It’s safe to say nothing until it’s tested. (And the Constellation Program has recommended cancelling the relevant test flight, Ares I-Y.) For all we know, the upper stage flight control system would not have overcome the induced moments, at least not enough to save the mission or crew.

“the second stage would not have rotated with the first stage.”

The first stage did not “rotate”.

FWIW…

Policy is about making decisions between alternatives on the basis of critical thought. It necessarily involves a lot of criticism. Critiquing something is not the same thing as bashing it.

And even if folks were bashing Ares I-X or Ares I, that’s not the same thing as bashing NASA.

“You also ignore that two of the parachutes reportedly operated normally”

That’s factually wrong. Two of the parachutes were off-nominal.

“Odds are its [sic] still a quality control issue”

Not if there is a systemic design issue affecting multiple parachutes, as appears to have happened with the Ares I-X test flight.

“which you would know IF your were an engineer.”

How juvenile. How old are you? Ten?

And exactly what are your technical credentials?

An engineer gets his facts straight. You have failed to do so, repeatedly. Until you can, go away.

An engineer argues technical issues and options based on facts and logic. You debate by throwing insults and making appeals to authority. Until you
can do the former and stop doing the latter, go away.

“But of course you want Ares and NASA to fail”

Where have I ever said that I “want… NASA to fail”?

If you can’t carry on an argument without putting word in the other poster’s mouth, then go away.

“so you will grasp at any straw”

Where have I grasped at straws? These are facts.

It’s a fact that the Ares I-X upper-stage separation was off-nominal. It’s a fact that the off-nominal separation would have put Orion in a dangerous orientation that would have prevented crew abort or killed the crew in a crew abort. It’s a fact that good stage separation is more critical on a solid-fueled rocket like Ares I that can’t turn off its thrust than on a liquid-fueled rocket than can turn off its thrust. It’s a fact that after the Ares I-X test flight, there is now doubt whether Ares I/Orion can carry out safe stage separations and launch aborts. It’s a fact that the Constellation Program has recommended cancelling the Ares I-Y test flight that would have provided such a test.

It’s a fact that deployment for two of the Ares I-X parachutes was off-nominal. It’s a fact that the parachutes are pushing the limits of technology. It’s a fact the parachute failures dented the SRB. It’s a fact such denting prevents the SRBs from being reused. It’s a fact that SRB reusability is key to Ares I operational costs and safety.

Where are your facts?

Stop cheerleading and face reality. If you can’t, then go away. There are other sites for Ares I or NASA cheerleading.

“to declare it a failure to further bash Ares.”

Again, pointing out obvious off-nominal events and failures and their implications for the program is not the same thing as bashing a program.

“But again, we need to take the time to let the professionals look at the data and determine what happened instead of guessing based on news reports.”

Do you somehow think that the “professionals” are going to tell us that the Ares I-X upper stage was pointing forwards after separation when it was pointing backwards in the launch film?

Do you somehow think that the “professionals” are going to tell us that all the Ares I-X parachutes properly inflated when two of them clearly did not in the launch film?

Do you somehow think that the “professionals” are going to tell us that the Ares I-X first-stage SRB was not dented when it clearly was in various photos?

Again, stop cheerleading and face reality. If you can’t, then go away. There are other sites for Ares I or NASA cheerleading.

If the professionals do weigh in, it will only be on those things we don’t know about — specifically the data from the 700-odd sensors and instruments on the Ares I-X stack. And to the extent its public, it’s unlikely to be good news. For example, the strain gauges may reveal that the stack was close to rupturing or the flight recorder may reveal that the flight control system was barely able to keep the vehicle properly oriented.

“BTW it will be interesting to see if the bash NASA types dissect the Falcon 9 launch to the same degree.”

For the umpteenth time, pointing out obvious failures and their implications for a vehicle or program is not the same thing as bashing that vehicle or program. If you don’t or can’t understand the difference, then go away.

“BTW anyone have a word on when it will finally be ready to fly? The last I heard was February over two years behind schedule…”

And Ares I/Orion is at least five years behind schedule, and most likely seven years. Your point?

Most complex development projects run behind schedule. Only the painfully uninformed or uncritical wouldn’t bother to compare schedules.

