Ares I-X

Onebadhawk
the rocketry show
The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
That “dent” is so big, that I sort of expect that when that SRB is finally brought back to KSC, the whole SRB will be “bent” a few degrees (like a very very shallow “V”). Maybe say around 5 degrees.

This is because that seems to have happened as a result of hitting the ocean way too fast due to landing with only one chute at 100% (one chute totally failed, and that bad chute then screwed up a second chute to some degree).

I hope NASA does not drag their feet in releasing the onboard recording of the SRB video camera that was looking up. The live video transmissions were choppy and apparently were not received live at the time of chute deploy. But, the SRB has onboard recorders for the data, including the video. Also, that same video should show what happened at separation, as that live video also cut out.

There won't be any such back-up save of whatever the dummy upper stage camera (looking down) saw at sep, because there was nothing on board of it to save video data, so the only footage from that camera is what was successfully received live. Now, I have read someplace that possibly the video drop-out was not from air to ground but a drop-out somewhere between the receiving station and NASA’s video feed, which if true may mean all of the video was recorded on the ground, just did not make it down the chain live. Hope so, but I do not put a lot of faith into that.

Finally, I would expect there are photos, and probably video, taken by the SRB recovery ship, and maybe aircraft, showing the chute deployment problems. I know from reports that people on the ship saw the chute problems and it would be nuts if there were not cameras on that ship (and/or aircraft) to document what happened.

But I expect that stuff to dribble out later, and not with any fanfare. While there will not be any way to “dribble” what the SRB looks like when it is brought in by the retrieval ship. That SRB MIGHT be so bad off that they may have trouble using the rigs that pick up and transport the intact SRB from the water, along land, to where the SRB is disassembled and cleaned up. The buckle may be so bad that the SRB would buckle further if it was lifted intact, at least when supported in the normal manner.

- George Gassaway
 
Last edited:
They've had numerous SRB chute issues with the shuttle as well going all the way back to the early 80's. The last mission one of the chutes had some major tears, but the SRB was recovered with no damage.

I've watched some videos of them packing the chutes, and one recently of them packing the chutes used on the Ares test. I'm amazed they work at all, they have a hydraulic press that compacts them in the canister, it looks crazy.
 
Ran across some GREAT large photos related to Ares from start to finish, on the Boston Globe website:

https://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/10/launch_of_the_ares_ix.html

The last photo gives pretty good evidence to what I was seeing in video replay just after sep. I have cropped it and include it below.

attachment.php


Notice the white smoke, which defines the flight path thru the air.

Then notice the exhaust flame coming out from the SRB nozzle. Even though the SRB had "burned out", huge solids like that do not just shut down to dead zero thrust, there is a residual burn for awhile. If it was just flame with NO thrust, then the airflow should be blowing the exhaust flame straight away, the same way as with the white smoke. But, it is not. instead, the flame is coming out with sufficient energy for the flame to come "straight" out of the nozzle, then gradually curve backwards the farther it gets from the nozzle, as the airflow does catch it and accelerates it.

I have seen and noticed that with the shuttle. It makes sense for the shuttle since once the SRB’s drop their thrust to the point that the low thrust is causing the orbiter and ET to be Pulling the SRB’s, instead of the SRB’s pushing the shuttle, then the SRB’s have to go.

There had to se some level of thrust remaining for the apparent separation problem to occur. Which by itself might not have been a problem if that amount of thrust had been planned for, and the BDM (Retro-firing) Deceleration motors in the aft skirt of the SRB had plenty of thrust to overcome that and back the SRB away from the dummy upper stage. But in the videos, I never saw it back off as it was supposed to. Certainly every time the Saturns staged, their sep motors made sure the stages were pushed apart with plenty of force. Of course, the Saturns were all liquid fueled and when those shut down, they really did shut down (though some residual unburned fuel still came out and could have caused a tiny bit of "venting" thrust, but nothing like this SRB after "burnout").

