Nasa is ready to light the Bluetouch Paper on Ares 1-X
Discussion
Just seen this on BBC website
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8315623.stm
Don't know about the rest of you but I think it lacks the style of the Saturn 5, which won't help get the U.S. public opinion behind the planned Moon and Mars Missions
Anyway heres to a safe and successful launch!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8315623.stm
Don't know about the rest of you but I think it lacks the style of the Saturn 5, which won't help get the U.S. public opinion behind the planned Moon and Mars Missions
Anyway heres to a safe and successful launch!
rhinochopig said:
What exactly do they mean by payload? I didn't think a rocket could lift anywhere near 118 - 188 tons? I thought the moon capsules/landers weighed next to nothing even with fuel?
The asterix indicates it means payload lifted into low earth orbit so for the Saturn 5 that weight probably includes a fully fueled stage 3 with all the lunar bits.The weight of all the bits that got 'near to' the moon was only 47,000 KG
el stovey said:
rhinochopig said:
What exactly do they mean by payload? I didn't think a rocket could lift anywhere near 118 - 188 tons? I thought the moon capsules/landers weighed next to nothing even with fuel?
The asterix indicates it means payload lifted into low earth orbit so for the Saturn 5 that weight probably includes a fully fueled stage 3 with all the lunar bits.The weight of all the bits that got 'near to' the moon was only 47,000 KG
rhinochopig said:
el stovey said:
rhinochopig said:
What exactly do they mean by payload? I didn't think a rocket could lift anywhere near 118 - 188 tons? I thought the moon capsules/landers weighed next to nothing even with fuel?
The asterix indicates it means payload lifted into low earth orbit so for the Saturn 5 that weight probably includes a fully fueled stage 3 with all the lunar bits.The weight of all the bits that got 'near to' the moon was only 47,000 KG
It's tragic to think that the technology needed to do this was around in the 1960s, and then got thrown away, and now has to be re-invented. It will cost infinitely more; I only hope it works better than the Shuttle.
I don't think any Saturn Vs failed; a remarkable beast, and all with the processing power of a pocket calculator.
I don't think any Saturn Vs failed; a remarkable beast, and all with the processing power of a pocket calculator.
I am surprised the transporter doesn't have any supporting gantry for the assembly. It looked very very vulnerable. The launch utility tower only seems to be half built too.
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/389937main_real...
ETA: Shush, it was only 6MPixels
- Edited to make it a URL rather than an image though, for people on Iphones etc.
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/389937main_real...
ETA: Shush, it was only 6MPixels
- Edited to make it a URL rather than an image though, for people on Iphones etc.Edited by Zad on Wednesday 21st October 04:15
[quote=Zad]I am surprised the transporter doesn't have any supporting gantry for the assembly. It looked very very vulnerable. [quote]
I guess that because the upper stage & payload are just dummy, and the first stage is solid fuelled, there isn't any need at this stage for the launch tower - after all, apart from allowing the crew to get in, it's main purpose was to provide fuel loading pipework at the appropriate level of the rocket
I guess that because the upper stage & payload are just dummy, and the first stage is solid fuelled, there isn't any need at this stage for the launch tower - after all, apart from allowing the crew to get in, it's main purpose was to provide fuel loading pipework at the appropriate level of the rocket
There's already quite a big lobby calling for them to scrap Aries, as one of it's original functions was planned to be supply runs to the ISS, which by the time it comes in to service will have been removed from orbit. If they get the funding to extend the life of ISS then it will mean delaying Ares even further. There's some kind of govenrment pannel review it at the moment, apparently one of the favoured options is can aries and channel the finding in to setting up a private/public partnership deal to develop a commercial "space taxi" system. Could be good news for some the X-prize competitors.
Dithering and delaying over where they want to go will, in my opinion, be the death knell of America's involvement in manned spaceflight. One of the drawbacks of a four year cycle of democracy is that continuity is usually lost as different administrations arrive with different aims and priorities.
