View Full Version : Ares I Passes PDR
JimMcDade
09-10-2008, 09:19 PM
More than 1,100 reviewers from seven NASA field centers and multiple industry partners approve Ares I design:
NASA's Ares I Rocket Passes Review to Reach Critical Milestone
HUNTSVILLE, Ala., Sept 10, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- NASA has taken a major step toward building the nation's next generation launch vehicle with Wednesday's successful completion of the Ares I rocket preliminary design review.
Starting in 2015, the Ares I rocket will launch the Orion crew exploration vehicle, its crew of four to six astronauts, and small cargo payloads to the International Space Station. The rocket also will be used for missions to explore the moon and beyond in the coming decades.
The preliminary design review is the first such milestone in more than 35 years for a U.S. rocket that will carry astronauts into space. The review was conducted at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala. It examined the current design for the Ares I launch vehicle to assess that the planned technical approach will meet NASA's requirements for the fully integrated vehicle. That ensures all components of the vehicle and supporting systems are designed to work together.
"This is a critical step for development of the Ares I rocket," said Rick Gilbrech, associate administrator of the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate in Washington. "Completing the preliminary design review of the integrated vehicle demonstrates our engineering design and development are on sound footing, and the Ares I design work is taking us another step closer to building America's next mode of space transportation."
The preliminary design review included more than 1,100 reviewers from seven NASA field centers and multiple industry partners. The review is the final step of this design process. Teams representing each major part of the Ares I rocket -- the upper stage engine, first stage and upper stage -- all have conducted similar reviews during the past year.
The preliminary design review is one of a series of reviews that occurs before actual flight hardware can be built. As the review process progresses, more detailed parts of the vehicle design are assessed to ensure the overall system can meet all NASA requirements for safe and reliable flight. This process also identifies technical and management challenges and addresses ways to reduce potential risks as the project goes forward.
"Risk assessment is a very important part of the process," said Steve Cook, manager of the Ares I rocket at Marshall. "It allows us to identify issues that might impact the Ares I rocket. For example, we identified thrust oscillation -- vibration in the first stage -- as a risk. In response to this issue, we formed an engineering team. The team conducted detailed analyses and reviewed previous test data, and then recommended options to correct the problem."
"We intend to hold a limited follow-up review next summer to fully incorporate the thrust oscillation recommendations into the stacked vehicle design," Cook added. "Identifying risks that can impact the project and resolving them is a necessary and vital part of the development process."
With the completion of this review, each element of the Ares I rocket will move to the detailed design phase. A critical design review will mark the completion of the detailed design phase and allows for a more thorough review of each system element to ensure the vehicle design can achieve requirements of the Ares program.
This week, the J-2X engine will be the first Ares I element to kick off the critical design review process. The engine will power the Ares I upper stage to orbit after separation from the first stage.
"We're excited about getting into full system engine tests with the new J-2X engine," Cook said. "This will be one of the safest, most affordable and highest performing rocket engines ever built, and testing is critical as we begin preparation for future flights."
Marshall manages the Ares projects and is responsible for design and development of the Ares I rocket and Ares V heavy cargo launch vehicle. NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston manages the Constellation Program, which includes the Ares I rocket, the Ares V vehicle, the Orion crew capsule and the Altair lunar lander. NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida is responsible for ground and launch operations. The program also includes multiple project element teams at NASA centers and contract organizations around the U.S.
For more information about the Ares rockets, visit:
[Only Registered Users Can See Links]
For more information about NASA's Constellation Program, visit:
[Only Registered Users Can See Links]
SOURCE NASA
[Only Registered Users Can See Links] ([Only Registered Users Can See Links])</pre>
I truly hope that those who oppose Ares, will not disparage the quailfied participents or their findings in this PDR.
Fingers crossed!
Andrew
09-11-2008, 03:04 PM
I truly hope that those who oppose Ares, will not disparage the quailfied participents or their findings in this PDR.
Fingers crossed!
You hope for too much. Some are already calling them liars on another website which shall remain nameless.
-Andrew
Unbelievable.
What the hell is wrong with those people. I won't even waste my time going "over there" to read it.
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
Andrew
09-11-2008, 06:36 PM
Unbelievable.
What the hell is wrong with those people. I won't even waste my time going "over there" to read it.
