM engineers. Anecdotal opinions are fun, but they only reflect one's personal experience.

5. I seem to recall that Redstone/MSFC helped develop a few rockets that put our first satellite in space, our first astronaut in space, and our first man on the moon. I think they have done OK. The got stuck with a dangerous beast called the Space Transportation System in the early 1970s, but they did a pretty good job on that under the circumstances.

6. Your opinion of NASA is clearly fixed, so there is no point in addressing anything that you post- as far as I am concerned. Your thought processes are clouded by your prejudice against NASA.

7. The absolute air of certitude that comes across in your statement that, "The experts are in industry and not at MSFC", indicates a fixed state of mind on your part. You are entitled to hold that thought pattern as long as you like. I don't know how you arrived where you are. I suppose that somebody at NASA hurt your feelings or maybe you lost a job or something. You seem quite dedicated to contradicting anybody who supports NASA in any way. I am not sure that is a good career decision, but maybe it is. Best of luck.

1. Not speculative but fact. More parts equates to less reliability. Less reliability equates to lower LOC/LOM

2. What numbers? Anyways, without TO suppression, Ares I can't be used

3. Never said NASA, just MSFC. And there is data to prove it. X-33, X-34, X-37, SLI, OSP, etc. They can't manage projects.

4. That is Apollo era and not applicable today

5. Again, that is 30 years ago. What has MSFC done lately? They haven't designed any launch vehicles since Apollo. They haven't done anything to maintain the experience. There has been a whole generation of employee that have not designed one launch vehicle. The experts ARE in industry. They have produced new LV's in the last 30 years, Boeing, LM, ULA, OSC, Spacex, etc

6. I am not against NASA. I am a NASA civil servant.

7. My statement is true and it is a fact, see # 5. It was also evident in personal dealings with MSFC on X-37, OSP and Constellation. Forturnately my career is not tied to Ares and so when it is canceled I will still have a job

Me2
09-07-2008, 02:32 AM
The use of solids to completely power a manned vehicle stage is unprecedented.

.

And a bad idea from the beginning. Ares is going to ruin NASA