What? No post on the Orion test flight? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: mrflibble
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 04, 2014, 12:05:23 pm
content: Anyone else watching this?http://www.nasa.gov/orion/http://www.ustream.tv/nasahdtvNow if only that boat gets out of the way they'd be good to go. Awwwww, waiting for new T-0 time. Aaaaany time now. Any time ... now.

author: mrflibble
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 04, 2014, 12:07:01 pm
content: Nice, the boat has buggered off. Planned to launch in 10 mins. Lets hope that goes well.

author: Maxlor
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 04, 2014, 12:11:45 pm
content: I tested that flight already. Jebediah Kerman survived. No biggie

author: mrflibble
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 04, 2014, 12:14:25 pm
content: No kerbals on board today.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 04, 2014, 12:17:03 pm
content: What is the point of this launch? Its using a Delta instead of the real lifter, so it seems to be an expensive trip to achieve rather limited testing.

author: mrflibble
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 04, 2014, 12:25:03 pm
content: Quick oneliner:The Orion Flight Test will evaluate launch and high speed re-entry systems such as avionics, attitude control, parachutes and the heat shield.As with all complex systems, it makes sense to test subsystems or do limited tests. In this case they are still awaiting completion of the heavy lifters, but you can do a launch on another vehicle and gather valuable data.

author: N2IXK
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 04, 2014, 02:47:10 pm
content: Scrubbed for today due to problems with stuck valves in the fueling system.

author: mrflibble
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 04, 2014, 02:58:01 pm
content: Yup. From what I gathered this was a problem known to the ULA engineers, but the usual troubleshooting fix of cycling the valves 5 times didn't do the trick. I am paraphrasing so could be wrong. I was trying to get some work done with the launch stream open in another window.Hopefully better luck tomorrow.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2014, 01:42:25 am
content: Quote from: mrflibble on December 04, 2014, 12:25:03 pmThey aren't testing a siubsystem. They are testing a whole system. Just not the right one. Lifters are always the troublesome parts of these systems. There will be plenty of opportunities to test and debug the orbiter and landing system while the shake out the real lifter.

author: mrflibble
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2014, 03:06:50 am
content: Quote from: coppice on December 05, 2014, 01:42:25 amYou can test a subsystem by testing an entire system. Part of the whole system is the test fixture without which you would not be able to test the subsystem under test. Same stuff with that hypersonic descent module thingy they tested some time ago. Kind of hard to test it under hypersonic conditions without strapping it to a rocket, sending it up and then hit the atmosphere at high speed. Or is that "not the right thing" in your opinion because for the real mission they will use another launch vehicle?Breaking up the problem into smaller tests makes sense to me...

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2014, 04:37:18 am
content: The USSR did testing using the whole thing. Great when it all works, otherwise you have large areas where you send in people to fetch the little bits ( or not so little bits) so you can try to see where it went long for the next test. fine if you are a big very low population density area, but if you have lots of video of the failures not too good for your reputation.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2014, 06:41:45 am
content: Quote from: SeanB on December 05, 2014, 04:37:18 amBoth the USSR and the USA tested the whole thing on numerous occasion in the early days, with generally poor results, especially for the USA. What they both learned to do was try out the first stage, or one engine from the first stage. When they could trust that, they tried putting more stages on top, until they had the whole thing fairly reliable. This week's launch was postponed due to the lifter, which was supposed to be the bit you can trust. It sounds like it actually put the interesting bit at the top in jeopardy. Although the Delta IV has a good track record for reliability, the heavy version seems to have failed one time out of 6 launches.

author: calexanian
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2014, 06:42:18 am
content: If you can make due with a reliable launch vehicle and knock out many objectives pertaining to the orbiter, such as radiation shielding, telemetry, attitude control/RCS, dozens of sub systems, etc etc, and not have to really worry about the thing going bang seconds into the mission, I call that a good trade off. Just my opinion though.

author: mrflibble
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2014, 11:56:00 am
content: Quote from: calexanian on December 05, 2014, 06:42:18 amFromNasa page:Traveling 15 times farther into space than the International Space Station will take Orion beyond the radiation protection offered by Earth’s atmosphere and magnetic field. In fact, the majority of EFT-1 will take place inside the Van Allen Belts, clouds of heavy radiation that surround Earth....Sensors will record the peak radiation seen during the flight, as well as radiation levels throughout the flight, which can be mapped back to geographic hot spots.

