News and Commentary on Space
Well, sort of. It was a test of the boost vehicle and the separation and parachute systems, which all appeared to have worked (as best one can tell from just video). It was not a test of the abort motors.
Nonetheless, I see another LAS architecture trade study in our future…
It looks like the flight test of MLAS, Mike Griffin’s other brilliant idea, is back on:
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration said the MLAS test is scheduled June 15 at the Wallops Flight Facility on Wallops Island, Va. The launch window extends from approximately 5:45 a.m. to 8:15 a.m. EDT.
“The unpiloted test is part of an effort to design a system for safely propelling future spacecraft and crews away from hazards on the launch pad or during the climb to orbit,” NASA said in a statement. “This system was developed as an alternative concept to the launch abort system chosen for NASA’s Orion crew capsule.”
It’s amusing that this bad idea will fly (assuming it does) before PA-1, the perpetually-delayed test of an abort system more closely approximating the baseline design.
More on MLAS: Bad Ideas Never Die
By NASASpaceFlight.com. At their subscription site.
Jon Goff has a few interesting details from his first look at the appendices:
Now, having seen some of what’s in them (I’ve mostly been focusing on the 300+ page appendix to Chapter 6, that details all of their launch vehicle related decisions), I can understand why some people might not want that data to see the light of day. I was hoping to get permission to post a screenshot or two and some direct quotes, but for now you’ll have to get a subscription and check it out yourself.
Some gems to look for when you get a chance, all within the first 40 pages:
- Exceptions given in the ground rules and assumptions on maximum dynamic pressures to In-line SRM based crew launch concepts that weren’t given to any other vehicles (without the exception, all of the five-segment Stick concepts would’ve been ruled out from the start).
- Unrealistically assuming a fixed LAS mass regardless of first stage characteristics (like T/W, max-Q, and whether you can shut them down or not).
- Inaccurate dry mass numbers for existing EELV upper stages (just as some of the guys on NASASpaceflight.com had been saying for years now).
Hmm… It’s almost as if the study was rigged to generate a particular outcome…
I can’t wait to see what other “gems” are buried in the full text. Of course, I will wait, since I’m not going to pay for a “level 2″ subscription at NSF to obtain copies of information that I’ve already paid for (that, and I’m not going to help support a site which I loathe for its constantly-flickering animated ads).
[hat tip to the vactioning-in-our-home-state Rand Simberg]