BTW - thrust curve of SRB’s. The sep is usually at about 120 sec or so. For Ares 1X it was to be at about 123 seconds. Note that in this chart, at least, that the thrust was still around 200,000 pounds at about 121-122 seconds and would have been around 100,000 pounds at about 123 seconds. While the empty mass of the 5 segment SRB would be around 250,000 pounds or so, so that is still a heck of a lot of thrust going on.

Srbthrust2.jpg


I did find a shuttle refenrce to indicate the SB’s sep on the shuttle when the thrust elvle isdown ot 60,000 pounds. I failed in my search for a refence on what the thrustlevels are for the Sep motors, in trying ot figure out of those 8 BDM motors had enough combined thrust to overcome the residual thrust. Yeah, I know, “Shirley” the ones running this project knew rocekt science 101 that if there is resifual thrust of “X”, thne you need retro thrust of “X plus Y” to make the sep work. And that is even before considering the aerodynamic loads pushing “backward” on the dummy upper stage, with the SRB “drafting” behind it.

As for the parachute stuff, another spokesman (manager?) for Ares said that the Ares chutes were different than the shuttle chute. Yes, true. But then he said the shuttle SRB's only have two chutes, while Ares has three. Maybe this guy knows nothing about the shuttle program? Of course the shuttle SRB's have three chutes.

Someone else, perhaps the same guy, also had zero concerns about the SRB being dented by the hard landing, as he said that SRB was never going to fly again anyway. Wow, really??? Total news to me, because unless this one was cobbled up from some of the worst and most beaten-up but still barely flyable SRB segments so that they only really planed to fly them "one last time", I would expect those SRB segments to be re-used, unless it got damaged. OK, what is not clear to me is whether the “real” 5-segment SRB’s of the future are supposed to be 100% brand new SRB’s with all 5 segments new (which would indeed mean the one that flew would not be sued again anyway), or if the “real” 5-segment SRB’s will simply have a new “5th” segment and the other 4 segments will be existing segments for 4-segment SRB’s.

As it is, perhaps segment 3 and 4 maybe by flyable, I think that while the "dent" is in segment 2, it is so close to the joint with segment 1 that segment 1 may be out of round. Or he hard landing might have trashed all the segments anyway, say perhaps over-stressing the locations of all those attachment bolts that hold the segments together (things like ovalizing holes, or micro-stress fractures).

I've always admired NASA when they've made the best out of a bad situation by being TRUTHFUL and forthright about it. I'm a bit queasy that the pressure for a "good show" with Ares-1X has affected what's been said, and to find out all that really went on will be issued in of bits and pieces over a long time, not because that is how long it has to take, but for P.R. reasons that is how it’ll happen. I am tempted to say more but I probably better not (for now anyway).

I am surprised that even though the SRB was returned to the Cape at Dawn Friday morning, that no photos have been released (yet) of the "dent" to the SRB floating horizontally in the water. I found an online link to a TV station website that had a video reporter “on scene” at Port Canaveral. But the only footage was the retrieval ship arriving in darkness, as though footage of a ship arriving in darkness is worth anything. Then the talking head "on scene" reporter yapping away on camera in broad daylight, a bridge in the background, with no SRB to be seen anywhere (yet the whole subject of the report was about the dent, but the only footage of the dent were the underwater photos......then why bother with a reporter on scene at Port Canaveral??????. Frustrating like crazy to see such a totally useless “on scene but showing nothing useful from the scene” report like that!

I am concerned that the "dent" is actually going to be a huge crimp and the whole SRB will be bent several degrees (say 5 degrees or so) with the dent as the bending focus point. Whenever NASA releases images of the SRB floating horizontally, like the 2nd photo below, I do not think it is going to be straight. And if it is bent badly, it may be a real problem to hoist it from the water and move it on land (as 3rd below), without further damage.

- George Gassaway

Aries-Sep-a28_20894519.jpg

KSC-2009-2144-m.jpg

KSC-2009-2143-m.jpg
 
reports off nasaspaceflight.com forums say they are going to shim the booster to support it. also reports of lots of pad damage due to the tilted thrust vector required to avoid hitting the tower...of course the launch pad was not designed for this type of flight, and its being retired anyway to make way for the new Ares pad, but it was pretty amazing!

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/200...substantial-damage-ares-i-x-parachute-update/
 
The dent looks like a rather 'simple' (in car bodywork anyway) "oilcan" dent, which shouldn't result in a "V" type bend... the SRB would have to crease the metal to really do that I would THINK... :) I could be wrong.

You are right though that that amount of damage would preclude the reuse of that SRB segment, AFAIK... I'd tend to think that since the SRB cases are well over an inch thick and hold back a pressure of 700 PSI or more (and as anyone that knows about pressure vessels will tell you, the larger the diameter the harder it is to contain the pressure without rupturing-- that's why brake lines are SO small in internal diameter-- less square inches of surface area on the inside for the pressure to push against trying to rupture the line) you don't exactly want to be sticking a press or hydraulic jack in there and "popping the dent out" since metal flexing like that produces stress leading to stress cracks and otherwise weakens the metal.

The SRB casings are SUPPOSED to be reused from the shuttle program. The fifth segment is actually just another regular "mid body" (segment 2 or 3 of a regular shuttle SRB) casing with the appropriate propellant/mandrel combination poured in it. The top and bottom end SRB segments remain pretty much unchanged, except for a larger throat and nozzle on the five segment SRB's versus the four segment, and a few 'minor' changes to the upper one, and of course the different core shape imparted when pouring the propellant. Reuse of the casings (which were all redesigned after Challenger and the old ones were scrapped) was a MAJOR argument for the use of a solid rocket motor to begin with. If NASA was NOT going to reuse the SRB casings, there would be NO justification for using SRB's as a first stage. There was even talk of not recovering the SRB first stages because of weight issues on Ares I, which would allow the deletion of the heavy recovery equipment necessary for it to land safely for reuse, and because of the problems of the SRB first stage on Ares I staging SO high and SO fast that reentry heating may severely damage the SRB to the point reuse wasn't feasible. As it is, SRB "reuse" costs SO much for the recovery effort, disassembly and cleaning, inspection, repair, shipping to Utah for repouring, and shipping back to the Cape that it would be just as cheap if not cheaper to just forego recovery and reuse and switch to expendables... especially since foregoing recovery would allow a switch to spiral-filament wound casings which would be MUCH lighter than the steel casings, but which are not reuseable, and saves further weight by not having recovery hardware. The downside is, that without recovery and inspection of the SRB, the 'safety numbers' of Ares I go down SO badly that you're actually better off flying on an EELV than the expendable solid rocket, so that's a non-starter.

Expending the steel casings is a non-starter because IIRC the capability to manufacture more would have to be reconstituted and restarted, and they'd rapidly run out of cases if they're all laying smashed on the bottom of the Atlantic.

It's a mess... of course the problems CAN be worked out with enough time and money, but unfortunately we're quite limited on BOTH...

Too bad they're SO dead set against a kerolox booster... OL JR :)
 
Most of the sep. secondary contact specualtion come from two things- please folks let's all do a self examination and see if our opinions are being tainted by either of these- as they do not represent actual hard down-linked data.

The first is the NASA CGI and animated program about the Ares I-X, which shows the USS (Upper Stage Simulator) gliding happily and straight away after sep. It has been shown countless times, yet the preflight planning completed AFTER that show was produced, showed that the USS would likely immeadiatly go into a tumble- of course no one ever had the budget to re-do the two year old computer graphic, which BTW also shows the old style lightening mast atop the FSS at liftoff. Thus- we who watched that show had it in our heads that the USS would do what was depicted, instead it did what the engineers expected. Additionally, you should not compare this sep with an STS SRB sep.- because the depressed trajectory of the Ares I-X caused it to stage at 130,000 feet where the shuttle SRBs normally sep. at ~150,000 feet. The areodynamics are different 20,000 feet lower.

The second thing to consider is that all of the speculation is based on ground based video- period. Hate to tell people this but video CAN lie. I would consider the video to be less than "truthful" before I would consider some sort of crazy NASA cover-up. In fact, over on NASAspaceflight.com, L2, one of the members has taken the onboard video and by running it frame-by-frame founds a single frame that shows the USS going straight, in line with the first stage, ahead and totally clear of the first stage at seperation. NASA engineers in their post flight presser stated flatly that their data shows "...no secondary contact, none, zip, nada..."

Folks- let's all stick with the data.
 
brianc said:
Isn't that the Booster Tumble Motors firing?
Click to expand...

No, the white smoke in the pic is trailing straight back (airflow) off of the base of the SRB, in contrast to the flame exhaust (and some residual thrust) still coming from the SRB nozzle. Whatever the heck happened with the Tumble motors (BTM), those were supposed to fire 3 seconds after the Sep/Retro/Deceleration motors (BDM’s). In the video you can very easily see the smoke from the BDM's as they fire, but there is nothing visibly "active" in a similar way 3 seconds later. So it is strange that if the tumble motors fired at 3 seconds after sep as scheduled, that it is not visible.

attachment.php


I forgot to mention this when I posted the above image. To me, it is far too much of a coincidence that the SRB would rotate one way, and the dummy upper stage would rotate the mirror-image opposite way, if there was a proper clean sep. If it WAS a clean sep, then why in the world is the SRB rotating quickly one way and the dummy upper stage rotating exactly the other way? The odds are too great.

Due to the moments of inertia, the aerodynamically unstable explanation does not really seem to fit. If they sepped clean and without any excessive pitch or yaw rates imparted, then they should not have started to tumble that quickly. I can recall a May 1986 failure of a Delta-II rocket, when the Delta's liquid main engine shut down, and it kept flying along, STRAIGHT, for several seconds with just the three unguided strap-ons still firing (The main shut down maybe 10 seconds or so after the first 6 strap-ons had been sepped and the final 3 ignited, say approximately 70-80 seconds into flight. And so it was still in some significant atmosphere). After several seconds of flying straight, it gradually started to pitch unstable, then more, and then the more it pitched the faster it started to pitch and it reached high enough of an angle of attack that the extreme aerodynamic loads finally broke it apart. This separation event with Ares 1X did not behave like that, it was as though something already had disturbed it.

Man, I wish I knew what Axis the Tumble motors (BTM) were supposed to be in. I know from the animation it indicated the SRB would tumble in pitch, seconds after the dummy upper stage sepped and coasted straight. But the animation is wrong about other things, anyway. So I wonder if the BTM's were in the yaw axis (parallel to the horizon), and set to tumble the SRB in the very direction it DID tumble? If so, then perhaps the BTM's fired at the same instant the BDM's fired, causing the SRB to start that tumble, and a corresponding opposite (pivoted) tumble the opposite way by the dummy upper stage due to bad separation. I know I am speculating there, so I'm not saying that is what happened, but some screwy stuff went on, and that makes more sense than other things. And I do not work for NASA, but I DO know the shuttle SRB's have three chutes, which is more than I can say for one of the spokesmen (managers?) who said that the shuttle SRB's had 2 chutes while Ares has 3.

Still have not found any pics showing that SRB after it was floated to horizontal (either pics from onboard ship or after it arrived at Dawn Friday at Port Canaveral).

- George Gassaway
 
George- I really respect you, but yer' barkin' at shadows here. Please listen to the post flight press conf. where they clearly state that there was no secondary contact and they had a clean sep. Additionally, the upper end of the SRB shows no secondary contact. I get the feeling, however, that even if you went to KSC and ran your hand over it, you'd not be convinced.

Then why does the USS rotate in that direction? The odds are not "too great." The odds are even. Any input that alters the inertia will send the structure rotating.

I know this will not convince you, I wish I could rip the video frame that was published on NASAspaceflight.com L2 that shows the clean sep. and paste it here because it settles it, but that violates that site's rules. Sorry. If I can find it elsewhere I'll post it here.
 
Okay- found the video on Spaceflightnow.com, extracted the frame- here is the upper stage simulator, moving straight and well away from the first stage, it is a wide angle cam, looking forward. This clearly shows it was a clean sep.

Of course that will not convince some of you, and Apollo was faked, and there was a second gunman on the grassy knoll and badgeman is in the bushes.

proof.jpg
 
Dr.Zooch said:
Okay- found the video on Spaceflightnow.com, extracted the frame- here is the upper stage simulator, moving straight and well away from the first stage, it is a wide angle cam, looking forward. This clearly shows it was a clean sep.

Of course that will not convince some of you, and Apollo was faked, and there was a second gunman on the grassy knoll and badgeman is in the bushes.
Click to expand...

I wonder why NASA, a not-for-profit govt. agency is letting Spaceflightnow.com sell video that NASA should provide to the public for free. After all, the taxpayers already own all that is NASA. :confused2:
 
tbzep said:
I wonder why NASA, a not-for-profit govt. agency is letting Spaceflightnow.com sell video that NASA should provide to the public for free. After all, the taxpayers already own all that is NASA. :confused2:
Click to expand...

Have you seen how much NASA's budget is...! They need every penny they can find. :rolleyes:
 
Wow- you have the ol' conspiracy hat on today don't ya'?;)

NASA has the video up for public use, and if that use includes placing in on a pay-for web site, they have NO control over that. Apogee books sells more than 20 books that consist of NASA material simply re-printed, do we wonder the same thing about that :confused2: EVERY book that has spaceflight photos in it have NASA images, do we wonder about that :confused2: Every video documentary about United States spaceflight has NASA video images, do we wonder about that :confused2:

I think you should re-think your suspicion here and then visit nasa.gov and you'll find the videos. They came from NASA TV, we watched them in the replays in the press site right after the launch... THEY ARE PUBLIC, not some dark behind closed doors sweetheart deal between "a not-for-profit govt. agency" and one web site. I only used that site because I'm a subscriber and it was the fastest place to find what I needed.
 
Dr.Zooch said:
Wow- you have the ol' conspiracy hat on today don't ya'?;)

NASA has the video up for public use, and if that use includes placing in on a pay-for web site, they have NO control over that. Apogee books sells more than 20 books that consist of NASA material simply re-printed, do we wonder the same thing about that :confused2: EVERY book that has spaceflight photos in it have NASA images, do we wonder about that :confused2: Every video documentary about United States spaceflight has NASA video images, do we wonder about that :confused2:

I think you should re-think your suspicion here and then visit nasa.gov and you'll find the videos. They came from NASA TV, we watched them in the replays in the press site right after the launch... THEY ARE PUBLIC, not some dark behind closed doors sweetheart deal between "a not-for-profit govt. agency" and one web site. I only used that site because I'm a subscriber and it was the fastest place to find what I needed.
Click to expand...

Calm down, buddy. I was on NASA.gov before I posted it. All that I found was the main video. https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/ares/flighttests/aresIx/index.html They don't have the separate onboard footage such as listed on Spaceflightnow.com The website isn't the most friendly when it comes to finding stuff, so it may be buried somewhere, but I didn't find it. I did not accuse them of any closed doors deal. All I'm saying is that they don't have them up for public view, yet they were made available to a for-profit store.
 
Oh- I'm calm my friend... but, I've also read the terms of use for NASA material. Spaceflightnow was at the press site, they have the same feed that we had in the press building, everyone knew when the re-plays were coming, all SFN had to do, is what they did... press the "record" button. It is that simple. I could have done the exact same thing and captured the same feed- minus the NASA watermark.

