Ares I launch in few minutes, maybe

[signerror]

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

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

http://i36.tinypic.com/2hobdsj.jpg (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/ares/flighttests/aresIx/AresIX_Gallery.html)

[Pattonias]

Thanks for the links, I had been watching the updates on the NASA homepage.

[signerror]

And we're in day 2.

[Pattonias]

Weather can be fun.

[turbo-1]

10:30 projected launch time.

[signerror]

Now 11:00 AM EDT (15:00 UTC), this time with "only 20% chance of weather interference".

11:08 AM EDT (15:08 UTC)

11:20 AM EDT (15:20 UTC)

11:30 AM EDT (15:30 UTC)

[turbo-1]

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?

[Topher925]

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?

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.

[lisab]

They just started the 4 minute countdown!

[Andre]

Cool one more minute

[turbo-1]

AS soon as they launched, feeds pretty much all crapped out. Blah!

[lisab]

This one stayed on -

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html

But they're just showing control room activity now.

[signerror]

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?

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%20I-X/
In the case of Ares I-X, flying through high-level clouds can generate “P-static” (P for precipitation), which can create a corona of static around the rocket that interferes with radio signals sent by or to the rocket. This would create problems when the rocket tries to transmit data down to the ground or if the Range Safety Officer at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station needed to send a signal to the flight termination system. Until the 45th Space Wing and observer aircraft indicate that the skies are clear, Ares I-X will wait them out.

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.)

[turbo-1]

Thanks, signerror! That sounds like a plausible explanation (and motivation).

[IMP]

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?

[signerror]

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!

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

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

Condensation cloud:

http://i34.tinypic.com/1zcpv7m.jpg

[IMP]

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.

[Equate]

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?

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...

[IMP]

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!

[mheslep]

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_%28spacecraft%29

[IMP]

Yes, capsule, heat shield, and parachutes, but landing on land (no water landing).

http://www.aresrocket.com/aresi.html

[Equate]

Here is the whole sequence:

http://www.thoughtware.tv/videos/watch/2229-Nasa-Ares-1-Test-Flight-Simulation

Amazing how accurate the simulation was, down to the condensation cloud! The "tumbling thrusters" can be seen at 0:52.


And here with emergency CEV escape system in action:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8QSMuQvojE&feature=related

[magpies]

Is it just me or is this rocket of almost no real use? Besides getting stuff into space? The space shuttle is a far better make and model imo. What happen to the new up to date space shuttles they were going to make back in the 1990s?

As for the flight... It looked like a failure to me but im sure they will say it was perfect as expected.

[Equate]

As for the flight... It looked like a failure to me but im sure they will say it was perfect as expected.

Well, look at the simulation and you'll see what they "expected" back in 2008.

Looks picture perfect to me... :smile:

[magpies]

How can they possibly put a person in that?

[mheslep]

How can they possibly put a person in that?They can put 4 to 6 people in that. I guess diameter is 8M at the base. They could likely put you car inside the hull enclosed space. Notice the person sitting in the background for scale.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Orion_capsule_at_KSC.JPG