Yeah, I wouldn't. The Wizard of Smart who lives in your area also said on there recently that he believes NASA's actions now border on "criminal." What lunacy!
-Andrew
The Wizard of Smart who lives in your area also said on there recently that he believes NASA's actions now border on "criminal." What lunacy!
-Andrew
What evidence does he posses, that can even remotely validate his claim? If its part and parcel with the rest of DIRECT's factual evidence, I would say ZERO.
Spacenut
09-11-2008, 10:48 PM
Wasn't the direct people going to release some kinda response to Nasa's decision a while back???
What happend to that!!!
:D
I truly hope that those who oppose Ares, will not disparage the quailfied participents or their findings in this PDR.
Fingers crossed!
The PDR was a failure. Any other spacecraft PDR with the same ratings would have failed and it would have to be redone. Also the standard "stoplight" rating system (red yellow green) was 'modified" to include yellow-red so as to make it not look so bad
Andrew
09-17-2008, 11:40 AM
Wasn't the direct people going to release some kinda response to Nasa's decision a while back???
What happend to that!!!
:D
According to Ross Tierney, it's been delayed because of his "partial heart attack" but should be coming "soon"! We're all frothing with anticipation.
Don't forget: he still claims that he has an "independent" analysis from a reputable organization that shows DIRECT is better than Ares. But, interestingly, he still won't release it. Evidently, it's "top secret" as well.
-Andrew
Andrew
09-17-2008, 11:42 AM
The PDR was a failure. Any other spacecraft PDR with the same ratings would have failed and it would have to be redone.
Wrong.
-Andrew
The PDR was a failure. Any other spacecraft PDR with the same ratings would have failed and it would have to be redone. Also the standard "stoplight" rating system (red yellow green) was 'modified" to include yellow-red so as to make it not look so bad
Please provide documented proof of your claims.
Please provide documented proof of your claims.
By definition, there is no such thing as Yellow-red on a stoplight
The fact of a delta PDR or PDR reconvene is proof of failure to pass the PDR. Successful/normal programs don't do this
Wrong.
-Andrew
and how many PDR's have you attended or participated in?
By definition, there is no such thing as Yellow-red on a stoplight
The fact of a delta PDR or PDR reconvene is proof of failure to pass the PDR. Successful/normal programs don't do this
Unfortunately, you did not answer my question.
Please provide documentation to prove your claims.
Otherwise, the opinion that you are typing, is just that, opinion.
JimMcDade
09-17-2008, 04:59 PM
Rick, These kooks are not going to back-off. Don't let them raise your blood pressure. Just have a laugh and ponder their sad plight.
I have been debunking hoaxes for a number of years. One of the common traits of conspiracy theory hoaxes is the inability of hoax leaders to withdraw their claims and just walk away. When someone gets so far and so deep into a flawed belief system, the personal price for admitting defeat and withdrawal from the cult of belief has grown painfully high.
To admit defeat is to invite stinging ridicule, public humiliation, embarrassment, and all of the other negative things that become indelibly associated with their name. Nobody wants their personal or professional reputation to be ruined when reality overtakes their climb to glory.
It is easier to just continue the fraud and exploit every opportunity to point out "newly uncovered evidence" that the flawed contentions can be vindicated. That newly uncovered evidence is always flawed, of course, but the obsessive drive to find vindication behind any crack or crevice is irresistible.
DIRECT 2.0 is indeed a dead issue as far as NASA and Washington leadership is concerned. The mainstream media, short of the Orlando Tribune and its affiliated newspapers never picked up the DIRECT 2.0 scam. A Google news search illustrates how quickly this hoax faded from the scene. Perform a GOOGLE news search for DIRECT 2.0. DIRECT 2.0 is getting no play in any mainstream media resource. Reality has caught up with and passed this fraud. These guys have been forced back into a few dark corners on the internet.
These guys are still trying to win friends and influence in the US Congress and other government offices. The politicians are probably an easy target, in their view. The political science and law majors who man the front-office of legislative offices are taught to treat ALL visitors with deference and courtesy. They are told to listen to all complaints, no matter how weird or odd those complaints might be. It also helps that those staffers are not engineers or science majors. They have no idea what Ross and Stephan are talking about. DIRECT 2.0 visitors to these offices have know notion that they are just getting the standard "treatment" when those staffers listen as if they were VIP guests.
