The Ares 1-X test rocket lifts off on a six-minute suborbital flight from launch pad 39B at the Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida, Wednesday. The test rocket is being evaluated as a vehicle to replace the space shuttle for US manned spaceflight.
(Pierre Ducharme/Reuters)Photos (1 of 1)
NASA’s Ares 1-X launch: ‘How cool was this?’
NASA's test flight of its successor to the space shuttle, the Ares 1-X rocket, went off without a hitch Wednesday. The buzzword among mission managers: triboelectrification.
By Peter N. Spotts | Staff writer/ October 28, 2009 edition
NASA’s Ares 1-X rocket vaulted into the history books Wednesday in a spectacular start to a human-spaceflight program facing an uncertain future.
The test flight met all the basic benchmarks for success, NASA officials say. And while they haven’t had time to go through them yet, the engineering data the rocket’s sensors delivered will be invaluable in getting the Ares 1 mission-ready.
“How cool was this?” said an ebullient Doug Cooke, NASA’s associate administrator for the agency’s Exploration Systems Mission Directorate, during a post-launch press briefing. The directorate oversees NASA’s Constellation program. It’s the follow-on to the space-shuttle program, which currently is scheduled to end in late 2010.
NASA spent two days trying to launch the 327-foot Ares 1-X, the experimental rocket that has a smaller motor than the Ares 1 and also a mock second stage. But the delays were weather-related, rather than the result of technical problems. When launch controllers got the break in weather conditions they were looking for, the rocket went off without a hitch.
While it will take time for Ares 1-X engineers to pore over the data, mission managers say they already have learned some useful things about the rocket.
Roll torque. For instance, designers anticipated far more twisting action as the rocket rose than it actually experienced. This “roll torque” results from slight variations in the way the solid fuel burns within the rocket motor, from the vehicle’s shape, and from moving the nozzle at the motor’s base in order to steer the rocket. Engineers had designed the roll-control system to handle 20 to 25 times the roll torque the vehicle actually experienced.
Triboelectrification. They also learned that they may not have to worry about the dreaded “T” word again: triboelectrification. It’s the phenomenon that can occur as a rocket plows through water droplets or ice in high clouds. The collisions build up a charge of static electricity on the outside of the rocket. The build-up can interfere with radio transmissions between the rocket and controllers or damage sensitive electronics.
It’s the main reason why the launch was delayed for nearly two days. The launch director was waiting for an opening in the high-level clouds that would last long enough to finish the countdown and launch the Ares 1-X.
One solution is to coat the rocket with materials designed to minimize the effect. The other is to show the rocket is designed in such a way that it doesn’t need the coating. Ares 1-X engineers were in the process of gathering the information on the rocket’s design that would exempt it from the triboelectrification flight restriction. But they didn’t have time to finish their work before the test flight took place.
The next flight test, Ares 1-Y, isn’t scheduled to take place until March 2014. That rocket will have the full five-segment rocket motor as a first stage. And it will test the Orion crew capsule’s ability to escape from the rocket at high altitudes. If possible, planners would like to use an experimental motor in the second stage as well to see how it performs at high altitudes, according to Constellation program manager Jeffrey Hanley.
In the meantime, work is underway on other elements of the Ares 1/Orion system. For instance, the Orion capsule is slated for a test of its escape rocket early next year at the White Sands Proving Ground in New Mexico. Once the shuttle program ends, the money once spent on the shuttle will be channeled to the Constellation program.
The program faces an uncertain future, however, following the release of a report by a committee the Obama administration appointed to chart a financially sustainable course for the US human spaceflight program. The committee, led by former aerospace executive Norman Augustine, warned that without additional money, the Constellation program has little hope of doing more than building the Ares 1 but have no place to send it. (To read more about the report, click here.)
The White House is now weighing the options. Until it decides which course to pursue, however, NASA is under instructions to stay the course with its Constellation program.
—–
Follow us on Twitter.
( More stories )
Comments
2. Jesse S | 10.29.09
Spotts and many other science reporters have inexplicably failed to mention a significant anomaly in the test flight. The stage 1 / stage 2 separation event did no go smoothly and caused stage 2 to start tumbling, a result that would have been considered a failure in a “normal” mission. Because of the thrust tailoff characteristics of the solid propellant stage 1, NASA has identitified the stage separation event as a key risk to performance, safety, cost, and program schedule, and the results of this test flight did nothing to mitigate that risk. NASA officials at the post-launch press conference tried to avoid talking about the anomaly, and only one reporter was sharp enough to ask about it. The answer he got was NASA-speak for “we’re trying to downplay this problem and hope no one in the audience or on Capitol Hill is smart enough to notice that it’s serious.” NASA engineers are now evaluating the data and trying to determine exactly why stage 2 began tumbling at separation, so the exact cause is not yet known, but however you slice it, the test flight only confirmed that the Ares team has a significant problem on their hands, and it’s unfortunate that science writers like Spotts are not pointing this out, but merely parroting NASA PR that the test was a resounding success.
3. Mike | 10.29.09
Its very sad to see this neo-apollo system. I think we just took a giant leap backwards in technology.
4. Shawn P | 10.30.09
To say that the Constellation program is a step back is really very ignorant. I’m not a big supporter of the program (I prefer the alternative DIRECT program using the Jupiter rocket), but to undersell the technology here is a huge folly.
First, the shuttle is about half as awesome as everyone thinks it is. Is has less lifting power than the Ares I despite having a second SRB and 3 SSMEs (even though the Ares I is billed as a dedicated crew lifter). Think. The new crew-lifter has a LARGER payload capacity than the current man-rated heavy-lifter (shuttle). The shuttle never became “reusable.” Nearly every functional component was rebuilt after ever launch. This wasn’t the original intention but became necessary.
Secondly, the Ares I, despite being expensive to design, is way cheaper than the shuttle. Since it won’t feature a re-buildable orbiter space-plane, pre-launch testing will be simpler (based on manufactuing specs, not service specs), and there will be more than 5 (Enterprise was supposed to be made space-worthy but was used to build Endeavour instead after Challenger exploded) built. It won’t be uncommon to see two Ares I rockets on pads simultaneously, and launches will be more frequent.
Finally, it’s expandable. The shuttle uses zero boiler-plate rocket concepts. The Ares IV is already being discussed as a hybrid for the Ares I and V. Future rockets will be based on the Ares concept. The SRB may not be as sexy as five F-1 motors lifting a Saturn V, but it works. I only has one failure on record and it’s not subject to dangerous pogo-oscillations.
Ares I is designed correctly. It’s a huge step forward, and represents the culmination of tons of hard work. When Faget designed the shuttle, he wasn’t thinking about “the future” he was thinking about getting someone back in space ASAP. The shuttle is on par with Gemini. Ares will be on par with Apollo.
5. Andy | 10.30.09
Shawn, it is a *slight* step back. Why ?
(1) consider this : DIRECT is nice, but you want heavy lift, use an F-1 engine instead of an RS-68 or J2-c. That would get things back on track overnight. The trouble is the expense of unmothballing the constructing those behemoths. The expense would be worth it, though. Our problem isn’t getting people up there in a capsule, we could probably use an existing Titan IV [we can manufacture those in our sleep - very little R&D needed]. The problem is the “heavy lifting body”. A wimpy engine just won’t do it.
(2) One of Von Braun’s original notions was to assemble ships in space.
How about assembling a “lunar shuttle” to take us to the moon and back,
*Then park it at the ISS for future use* just refuel and go….. talk
about cost savings……..this would also get the ISS to start paying for
itself for use as a construction shack.
(3) how about that space bus be designed with some new technologies ? VASIMR perhaps ? maybe an Aerospike engine for better maneuverability for orbital
course corrections ?
(4) Since we just shut down the shuttle program, let’s not let the technology go to waste like we did Apollo [that group of excited engineers
*REVERSE ENGINEERING the umbilical between the Apollo and LEM for $30,000*
was just plain embarassing - don’t we take notes on how to do things, people?
let’s not do the same to the shuttle program - if we’re not going to use
the shuttle tiles anymore, lets’s sell the technology on how to make them to
corporate America. Get some money back on this……..
….but all this costs money, and nobody wants to spend. And everybody panicks to cram everything into the existing budget.
argh.
6. RC-STL | 10.30.09
I agree with Andy (of course I am just a lay person but using the ISS as a midway point for a reusable lunar shuttle makes sense, that weight has to be sent to space only once).
We miss the point that a big part of NASA’s mission nowadays is to channel the corporate welfare monye to the defense contractor, so cheaper and sooner is not the first thing in their minds…
7. Shawn P | 10.30.09
Andy,
I respect your knowledge, but the F-1 is to rocket design what a 1966 Pontiac Bonneville is to car design: plenty of power, a little style and luxury, but hugely inefficient.
Let’s face it: nothing beats the F-1. That thing is a cultural icon. I’d love to see 5 of them on the back of the Ares V leaving a mile-long trail of flame (a la Saturn V), but it’s just not the best solution. I think an SRB burn is about as exciting as “Family Matters” re-runs, but it’s good technology. The days of huge liquid-fueled engines are over.
Titans, Atlases, and Deltas are not man-rated. Half the cost of building the Ares I is man-rating it. True, the Titan has a stellar record, it’s not good enough to carry humans. It would cost another billion just to certify it. I know that’s ridiculous. Don’t tell me. But that’s how public organizations work. The responsibility it to the forms and the papers… not to the humans.
As to your second point, the lunar shuttle is a hugely intellegent idea. Current Mars proposals (revision 5) include using four Ares V launches to assemble a large spacecraft in orbit. This is just plain good thinking. Von Braun didn’t even come up with it actually, it was in a proposal by some unknown guy about how to solve the problem of a trans-terran injection (i.e. how do you carry enough fuel to the moon to get back FROM the moon). That proposal required TWO Saturn V rockets, though.
You point number (4) is good, but it seems to support my point about the DIRECT program. DIRECT uses about 70% old shuttle tech to get us to the moon.
BTW, aerospike engines are incredibly cool, but vacuum testing has shown them to be inefficient without back pressure. Sometimes the best technology looks boring because boring technology is the best.
Also, an unmodified RS-68 can produce half the thrust of an F-1. That’s not wimpy at all. You can’t really compare modern engines to the F-1; it’s not fair. 10 tested, reliable, and efficient RS-68s will give you the same lift thrust as the five F-1s of Apollo. The real crime is that they would get dumped in the drink at the end of the flight. (Yes, I know existing designs don’t use 10 RS-68s… I’m just pointing out that “wimpy” isn’t the right term).
8. Shawn P | 10.30.09
Quick note: I don’t mean to spam the comments here:
RS-68 uses 20% (yes) of the parts used in the Space Shuttles RS-24 engines. Has a specific impulse rating (think efficiency rating) similar to the RS-24 and 40% higher than the F-1.
The RS-68 is a GOOD engine design.
9. Jeff | 11.03.09
When will we learn not to make decisions based on what accountants say? It’s impossible for them to think more than five years into the future or quantify ideas like achievement, excellence, or knowledge.
Cutting NASA funding would be a huge mistake. We should double it.
10. Aaron | 11.11.09
Alas, it’s garbage and the Mr. Spotts completely ignores that the Russians and the Ukrainians with Soviet technology still manage to put payloads into space for a fifth of what we do. From the Shtil’, to the Proton, to the Zenit, we are outclassed in every launch category. I think it’s utterly insane how more money is spent on this garbage system, rather than just using the Saturn technology to build an orbital waystation for a moon-mission. I think it’s pathetic how we spend ten times what the Russians spend and they still have a better program. Space exploration will not be viable until we can drop the cost of payloads getting into LEO from $3000+/lb (!!!) to $100/lbs. Only then will commercial exploration be viable. Instead, we get a huge, overpriced subsidy for the government contracting industry again. “How cool is this?” Ugh! Not cool at all.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
1. Twitter Trackbacks for NASA’s Ares 1-X launch: ‘How cool was this?’ | csmonitor.com [csmonitor.com] on Topsy.com | 10.28.09
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Christian | 10.29.09
I’m happy to see that it was a success and that they’re still committed to program Constellation.
Kennedy took a chance when he made lunar exploration a top priority, and as a result it became one of mankind’s greatest achievements. I for one hope that Obama follows that example…