High Res Video of Ares I-X Launch

[pokerfan]

http://gizmodo.com/5391819/high-res-video-of-ares-i+x-launch

[Statistical]

1. Very cool.

Bad news is panel setup to advise Obama on NASA funding is recommending that Ares be scrapped, the aging (and falling apart space shuttle) be used for another 4 years and ISS be funded by NASA for at least 6 more years.

This essentially ties up all of NASA funds on using 30 year old launch system. The panel also recommends NASA accept it will not be returning to the moon until 2040 if ever.

Hopefully Obama goes against the panel in his budget recomendation but not looking good for manned space flight.

[bbinacan]

2. My favorite is still the

Saturn V but thanks for the video. Too cool.

[pokerfan]

3. There's a great Youtube of the Apollo 11 launch

Found it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygBxN5UiOaM

The Ares V will be impressive, if it ever flies...

[bbinacan]

6. Great video of the Saturn V,

thanks for the link.

[Posteritatis]

15. Finally, a good scale image!

I'd been looking for one that wasn't microscopic for awhile. I knew the numbers but didn't 'get' how much bigger the Ares is compared to the shuttle there.

The Ares V is huge!

[RT Atlanta]

4. During the staging...

Has anyone heard an explanation as to why the dummy second stage immediately started tumbling? Was that by design, or otherwise? You can see this happen right at the end of all the launch videos.

Just curious....

[pokerfan]

5. by design, apparently

You can hear the narrator announce "tumble motor ignition."


Artist concept shows tumble motors firing after the separation of the Ares I first stage and upper stage. The tumble motors fire to slow the first stage for its return trip to Earth and eventual recovery.

[RT Atlanta]

14. thanks!

I know the solid stage had a tumble booster, but I am still a little curious about the dummy second stage. Even with the second stage being a dummy, I figured it would have been weighted and balanced as if it were "live" and as such that it would've continued on a giant arc (but non-tumbling... at least for a while before coming back into the denser atmosphere).

I think I heard the Mission Control announcer quote WVB by saying that 1 test flight was worth 1,000 studies.

Hope they engineers and rocket scientists learn a lot from this one.

Cheers!

[Tommy_J]

7. By lack of design actually

In the full-up Ares the second stage would ignite and provide active thrust vector control. In this test flight stage two was a dummy.

The video doesn't show if the stages eventually recontacted. That would probably ruin some hardware.

[pokerfan]

8. In addition to tumble motors the booster also had deceleration motors

The aft skirt was modified to include eight booster deceleration motors, which pulled the booster directly away from the upper stage simulator, as well as four booster tumble motors, which caused the booster to tumble horizontally to decrease its velocity prior to reentry. The aft skirt also housed one of two Redundant Rate Gyro Units (RRGUs), which provided data to inform the Fault Tolerant Inertial Navigation Unit (FTINU) of the vehicle’s attitude and position. Steel ballast of 3,500 pounds (1,589 kg) was also added to the aft skirt to move the first stage’s center of gravity aft to ensure that the first stage would tumble properly after separation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares_I-X#First_Stage

It'sprobably not surprising that the upper stage simulator went into a tumble after separation as it's unguided/unpowered and its behavior certainly didn't seem unexpected from what I could gather from watching the NASA feed. I guess it's not really an issue as the upper stage simulator was just dead weight and not intended to be recovered anyway.

[wroberts189]

9. Yea they look to close ..almost a collision..and the vid ends... nt

[wroberts189]

10. Please forgive my lack of research ...but how will this land without wings?...

We back to the days of parachutes?

Or are these one way trips?

[pokerfan]

11. Capsules and parachutes

It's called the Crew Exploration Vehicle.

Not much larger than Apollo.

http://blog.al.com/space-news/2009/04/nasa_slashes_orion_crew_explor.html

[wroberts189]

12. Thanks...nt

[Statistical]

13. Well "not much larger" is relative (like comparing Ford Excursion to Toyota Prius).

Apollo Command module = 6 tons.
Orion = 12 tons.


Apollo max crew = 3.
Orion max crew = 4 (baseline). 6 (potentially). The module and Ares booster are capable of lifting 6. I think NASA is playing it safe initially.

Per your article
NASA made the crew size change "in order to improve schedule and cost confidence by minimizing multiple configurations under simultaneous development during the Program's early phases," Hautaluoma said. "While a four-person crew would save some mass, the issue of mass savings was not a major factor in the decision-making process. "


Internal volume is roughly 2.5x that of Apollo.
Also many components such as fuel cells, computers, batteries, etc are smaller today such that the 4 person crew on Orion will have much more room than the 3 person crew on Apollo.

One notable difference in crew comfort is that the Orion will actually have a (very small) toilet as oposed to Apollo where it was a little bit more "rustic"
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2006-01/1138467020.As.r.html

Compared to the space shuttle it is small but compared to Apollo is is roughly 2x to 3x the size depending on how you look at it (weight, size, volume, crew capacity).