Lawdy…

Not sure how you can make such a statement here unless you have access to the simulation and data reduction after the flight. I personnaly am not going either direction but… Some have voiced concern about an abort with failure of 2nd stage ignition and pointed to this flight to say it’d be a pretty bad day for the astronauts. Now. Is this founded? I don’t know for sure BUT still it looks hmmm odd.

Oh well.

I’d tend to agree with you if we were talking about increasing launch performance by the odd few tens of percent, but that’s just not the case. The sort of increase required to support the “Program of Record” or any HLV based architectures for human exploration missions is a factor of more than SIX (x6!!!) beyond anything that’s commercially available today or even likely to be within the next decade.

GuessWho said: “Sorry, it is a no brainer. Take some time to know and understand the industry before you post such idiotic arguments.”

Do you really think the cost of fielding orbit-based systems like a propellant depot and tug would be anything like the cost of fielding a HLV (i.e. 100T-200T payload to LEO)? What alternate markets would be able to make use of even a fraction of this capacity? Do you know how much trouble Arianespace has manifesting just two comsats? Why do you think ESA is taking so long deciding what it builds after Ariane 5? Do you know about ESA’s Tomorrow’s Bird Study and why they’re so slow to publish it?

You said in an earlier post that you “…have personally been performing due diligence on three commercial space activities brought forward for investment/financing”. Based upon your comments to date, I can quite understand why you post here anonymously.

I’ll say no more because Rand beat me to the punchline.

Sheesh, indeed.

I guess sometime common sense does fail me.

Oh well…

This is the same Government that can’t do the LV solution economically, and you want them to tackle the harder problem of developing fuel depots, space tugs, etc.? In one of the few instances that I can agree with Robert Oler, “there is a place for NASA…it just isnt exploration centered around humans.” And this from an avowed conservative with very strong Libertarian leanings…

thanks …I would clarify my position on two points

First I dont think that human exploration of “space” (meaning other worlds) has any real value at this point.

Historically if you go look at the “great voyages of discovery” whether they be on land, or sea, or air they only occur when the technology to accomplish them is on the verge or already is “common place”. Lets stay away from ships…try “Slim” Lindbergh…his flight in 1927 across “the pond” is only a few years before doing “the pond” became fairly routine (although still quite hazardous). Lewis and Clark went west and shortly thereafter an entire nation followed.

We went to the Moon in 69…on a time span basis it is pretty clear that space “goings” are about in line with say exploring Antarctica…as opposed to say “flying the Atlantic”.

I dont see any real need for human voyages of discovery (exploration) because the technology for it is far to primitive and the markets non existant to allow the rest of America come along.

Second…government spending does in my view two things…the first is to develop technologies (the turbojet is a great example) that are to expensive for private sector alone technology (ie no company was going to spend the dollars to make the turbojet work in an era of prop airplanes and prop customers)….the second is build infrastructure that allows Americans and America to take advantage of new opportunities.

What is infrastructure is always an entertaining political debate. The right wing of the GOP opposed the Ike Highway system preferring toll roads.

Health care might be infrastructure…we are debating that.

Going to the Moon for some NASA employees is not infrastructure.

Robert G. Oler

The former, because there were a sufficient number of customers for the larger payloads to justify the development and operation of a larger vehicle, and the vehicle development was affordable. Neither is the case for exploration, as NASA currently plans it.

This is the same Government that can’t do the LV solution economically, and you want them to tackle the harder problem of developing fuel depots, space tugs, etc.?

That it’s a harder problem is an opinion, and not a particularly well-founded one, not a fact. Not, of course, that I want the government to do it. I just want the government to be a good customer for the services. Private industry is quite capable of doing so, given sufficient market incentives.

While none of these commercial companies is targeting the lift numbers that NASA “needs”, they are addressing future LV needs of their customers and this trend is definitely upward. If NASA turns to EELV’s, then I would expect ULA will respond with upgrades versions of their current heavy versions.

The short-term trend is upward, but it will top out long before anything approaching an Ares V. There is no customer for that vehicle, or at least not a sufficient number of them, other than NASA, to justify such a development privately. And the only reason that NASA is a customer is because it remains mired in an Apollo mindset.

Take some time to know and understand the industry before you post such idiotic arguments.

Physician, heal thyself.