author: mrflibble
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2014, 12:04:58 pm
content: Good time for the stream to go off air, just a few minutes before launch.But, according to Murphy this means there is a really high chance it will launch without problems. It's kind of the noise shaping version of things that can go wrong and will go wrong. Things going wrong with the live stream is a lot better than things going wrong with the launch.Guess I'll watch the recording of the succesful launch later.Back to work.Ah, phew, found another working stream just in time. 20 secs.

author: dr.diesel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2014, 02:47:05 pm
content: Space exploration has always fascinated me! Lots of relevant electrical/software/mechanical tech to go along as well.The Orion test capsule has 1200 sensors of various types. An overview of how these are read/pooled/wired/stored etc would make for a good read.

author: mrflibble
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2014, 04:37:31 pm
content: Quote from: dr.diesel on December 05, 2014, 02:47:05 pmYup, same here. And successful splashdown.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2014, 11:53:24 pm
content: Look at the size of those rockets! I don't recall ever seeing something like that. Is there some documentary about the rockets they use? Or are these modern versions of the rockets they used in the Apollo program?

author: N2IXK
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 06, 2014, 12:28:58 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on December 05, 2014, 11:53:24 pmNot at all related to the Saturn boosters used in the Apollo program, although like the Saturn V in its day, it is the most powerful booster the US currently has in service.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_IV_Heavy

author: JoeO
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 06, 2014, 04:50:17 am
content: On Feb 20, 1962 the US launched John Glenn into orbit. He went around the earth 3 times.On Dec 5, 2014 the US launched an unmanned capsule that orbited the earth 2 times.This is NOT the definition of progress.

author: dr.diesel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 06, 2014, 12:13:35 pm
content: I found this surprising:"The Time-Triggered Ethernet gives you a time-based guaranteed delivery," said Lemke. "It lets us use Ethernet for controlling the entire spacecraft -- every command the computer sends, all the data from the sensors that goes to the flight computers."http://www.computerworld.com/article/2855604/the-orion-spacecraft-is-no-smarter-than-your-phone.html

author: rob77
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 06, 2014, 12:38:15 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on December 05, 2014, 06:41:45 amlike any other heavy lifterlook at the russians - "medium sized" Soyuz - the most reliable rocket ever designed, but the heavy lifter Proton is a different story - that blows up "quite often" (proton is comparable to delta heavy in lifting capacity).the only exception is the Saturn V - that one was very reliable, and who knows why the next designs were NOT based on the experience coming from the Saturn V design.

author: IO390
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 06, 2014, 12:54:00 pm
content: Quote from: rob77 on December 06, 2014, 12:38:15 pmThe only problems encountered with a Saturn V is when two of the engine monitors were swapped over on an early unmanned launch. So basically one of the computers was monitoring one engine but controlling another, and vice-versa. One engine had a problem, and the wrong one was subsequently shut down. Still made it to orbit though.The closest the Russians got to the Saturn V was the N-1, which blew up on every launch.Also totally pissed off that I missed the launch. Woke up 10 mins late...

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 06, 2014, 12:59:30 pm
content: Quote from: rob77 on December 06, 2014, 12:38:15 pmAFAIK in the last 2 decades it blew up only twice. In 2007 1st stage could not separate on 129 second and in 2013 it really blew up on 32 second. All other problems were related to Briz M and DM-03 orbit insertion upper stages which delivered payload to the wrong orbit.

