Tweet
Ares 1-X is a test flight of the booster for the Orion spacecraft slated for April 2009.
Many think it's more show than go, in other words a PR opportunity to boost Congressional
support, but nevertheless it's to be launched with a dummy 2nd stage and dummy Orion
and so an opportunity to test the interstage structures etc.
If true those who looked at the Ares I and thought it might snap in two between the
stages at launch because the bottom is much smaller in diameter than the top may have
been right. Image of the Ares I test configurations and a size comparison of the Ares family
to the Saturn V and Shuttle system below.
The post speaks for itself;
A troubling post on NasaSpaceFlight.com .....
NOTE: images of astronauts not to scale as the Ares I is over 350 feet tall. They indicate manned flights.
Also; the PA 'filghts' are tests of the launch abort tower.
Size comparison. Ares IV is not 'real'; it was an early concept for mixed cargo & crew.
Many think it's more show than go, in other words a PR opportunity to boost Congressional
support, but nevertheless it's to be launched with a dummy 2nd stage and dummy Orion
and so an opportunity to test the interstage structures etc.
If true those who looked at the Ares I and thought it might snap in two between the
stages at launch because the bottom is much smaller in diameter than the top may have
been right. Image of the Ares I test configurations and a size comparison of the Ares family
to the Saturn V and Shuttle system below.
The post speaks for itself;
A troubling post on NasaSpaceFlight.com .....
kraisee
Offline
Expert
Posts: 3285
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL
I've been able to confirm from CxP sources that a test occurred earlier this month
on some dynamic load hardware planned for Ares-I-X - and that the test failed.
It appears to be either the InterStage or the Forward Frustum for the SRB which was
undergoing load tests, and that the unit in the test failed structurally while only experiencing
"nominal" flight load conditions - not even while experiencing the extra-high loads which
testing would usually expect to safely push such hardware to so as to ensure the required
additional safety margins.
I'm trying to get clearer information at present (difficult with everyone on vacation!) so wanted
to ask on here for any information from the many folk reading these forums to help shed some
light on this.
I do find it interesting that such a failure occurred in precisely the location folk inside Constellation
have been warning about here on NSF for a year and a half though. Being such a "known" issue,
you'd think they would have made it strong enough by now in time for physical testing prior to test flight...
Ross.
Offline
Expert
Posts: 3285
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL
I've been able to confirm from CxP sources that a test occurred earlier this month
on some dynamic load hardware planned for Ares-I-X - and that the test failed.
It appears to be either the InterStage or the Forward Frustum for the SRB which was
undergoing load tests, and that the unit in the test failed structurally while only experiencing
"nominal" flight load conditions - not even while experiencing the extra-high loads which
testing would usually expect to safely push such hardware to so as to ensure the required
additional safety margins.
I'm trying to get clearer information at present (difficult with everyone on vacation!) so wanted
to ask on here for any information from the many folk reading these forums to help shed some
light on this.
I do find it interesting that such a failure occurred in precisely the location folk inside Constellation
have been warning about here on NSF for a year and a half though. Being such a "known" issue,
you'd think they would have made it strong enough by now in time for physical testing prior to test flight...
Ross.
Also; the PA 'filghts' are tests of the launch abort tower.
Size comparison. Ares IV is not 'real'; it was an early concept for mixed cargo & crew.