credit NASA
NASA's Kennedy Space Center has decided it wants a damper arm for its Ares rockets' mobile launch platform
The Ares I crew launch vehicle, being so long and thin, has been expected to need such a device because of a potential susceptibility to wind. But will NASA want it for Ares I-X?
Such arms were used during the Apollo programme to counter the motion of the Saturn rocket stack during rollout and to stabilise it during strong winds on the pad but it was disconnected and retracted prior to launch
credit NASA
NASA wants information about potential technologies whether they are viscous liquid or some other system. Part of a launch tower accessory system NASA wants to be able to remotely alter the damper arm's mode between damped, un-damped and locked/rigid
With a 3 February deadline for responses to the request for information, any following request for proposals and procurement will see the contractor having nine months to deliver multiple damper units to be used as test articles and potentially "operationally ground based equipment" - I wonder why they would want that?
At the moment such a likely damper arm delivery date of late in the fourth quarter this year is too late for current, official, Ares I-X launch schedules but you never know...
on January 2, 2009 4:04 PM | Reply
.
it's VERY DANGEROUS idea since it "may" save the launch pad but could damage and/or move the rocket's balance at lift-off (when the rocket is very slow, unstable and vulnerable!) putting the crew under serious risk!
the early seconds of a launch was/are/will be the MOST CRITICAL part of a launch, since Gemini and Apollo era, when was common from Mission Control Center to send to the astronauts the message "launch pad free" to say them when their rocket was over the pad's infrastructure, then (finally) unable to collide with it, so (at least) THIS risk was over!
I believe, that, the simpler, easier, cheaper and safer solutions is MY idea of a small thruster side-mounted on the 1st stage booster:
http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/040aresdrift.html
it can surely work well since a similar solution was successful used from '60s to keep the Atlas 1B stable at lift-off (and after it)
however, another good (but very expensive) solution is to build a MOVING launch pad to be shifted 20+ meters away from the Ares-1 before the lift-off
.
on January 2, 2009 6:30 PM | Reply
We're thrilled to have any coverage of this program at all, no matter how minute & trivial the detail.
on January 2, 2009 6:36 PM | Reply
I am guessing that you are not an engineer. In engineering the devil is in the detail and its actually issues that some might consider as to detailed or minute that can ultimately cause a programme problems. If I had posted details of early comments by the Shuttle programme on vortex shedding within a five-segment solid motor would you have said that that is trivial? Probably. Because like many you would not have understood its significance. But some readers would have. Remember Ares I-X? Its supposed to be representative of the CLV. So when its rolled out from the VAB don't you think it might need to be kept stable? Think about it some more.
on January 3, 2009 12:18 PM | Reply
I agree with Rob.
Gaetano, your suggestion of an additional lateral booster for the first stage of the ARES-1 adds weight and complexity to the booster. If it malfunctioned it would definitely doom a mission whether it occurred in assembly or flight.
Damper arms are trivial compared to what you suggest.
on January 3, 2009 9:02 PM | Reply
I believe "We have cleared the tower" (or words very much like that) is the usual call, from Apollo and today...
on January 3, 2009 10:22 PM | Reply
.
@E.P.Watters
what I see and read from you (and, mainly, from NASA) really IS unbelievable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
from the NASA drawing published by Orlando Sentinel and reviewed in my article ( http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/040aresdrift.html ) the distance between the Ares-1 and the launch pad can be evaluated around 6-7 meters, ok?
well, the NASA concerns about the "lift-off drift" is that, with faster winds in the wrong direction, the Ares-1 could collide with the launch pad despite it is 6-7 meters away! ok?
however, a "dangerous fast wind" MAY happen just in A FEW launches, while, in all other launches it will NOT happen, ok?
the BEST WAY to avoid the lift-off drift risk (that will happen ONLY a few times in the Ares-1 story) is to MOVE the launch pad (at least) 10-20 meters away from Ares-1 before the lift-off, ok?
unfortunately, a movable launch pad is TOO expensive, so, the NASA's "brilliant" idea is to put a "damper arm" (that actually IS a TRUE PART of the launch pad!!!) NOT 6-7 meters AWAY from the Ares-1 (like the "dangerous" launc pad) BUT a few CENTIMETERS CLOSE the Ares-1 opening the way for the Ares-1 to COLLIDE with the launch pad's damper arm at EVERY launch and NOT only in the few launches with faster winds!!!!!
that MULTIPLIES the LOC/LOM riks by (probably) TEN TIMES or more!
when a (manned or unmanned) rocket leaves the pad, it should NOT connected NOR so close to anything like a cable, a refueling pipe or a "DAMPER ARM" or everything that could TOUCH or COLLIDE with the rocket changing its balance and stability!!!
then, a "damper arm" pretty close to the Ares-1 at lift-off is a REALLY BAD, DANGEROUS AND CRAZY IDEA !!!
while, MY suggestion of a side-mounted SMALL thruster, is WAYS BETTER since:
1. it doesn't need to put anything like a "damper arm" so close (a few centimeters close, to be exact!) to the Ares-1
2. it's a very simple, cheap and reliable solution since already used 50 years ago on the Atlas 1B where it worked VERY WELL
3. it's absolutely NOT so "heavy" as you claim, since it needs a very small thrust (like an attitude jet) and a very small amount of propellents since it must work for less than 10 seconds (just the time the Ares-1 needs to go over the launch pad) then it could be jettisoned
4. its weight could be in the range of 50-100 kg. max, so, it can't add so much mass to the 1100+ tons Ares-1 if its weight wasn't too much not even on the 120 tons only Atlas!!!