I can assure you that they have a good laugh when the strange "rocket-man" visitors leave the office. Congress is solidly behind the Ares I program. That support is also bipartisan. The desire to replace the Space Shuttle soon is shared across party lines.
As you and Andrew know, we know a lot more specifics about these clowns than we care to say here. If we had no class we could tell what we know and ruin some reputations. I hope that i don't have to do that.
Andrew
09-17-2008, 05:11 PM
By definition, there is no such thing as Yellow-red on a stoplight
The fact of a delta PDR or PDR reconvene is proof of failure to pass the PDR.
Successful/normal programs don't do thisand how many PDR's have you attended or participated in?
Wow, what an ineffective rebuttal. There isn't a "yellow-red" on a stoplight is your primary argument? LOL!
How many PDRs have YOU participated in?
-Andrew
Unfortunately, you did not answer my question.
Please provide documentation to prove your claims.
Otherwise, the opinion that you are typing, is just that, opinion.
Proof. No such thing as red-yellow
[Only Registered Users Can See Links]
[Only Registered Users Can See Links]
Wow, what an ineffective rebuttal. There isn't a "yellow-red" on a stoplight is your primary argument? LOL!
How many PDRs have YOU participated in?
-Andrew
6. MSL, MRO, X-37, MER, Chipsat, Juno,
DIRECT 2.0 is indeed a dead issue as far as NASA and Washington leadership is concerned. The mainstream media, short of the Orlando Tribune and its affiliated newspapers never picked up the DIRECT 2.0 scam. A Google news search illustrates how quickly this hoax faded from the scene. Perform a GOOGLE news search for DIRECT 2.0. DIRECT 2.0 is getting no play in any mainstream media resource. Reality has caught up with and passed this fraud. These guys have been forced back into a few dark corners on the internet.
Who said anything about Direct.
Andrew
09-17-2008, 05:36 PM
6. MSL, MRO, X-37, MER, Chipsat, Juno,
Well, I'm convinced then. We should shut Ares down right now because while NASA says it passed the PDR, you say it didn't. Feel better, guy?
-Andrew
P.S. I do concede your point on the "red-yellow" issue, by the way. I just disagree that there is the equivalent failure "situation" that you speak of.
Rick, These kooks are not going to back-off. Don't let them raise your blood pressure. Just have a laugh and ponder their sad plight.
I have been debunking hoaxes for a number of years. One of the common traits of conspiracy theory hoaxes is the inability of hoax leaders to withdraw their claims and just walk away. When someone gets so far and so deep into a flawed belief system, the personal price for admitting defeat and withdrawal from the cult of belief has grown painfully high.
To admit defeat is to invite stinging ridicule, public humiliation, embarrassment, and all of the other negative things that become indelibly associated with their name. Nobody wants their personal or professional reputation to be ruined when reality overtakes their climb to glory.
It is easier to just continue the fraud and exploit every opportunity to point out "newly uncovered evidence" that the flawed contentions can be vindicated. That newly uncovered evidence is always flawed, of course, but the obsessive drive to find vindication behind any crack or crevice is irresistible.
DIRECT 2.0 is indeed a dead issue as far as NASA and Washington leadership is concerned. The mainstream media, short of the Orlando Tribune and its affiliated newspapers never picked up the DIRECT 2.0 scam. A Google news search illustrates how quickly this hoax faded from the scene. Perform a GOOGLE news search for DIRECT 2.0. DIRECT 2.0 is getting no play in any mainstream media resource. Reality has caught up with and passed this fraud. These guys have been forced back into a few dark corners on the internet.
These guys are still trying to win friends and influence in the US Congress and other government offices. The politicians are probably an easy target, in their view. The political science and law majors who man the front-office of legislative offices are taught to treat ALL visitors with deference and courtesy. They are told to listen to all complaints, no matter how weird or odd those complaints might be. It also helps that those staffers are not engineers or science majors. They have no idea what Ross and Stephan are talking about. DIRECT 2.0 visitors to these offices have know notion that they are just getting the standard "treatment" when those staffers listen as if they were VIP guests.
I can assure you that they have a good laugh when the strange "rocket-man" visitors leave the office. Congress is solidly behind the Ares I program. That support is also bipartisan. The desire to replace the Space Shuttle soon is shared across party lines.
As you and Andrew know, we know a lot more specifics about these clowns than we care to say here. If we had no class we could tell what we know and ruin some reputations. I hope that i don't have to do that.
Jim,
I'm not bothered at all actually. I do get frustrated when I receive the run-around, or non answers.
I do not think that questioning NASA's decision making is a bad thing. I do think that its NOT a good thing not to be able to backup claims, insult administrators, disparage engineers, without providing any proof. Its meaningless to me.
Ares PDR Was Not As Smooth As NASA Says It Was
[Only Registered Users Can See Links]
Ares PDR Was Not As Smooth As NASA Says It Was
[Only Registered Users Can See Links]
Is this not why they are "Preliminary"? Which is why it's called a PDR?
Your topic in bold, is editorial comment.
I did find the verbatim comments quite interesting though.
Thanks for the link.
Is this not why they are "Preliminary"? Which is why it's called a PDR?
.
there are certain requirements that are suppose to be met at the PDR
[Only Registered Users Can See Links] R_7123_001A_&page_name=AppendixG#_Toc159347 556
It seems that they didn't meet them. Another proof is that a delta PDR is required
Did Ares I pass PDR?
"The whole PDR was is wash. This is just the tip of a much larger iceberg. A month before the PDR there was a dry-run where the Astronaut Corps, Safety & Mission Assurance and Life Sciences all refused to sign-off. S&MA was bullied into line by HQ, LS folded without a fight and the management of the Corps was persuaded to ignore the rest of the astronauts grievances (many of which were held over since SRR, because they were told Preliminary Design was the time to bring them up, not System Requirements) in return for a promise they would be heard at CDR. It had nothing to do with the pressure from HQ management who told them their management careers were on the line depending on which way they swung and improving ones management career seems to be far more important than actually making sure something's going to work.
And lets not forget the fact that the "Yellow-red" [sic] category has never existed in a major program before. Everything has always been 3 color traffic light. For Ares-I PDR though, we added two new 'intermediary' colors "Green-Yellow" and "Yellow-Red". Our management was then persuaded to dump all 11 of our "Red" problems in the next category down, purely because we can't pass PDR if anything remains in the "Red" and Ares-I's schedule would be screwed if PDR was delayed at all. Just forget about the fact that it doesn't meet the criteria, we need to press on anyways and we're expected to just fix it all later.
........ This is already worse than X-33 ever was. ....."
Just forget about the fact that it doesn't meet the criteria, we need to press on anyways and we're expected to just fix it all later.
Me2,
I am guessing then that your opinion is one of that NASA will not be able to fix the issues that you are presenting? Are you absolutely sure if this?
Me2,
I am guessing then that your opinion is one of that NASA will not be able to fix the issues that you are presenting? Are you absolutely sure if this?
Define fix. Will is be safer, sooner or cheaper than the alternatives? Or will it be a boat anchor on NASA, saddling it with an expensive, redundant launch system that comprises the payload (Orion) requirements reducing its capabilities while using a large portion of the budget
Define fix
Actually, I am asking you, as you used that word in your prior post.
What fixes are you referring to, that cannot and can be 'fixed'.
Actually, I am asking you, as you used that word in your prior post.
What fixes are you referring to, that cannot and can be 'fixed'.
Anything can be fixed given time and money. Will meet requirements? Yes, since they can change them as they see fit and it is happening
Anything can be fixed given time and money. Will meet requirements? Yes, since they can change them as they see fit and it is happening
So, you are implying that NASA is altering factual information?
J.McDonald
09-25-2008, 06:32 PM
They already have altered requirements. For example, Orion land landing, Ares-I fault tolerance. Going further back in time, they have even altered Orion's diameter. I see no reason why this process cannot cotinue.
So, you are implying that NASA is altering factual information?
No, I am stating that NASA will make it so Ares I can lift some type of Orion.
Changing requirements includes reducing the crew from 6 to 4
Thanks John for the clarification!
I totally misread Me2's post.
Sorry Me2. :)
No, I am stating that NASA will make it so Ares I can lift some type of Orion.
Changing requirements includes reducing the crew from 6 to 4
Me2, a subjective answer, but as stated, I misread your original post.
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.