The latest permutation on the "theme" of where next for NASA is that Ares 1 will be scrapped (so no American manned launcher for perhaps two decades) and that development of the Ares V heavy lifter will continue.
In my opinion, that is the best of a poor series of choices as the one thing that you really need to further space exploration is the capability to put heavy payloads (above 100 tons)into space - and Ares V can do this.
If the US wants to retain the ability to put its own people into space, it will be left with limited choices.
It goes ahead with Ares 1.
It abandons the plan to retire the Shuttle fleet (until the next catastrophe - which will undoubtedly happen if they continue to use it).
They look to man-rating the Ares V.
It looks at a completely different development of man-rated launchers outside of the Ares 1/Shuttle family.
The problem with the last option is that NASA would be dependent on other nations (Russia or perhaps China) to put its own people into space for perhaps 10 to 15 years - maybe even longer.
The latest permutation on the "theme" of where next for NASA is that Ares 1 will be scrapped (so no American manned launcher for perhaps two decades) and that development of the Ares V heavy lifter will continue.
In my opinion, that is the best of a poor series of choices as the one thing that you really need to further space exploration is the capability to put heavy payloads (above 100 tons)into space - and Ares V can do this.
If the US wants to retain the ability to put its own people into space, it will be left with limited choices.
It goes ahead with Ares 1.
It abandons the plan to retire the Shuttle fleet (until the next catastrophe - which will undoubtedly happen if they continue to use it).
They look to man-rating the Ares V.
It looks at a completely different development of man-rated launchers outside of the Ares 1/Shuttle family.
The problem with the last option is that NASA would be dependent on other nations (Russia or perhaps China) to put its own people into space for perhaps 10 to 15 years - maybe even longer.
Eric Mc said:
Dithering and delaying over where they want to go will, in my opinion, be the death knell of America's involvement in manned spaceflight. One of the drawbacks of a four year cycle of democracy is that continuity is usually lost as different administrations arrive with different aims and priorities.
I wonder, if you added up all the money spent on spaceflight projects in the US that ended up being totally wasted because the next administration cancelled the project, how much it would come to. Probably enough to pay for Ares several times over is my guess.MartG said:
Eric Mc said:
Dithering and delaying over where they want to go will, in my opinion, be the death knell of America's involvement in manned spaceflight. One of the drawbacks of a four year cycle of democracy is that continuity is usually lost as different administrations arrive with different aims and priorities.
I wonder, if you added up all the money spent on spaceflight projects in the US that ended up being totally wasted because the next administration cancelled the project, how much it would come to. Probably enough to pay for Ares several times over is my guess.I reckon, since 1980, NASA has funded (to various degrees) at least 10 separate "Shuttle Replacement" projects.
Eric Mc said:
MartG said:
Eric Mc said:
Dithering and delaying over where they want to go will, in my opinion, be the death knell of America's involvement in manned spaceflight. One of the drawbacks of a four year cycle of democracy is that continuity is usually lost as different administrations arrive with different aims and priorities.
I wonder, if you added up all the money spent on spaceflight projects in the US that ended up being totally wasted because the next administration cancelled the project, how much it would come to. Probably enough to pay for Ares several times over is my guess.I reckon, since 1980, NASA has funded (to various degrees) at least 10 separate "Shuttle Replacement" projects.
MLV(which became Delta II), CompLV (Titan IV), NLS, OSP, SLI, Constellation, EELV (Delta IV/Atlas V - only necessary as the Shuttle long stopped flying DoD flights) from the top of my head.
Eric Mc said:
It looks at a completely different development of man-rated launchers outside of the Ares 1/Shuttle family.
The problem with the last option is that NASA would be dependent on other nations (Russia or perhaps China) to put its own people into space for perhaps 10 to 15 years - maybe even longer.
I think that last option could be the plan. To go with the Space X Falcon 9/Dragon combination which is designed and manufactured in the good ol US of A.The problem with the last option is that NASA would be dependent on other nations (Russia or perhaps China) to put its own people into space for perhaps 10 to 15 years - maybe even longer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Dragon
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff