Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Ares I launch in few minutes, maybe

  1. Oct 27, 2009 #1
    Tentative launch at 8:15 AM EDT (12:15 UTC).

    (Note I've been editing this opening post since yesterday, to reflect changing launch times.)


    High resolution NASA feed (1.2 MBPs):

    http://playlist.yahoo.com/makeplaylist.dll?id=1368163 [Broken]

    different formats:

    http://www.nasa.gov/ntv

    follow the twitter:

    http://twitter.com/nasa

    mission page:

    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/ares/flighttests/aresIx/index.html

    wiki:

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

    photo slideshow:

    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/ares/flighttests/aresIx/AresIX_Gallery.html

    2hobdsj.jpg
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 27, 2009 #2
    Thanks for the links, I had been watching the updates on the NASA homepage.
     
  4. Oct 28, 2009 #3
    And we're in day 2.
     
  5. Oct 28, 2009 #4
    Weather can be fun.
     
  6. Oct 28, 2009 #5

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    10:30 projected launch time.
     
  7. Oct 28, 2009 #6
    [strike]Now 11:00 AM EDT (15:00 UTC), this time with "only 20% chance of weather interference".[/strike]

    [strike]11:08 AM EDT (15:08 UTC)[/strike]

    [strike]11:20 AM EDT (15:20 UTC)[/strike]

    11:30 AM EDT (15:30 UTC)
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2009
  8. Oct 28, 2009 #7

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    11:26 resume count for 11:30 launch (projected).

    Why does NASA need such perfect conditions for launch? Certainly, clouds won't interfere with sensors on board, telemetry, etc. Is there some reason for requiring perfect visuals?
     
  9. Oct 28, 2009 #8
    Its probably just that they don't want to break their billion dollar rocket. If the thing crashes on the first launch, I would imagine that it would probably kill their funding.
     
  10. Oct 28, 2009 #9

    lisab

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    They just started the 4 minute countdown!
     
  11. Oct 28, 2009 #10
    Cool one more minute
     
  12. Oct 28, 2009 #11

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    AS soon as they launched, feeds pretty much all crapped out. Blah!
     
  13. Oct 28, 2009 #12

    lisab

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    This one stayed on -

    http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html" [Broken]

    But they're just showing control room activity now.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  14. Oct 28, 2009 #13
    According to the six hours I spent on NASA TV waiting through delay after delay, the main problem with weather is that flying through clouds causes static charge buildup (triboelectrification) which interferes with RF transmissions.

    http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/Ares I-X/
    By "corona" I assume they mean corona discharge - if the voltage gradients are high enough (from the accumulated charge on the rocket), air molecules will ionize, and this means the air becomes opaque or maybe refractive to the RF waves they use, blocking communication. (I'm sure 50 PF physicists will immediately jump in and offer a far better explanation.) By "flight termination system" they mean they need continuous communication to the rocket in order to send self-destruct signals, should it veer off course. So it is not simply about protecting the rocket, but the lives of hundreds of observers on the ground (though of course NASA PR isn't so blunt.)
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2009
  15. Oct 28, 2009 #14

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Thanks, signerror! That sounds like a plausible explanation (and motivation).
     
  16. Oct 28, 2009 #15

    IMP

    User Avatar

    It launched. The flight looked good to me, I did find a surprise at stage separation though. Did anyone else notice that as soon as the stages separated, what would be the second stage immediately began tumbling? I know it was a dummy second stage but still, shouldn't it fly straight and true at separation? I mean even if the second stage was real and the next motor ignited, it would already have been tumbling. Anyone have any thoughts on this?
     
  17. Oct 28, 2009 #16
    IMP - I think the real second stage will have small thrusters to correct that. I.e.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_control_system

    The video of the launch is on youtube now - it is spectacular!



    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeIjVB2O9_4

    Condensation cloud:

    1zcpv7m.jpg
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2014
  18. Oct 28, 2009 #17

    IMP

    User Avatar

    It almost appeared like the explosive bolt release was asymmetric, that the timing was off a bit. Or perhaps 1 of the 6 bolts failed to blow and actually broke off. You may be right, maybe the reaction control system can compensate for that. I was really surprised how fast it began tumbling, almost immediately at stage separation. All other footage I have seen of stage separations did not have that same effect at all, upper stages keep straight and true (coasting a bit before second stage ignition, but those likely did have reaction control).

    But I do think the launch looked awesome overall, it was a great flight! I can't wait to see the five segment version.

    Edit: I just noticed that all of the videos of the flight now end right at stage separation, even the original one I watched on MSN that had several seconds after stage separation now cuts off right at separation.
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2009
  19. Oct 28, 2009 #18
    In the NASA video, at 2:12, you can hear the narrator say "and a tumble motor ignition". My guess is it was sent into a tumble deliberately.

    Why? I have no clue. I'll leave this for you guys to figure out...
     
  20. Oct 28, 2009 #19

    IMP

    User Avatar

    Good catch, I missed that part (the announcers were talking over the NASA guy on the MSN video feed). Perhaps they use tumble motors on the first stage to make sure it rotates sideways and catches some drag so it is less likely to run into the upper stages? Or maybe they really did have tumble motors on the upper stage for some reason. I would be interested to know why. Maybe they didn't want it to coast too far so they set it tumbling?
    It really did look like a great flight to me.
    I am also anticipating the Falcon 9 launch coming up soon!
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2009
  21. Oct 28, 2009 #20

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Ares is an optionally manned vehicle, but nothing pops up on a search for the re-entry design (crew). Are they back to a capsule, heat shield, parachutes and water landing now?

    Edit: yes, apparently so, but with a land landing, not water.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(spacecraft)
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2009
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Ares I launch in few minutes, maybe
Loading...