author: rob77
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 06, 2014, 01:22:18 pm
content: Quote from: IO390 on December 06, 2014, 12:54:00 pmwell, after Korolyov died in 1966 during a surgery , everything changed in the Russian space programme - they lost the "father" of their space programme. without him they were not able to fine-tune the N-1 design (N1 flights failed because of excessive vibrations ripping apart the pipework of the 30! rocket engines arranged in a ring - I'm sure Korolyov would have solved it)

author: Alexei.Polkhanov
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 07, 2014, 08:24:56 am
content: Recently I have been checking this website trying to find examples of GLONAS antennas. Look at this article - it is simply fascinating!http://www.spaceflight101.com/proton-m-block-dm-03-glonass-launch-2013.html."Taking a close look at the assembly log of the rocket, the commission discovered that the installation of the sensors was completed by a technician that was hired shortly beforehand. A supervising technician’s signature was also found in the log, however it is doubtful that an engineer familiar with the installation would not identify the error when performing a thorough visual inspection.Experiments with actual Proton hardware have shown that it is possible to install the angular velocity sensors upside down. Thecommission found that it would take a considerable effort by the technician to install the sensors incorrectly. The units are symmetrical in shape, but they have arrows that are supposed to point to the top of the vehicle to prevent an incorrect installation.Additionally, there are pins & corresponding holes that are designed to guide the technician to a correct installation. When installing the DUS sensors upside down, these pins would be misaligned with the holes. Installing the sensors that way would require the technician to apply force andcause dents on the installation plate."Imagine yourself as an engineer who designs systems knowing that people who will assemble them will be untrained, underpaid and will hammer things in by largest hammer they can find if it does not seem to fit for some reason.And with all that it flies, almost all the time. I am taking my hat off.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 07, 2014, 09:46:48 am
content: Well, that's a legal radiation limit. It just increases the chances of cell mutation which could cause cancer. It wouldn't cause radiation poisoning. With some acceptable risks, sending astronauts to Mars could be done. I do have concerns about 6 months in a tin can - what if there IS a medical emergency? Will they have doctor(s) with them? Will they be able to abort and return?

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 07, 2014, 03:03:12 pm
content: Quote from: rob77 on December 06, 2014, 12:38:15 pmIf you look at the early development of the F1 engine in the Saturn V it had a very shaky start. However, it had enough money poured in over a number of years, in a fairly consistent manner, to really get it polished before it ever flew. By that time it was one of the most solid designs ever produced. I think a lot of people have the idea that the Saturn started the day Kennedy said America should send men to the moon.This is how good engineering works. Don't try expensive things, like launches, until you really have to. Do try extensive modest cost work on the ground under conditions where you can experiment a lot, and get a real understanding of the system's behaviour. Give people adequate time, and don't play games with their funding that inspire them to perform stunts.

author: IO390
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 07, 2014, 03:28:17 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on December 07, 2014, 03:03:12 pmIt is quite incredible that they went from no knowledge of space travel, to landing on the moon in that short time. It's probably the only government contract completed ahead of scheduleIt seems only logical now to have a smaller lander module etc..., but originally there were plans to land the entire rocket on the moon.

author: Alexei.Polkhanov
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 07, 2014, 07:28:33 pm
content: I think I have read somewhere that every Apollo launch costed something like $47 to every citizen of US at that time.

author: IO390
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 07, 2014, 07:52:02 pm
content: Quote from: Alexei.Polkhanov on December 07, 2014, 07:28:33 pmThis is a good article on the subject:http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1579/1Given that there were about 200 million people living in the US in 1969, and the entire program (all figures in today's money) cost about 110 billion cost $550 per person over its 15 year lifespan. This averages at 91 dollars per person per lunar landing. Of course, this includes other missions (the missions with no landing - Apollo 7, 8, 9 & 10, if I remember correctly, and I guess 13 doesn't count) and the Apollo-Soyuz mission in 1975.

author: dr.diesel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 07, 2014, 09:45:24 pm
content: I know many will disagree, but i'd gladly spend 10x that for more quality missions.And don't ask me to define quality, LOL

author: Alexei.Polkhanov
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 07, 2014, 10:46:38 pm
content: I think it is not hard to define quality - I would like NASA, ESA and Roskosmos to fund missions that I want to do myself like put a robot(s) on Europe and Titan, Design better interplanetary drive systems so that trip to Mars takes 2 weeks not 8 months, launch next gen Hubble etc. And then I want them to scale down mostly-publicity projects like ISS. More hard since less BS!

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 08, 2014, 01:07:41 am
content: Quote from: Alexei.Polkhanov on December 07, 2014, 10:46:38 pmI think its easy to define quality for unmanned missions. For manned ones people aren't all looking for the same thing, so it becomes very subjective.