Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
More Woe For Ares I  
User currently offlineRwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2351 posts, RR: 2
Posted (5 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4383 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

According to a USAF study, based on an analysis of a Titan IV* explosion shortly after liftoff in 1998, the resultant extremely large fireball from the solids, punctuated by chunks of burning solid rocket fuel, would make the Orion escape system fail if used during the first minute of flight. As the Orion would still be inside the fireball when it deployed its parachutes (and would remain so until it impacted the ocean if it delayed deploying it chutes), the parachutes would be fatally damaged.

A significant part of the problem is the very high initial acceleration of Ares I, which causes very high dynamic loads early in the flight, which significantly reduces the escape system's rockets ability to pull (or push) the Orion away from the booster. The other significant part is that the SRB, being solid, cannot practically be shut down before burnout. A significantly more powerful escape rocket would solve the problem, but at the obvious costs in weight for the rocket and added structure. It's also unclear that the escape system's acceleration could be increased significantly, due to limits of human G tolerance, which makes the size increase worse.

Ares I / Orion is already having severe weight problems.

Some are calling this issue fatal for Ares I (obviously premature, but anything that adds more weight growth to the stack at this point is very troubling), and NASA states that its analysis is that this is not an issue, but they will be looking at the USAF's study.


http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/sh...eath-knell-for-nasas-ares-roc.html

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...o-nasa-ares-071809,0,3051613.story



*The Titan IV has a pair of large SRBs – each roughly half the size of the Shuttle/Ares SRBs

7 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineConnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 1, posted (5 years 1 month 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4336 times:

All the more reason to take another look at DIRECT. It may well have a shorter timeline than Ares I - or no worse - and possibly eliminate some of the existing weight/performance issues with Ares I.


Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineMichlis From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 737 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (5 years 1 month 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4318 times:



Quoting Rwessel (Thread starter):
Some are calling this issue fatal for Ares I (obviously premature, but anything that adds more weight growth to the stack at this point is very troubling), and NASA states that its analysis is that this is not an issue, but they will be looking at the USAF's study.

I remember hearing that there were concerns about the effectiveness of the escape system for the Saturn V/Apollo configuration as well.



If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the outcome of a hundred battles.
User currently offlineRwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2351 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (5 years 1 month 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 4165 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Michlis (Reply 2):
I remember hearing that there were concerns about the effectiveness of the escape system for the Saturn V/Apollo configuration as well.

While I don't know the specific concerns for Apollo, this is a different issue than would have been faced by the very slowly accelerating S-IB/S-V in the early part of the flight. Not to mention that the Saturns would have been at zero thrust as soon as the escape system activated. Those would have made the escape system's task of pulling the Apollo CM well clear of the booster much easier.

Nor would an exploding Saturn have generated a huge spray of burning and impossible to extinguish solid rocket fuel. Exploding liquid boosters will generate a very impressive fireball, but will inherently not spray burning fuel as far. Just the ballistics of a spray of liquid ensure that, and the liquids will either burn fairly quickly, or be dispersed, and then *not* burn, since they'll be away from an ignition source. The solid will basically all be burning (remember that and booster like that burns along the entire length, from the core out), and the remains will be likely tossed around in good sized chucks that have a much better (compared to a liquid) ballistic coefficient, and that will burn for a considerable time.

As I mentioned, the issue is whether the escape system can pull the Orion far enough away from the fireball, and if not how much of a weight increase it will take to upgrade it to perform satisfactorily.


User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2444 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3630 times:



Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 1):
All the more reason to take another look at DIRECT.

Amen. More capable platform IMO. With DIRECT, it seems there are more mission types that could be achieved. For example, look at the configuration next to the shuttle.

Big version: Width: 1160 Height: 870 File size: 271kb


That could be an ISS mission or even a hubble type mission. Very limited to what Ares I could do. I'd say (easy for me) to still develop Ares V for those "super" payloads, along side a full DIRECT program.



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offlineNomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1864 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3568 times:

The failure scenario that has so many undies in so many bunches isn't very likely. The two likely ways for a solid to fail are case failure or the stack veering off course.
A Challenger type failure would be a gradual push off course that would give the LAS plenty of time to act and launch in the opposite direction. It's not very steerable, but it is steerable. A more serious rupture would kill acceleration almost instantly by releasing the internal pressure.
Burning pieces of solid fuel aren't going to be shooting around like rockets.
There's almost no SRB failure scenario serious enough to kill An Ares that wouldn't have also doomed a shuttle. And there are a whole lot of them where the LAS would save the crew with Ares that the shuttle couldn't have survived.
No doubt this won't sway any of the folks who will proclaim Ares an impossible to build deathtrap every time they need to work through any of the thousand other issues and concerns that are part of any launcher program.



Andy Goetsch
User currently offlineRwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2351 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3538 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 5):
There's almost no SRB failure scenario serious enough to kill An Ares that wouldn't have also doomed a shuttle. And there are a whole lot of them where the LAS would save the crew with Ares that the shuttle couldn't have survived.

That's not the problem. NASA's official safety standards for the new manned launch vehicle require the LAS to work in those situations.

Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 5):
Burning pieces of solid fuel aren't going to be shooting around like rockets.

The Titan IV accident showed that there can be.


User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3587 posts, RR: 29
Reply 7, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3441 times:



Quoting Rwessel (Reply 3):
Nor would an exploding Saturn have generated a huge spray of burning and impossible to extinguish solid rocket fuel. Exploding liquid boosters will generate a very impressive fireball, but will inherently not spray burning fuel as far.

However, given the sheer amount of propellant in the Saturn-V, it would certainly have been substantial.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic More Woe For Ares I
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
More Info For Air Force Week. posted Tue Mar 20 2007 02:04:19 by Jacks757
Congress Agrees To 10 More C-17's For Usaf posted Tue Oct 10 2006 08:23:45 by B747
Why No More Sukhois For IAF? posted Fri May 20 2005 02:35:03 by Aseem
Key Lawmakers Reiterate Push For More Super Hornet posted Wed Jan 21 2009 14:09:04 by AirRyan
Support For More F-22 Soars In Congress posted Sun Jan 18 2009 14:16:29 by LAXintl
More Cash Problems For The Restored Vulcan posted Tue Feb 19 2008 12:22:28 by GDB
Senators Pressure White House For More C-17s posted Tue Dec 18 2007 22:32:03 by Echster
Usaf And Boeing Lobbying For More C-17 posted Thu Mar 9 2006 14:58:50 by DAYflyer
Retiring B-52s, U-2s, And F-117s For More F-22As posted Wed Jan 11 2006 20:37:06 by NightHawk117
Eads Aggressive Push For More Business posted Wed Nov 12 2003 23:46:51 by AvObserver

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format