5. a side-mounted thruster's malfunction NEVER CAN DOOM a mission since it can be built with 2-3 small and independent engines (for redundancy) and can be TESTED at every launch burning them a few second before the lift-of (like happens with the SSMEs at every Shuttle launch)
about the question: "But will NASA want it for Ares I-X?"
my answer is a BIG YES, since they MUST TEST the lift-off drift issue fixer (no matter if it's a small thruster or a damper arm) BEFORE they'll build the final Ares-1 ...just imagine they WON'T TEST it this year and will discover that it can't work (or is too dangerous) ONLY in 2013 (after paid 10-15 billion$$$ of R&D funds!) when they will launch the Ares 1-Y with an unmanned Orion!!!!
Q: "Remember Ares I-X? Its supposed to be representative of the CLV."
A: right! it's only "SUPPOSED" to be the same or similar to the CLV or Ares-1, but it's completely different from the REAL Ares-1, so, it can't give any true data about the Ares-1 performance and reliability and can't say them/us IF the Ares-1 can fly!!!
.
on January 4, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply
.
apart of the lift-off drift issue (that can be easy to fix) the solid motor Ares-1 looks VERY DANGEROUS by itself (since launched alone) for the 4-6 astronauts atop it, the thousands KSC workers and the Florida inhabitants near the launch base!
as I've explained over one year ago in this article: http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/021chillinglaunch.html
and the consequences of the first FAILED test launch of the OVER 55 TIMES SMALLER (than Ares-1) solid motor ALV X-1 (launched last August 22, 2008 from the Wallops Island NASA Flight Facility) have CONFIRMED all my concerns about it!
http://hamptonroads.com/2008/08/rocket-explodes-shortly-after-launch-wallops-island
.
on January 5, 2009 9:42 PM | Reply
I'm not an engineer, but it's quite obvious from the photo that the stabilizer is designed to swing down and away from the 1st stage booster prior to lift off. The stabilizer as it's name implies is to be used during transit to the launch pad and during the long wait just before lift off.
on January 6, 2009 3:00 AM | Reply
Whatever the safety and crew risk issues of Ares are, the 'KSC workers and Florida inhabitants' are never close to *any* launch. This is why KSC is in what is still largely swampland, why all launches are out over the ocean (in an area previously cleared of air and sea traffic for safety and security reasons),why the launch pads are seperated as far as they are and why self-destruct systems are present.
Even after the breakup of Challenger, its uncontrolled SRBs were destroyed from the ground, when they started to veer back toward the coast...
on January 6, 2009 12:38 PM | Reply
"the stabilizer is designed to swing down and away from the 1st stage booster prior to lift off"
if it stabilize the Ares only "prior to lift off" it's useless to solve the drift issue that (may) happen AFTER the lift-off
.
on January 6, 2009 12:57 PM | Reply
press reports said that the (55 times smaller) ALV X-1 led the falling of some debris pretty close to some civilian dwellings near the Wallops launch base
the Challenger's SRBs exploded when they was at high altitude, on the ocean, very away from KSC and great part of their propellents already burned
my concern about the KSC launch pads isn't regarding other pads near the Ares-1 one, but the Ares-1 launch pad itself
now there are TWO launch pads for the Space Shuttle while, in the ESAS plan, one of them will be ised ONLY for the Ares-5 and one ONLY for the Ares-1 that's a BIG RISK if the ONLY launch pad available for manned mission will be damaged or destroyed since NASA will remains for WEEKS or MONTHS without an Ares-1 launch pad for standard orbital and lunar or (maybe) RESCUE missions!
.
on May 30, 2009 2:58 PM | Reply
Just to comment these pictures since they are my design.
First this picture is very preliminary. It is more of a schematic view of what a system like this would need and how big it would be in relation to the other equipment on the pad.
There are two of these arms at different locations along the vehcile.
They are designed to stabilize the vehicle while it is on the launchpad so it doesn't bend to far for the umbilicals and crew module access arm.
They are designed to release at T-0 and fall away from the vehicle. They are designed to fall free of the vehicle and stay out of the drift curve.
on June 1, 2009 1:38 PM | Reply
Interesting John. Can you talk more about the drift curve?