NASA is a public agency, EVERYTHING the print or broadcast is PUBLIC unless it is required to be classified by other federal agencies. "they were made available to a for-profit store" or for anyone else. PERIOD
 
Dr.Zooch said:
Oh- I'm calm my friend... but, I've also read the terms of use for NASA material. Spaceflightnow was at the press site, they have the same feed that we had in the press building, everyone knew when the re-plays were coming, all SFN had to do, is what they did... press the "record" button. It is that simple. I could have done the exact same thing and captured the same feed- minus the NASA watermark.

NASA is a public agency, EVERYTHING the print or broadcast is PUBLIC unless it is required to be classified by other federal agencies. "they were made available to a for-profit store" or for anyone else. PERIOD
Click to expand...

If I didn't know better, I'd think you had ants in your pants. Wait....maybe you do. :p

I'd just like for them to put the onboard video on their website. That's all.
 
It's on YouTube... which BTW makes a lot of money by showing videos.
 
Can't advise there- in fact I wish their web site was actually user friendly like it used to be 7 tears ago before they made it "better." Odds are the video is there someplace, they've just knott holed it someplace were no one can find it.:cyclops:
 
Dr.Zooch said:
Can't advise there- in fact I wish their web site was actually user friendly like it used to be 7 tears ago before they made it "better." Odds are the video is there someplace, they've just knott holed it someplace were no one can find it.:cyclops:
Click to expand...

Yep. All those fancy sliding panels and doodads make it look pretty, but I don't like trying to find stuff.
 
Dr.Zooch said:
Odds are the video is there someplace, they've just knott holed it someplace were no one can find it.:cyclops:
Click to expand...

Or (most likely, in my mind)- PAO hasn't cleared it for release yet... :(
 
Last edited:
brianc said:
They found an intern... :)
Click to expand...
Burnout at 1:32. Looks like separation at 1:35, just as there is a flare at the booster nozzle - looks to me like it would be a residual thrust bump - just the thing to cause recontact.
 
davel said:
Burnout at 1:32. Looks like separation at 1:35, just as there is a flare at the booster nozzle - looks to me like it would be a residual thrust bump - just the thing to cause recontact.
Click to expand...

Arrrrggggg:mad:

There was NO "recontact." PERIOD.:bangpan:
 
brianc said:
They found an intern... :)

[youtube]A4l2wxbMEQg[/youtube]
Click to expand...

Yeah- this is great video, it was on NASAspaceflight.com a few days ago- he has a lot better, however. You need to subscribe to L2, but he has two clips there from long-range tracking cams, close-up that slow the seperation from the below angle in slow motion. You can see the booster clearly seperate with lots of room between the two before the USS begins to tumble. That was up 2 days ago- great stuff IMO.
 
Dr.Zooch said:
Yeah- this is great video, it was on NASAspaceflight.com a few days ago- he has a lot better, however. You need to subscribe to L2, but he has two clips there from long-range tracking cams, close-up that slow the seperation from the below angle in slow motion. You can see the booster clearly seperate with lots of room between the two before the USS begins to tumble. That was up 2 days ago- great stuff IMO.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I saw those videos over the weekend too. Well worth the NSF/L2 price of admission.
 
Not to stray off topic, but I was wondering if an informed person could reveal to me the purpose of the yellowish rings towards the bottom of the SRB. They have a fairly rough texture, and I was trying to figure out what they're made of, and what they do:

rings.jpg
 

Similar threads

Ron Soto
motor availability in a week..?
Replies
6
Views
255
cwbullet
cwbullet
modeltrains
When your space rocket takes the morning train
Replies
6
Views
277
ReynoldsSlumber
ReynoldsSlumber
JSW
Apogee X-15 Rocket Kit - Side Eject?
Replies
17
Views
376
kjohnson
kjohnson
Valkyrie Recovery Systems
New, Low Cost Deployment Bags
Replies
0
Views
312
Valkyrie Recovery Systems
Valkyrie Recovery Systems
S
A Blast from the Past
Replies
2
Views
390
skaffgeorge2
S

Latest posts

Back
Top