Lars is upset, sorry for upsetting you.
Tony is right.
Michael Clive is right, well partly, the Subject Line of this post is still
"Orion Abort Test Failure..."
John has some good words of wisdom a few posts back.
Doug is the GOTO guy for Hydrogen Safety, off topic.
On capsule aerodynamics, the ideal capsule should be stable and
controllable in all flight regimes, not tumbling out of control so
violently. Someone could get hurt. Sorry for talking about Hydrogen in the
middle of a discussion on Orion's bad (not good) subsonic aerodynamics and
failed test.
Hurricane Barry headed my way, time to prepare just in case the Weather Guy
gets it's Trajectory wrong and it makes a left turn.
I think I'll take Michael and Tony's advice and dial it back a bit,
hopefully someone who knows more than me will continue the discussion on
exactly why Orion and Apollo's subsonic aerodynamics are so bad and how to
fix them. The answers aren't in the back of the book.
Later,
--
Craig Fink
WeBeGood@xxxxxxxxx
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 1:20 AM Michael Clive <zeinin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Lars is right. Craig, please dial it back. You don't know who is on thisUnlike the Soyuz, I doubt it would be stable up-side-down.
list. There are many people here who have substantially more experience
than you in rocketry.
You are being very loud, and talking beyond your direct experience. Many
of us are bothered by that. Please post less often and less aggressively. I
am sure there are many interesting things you can share about you work on
shuttle. Please don't post authoritivly about things you have never worked
with, like hydrogen or capsule aerodynamics. It is annoying.
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 9:17 PM Craig Fink <webegood@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 7:03 PM Henry Spencer <hspencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jul 2019, dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
The Orion shape is based on the Apollo shape with small changes. The
center of gravity is also similar. Thus it has many of the
characteristics of Apollo capsule. I’m sure I can find some tumbling
Apollo capsule footage...
The Apollo escape system was deliberately designed to take the
spacecraft
off to one side, rather than straight up -- you don't want to drop it
back
into the fireball of an exploding booster! So it did induce a bit of
rotation for that reason.
Moreover, there was another reason: a high-altitude escape meant
reentry
before chute deployment... and even with the escape tower still
attached
and its canards deployed, the capsule was weakly stable nose-first.
TheGood thing NASA updated the Guidance Computer.
escape system *deliberately* produced a slow tumble (and a later abort
using the SM engine would have been immediately followed by a thruster
firing to produce such a tumble) to ensure that the capsule would
stabilize only base-first.
Henry
I looked, couldn't find any Tumbling Apollo Tumbling footage. Would be
interested is seeing one, as well as Dragon, New Shepard ...
--
Craig Fink
WeBeGood@xxxxxxxxx
