Ares 1-X Ready On Pad, Launch Set For 1200 GMT 260
DynaSoar writes "NASA's new Ares I-X rocket is undergoing final preparations for its planned launch test Tuesday, October 27. Launch time is scheduled for 8 AM EDT (1200 GMT). As of noon Monday it appeared that there was a 60% chance of showers and/or high altitude clouds interfering. However, the launch has a an eight hour window of opportunity through 2000 GMT, and would require only 10 minutes of clear skies within that time to fly. Of interest to engineering types, both those who favor the new vehicle's design and its critics, will be to see whether the predicted linear 'pogo stick' oscillation will occur, and whether the dampening design built into it prevents damaging and possibly destructive shaking. Extensive coverage is being presented by Space.com; for NASA TV streaming video, schedules and downlink information, visit nasa.gov/ntv." Update 15:37 GMT by timothy: The weather did not cooperate; today's planned launch has been scrubbed.
Re:Awesome (Score:3, Interesting)
As a demonstration of US technical prowess, Ares I is pathetic; its got similar capabilities to Saturn I and took much longer to develop. It anything its a demonstration of US decline...
I agree. NASA's budget is spiralling downwards, and they can barely keep the shuttle going. The Ares programme isn't even sure to be completed (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,459465,00.html).
Rockets are impressive, but the VAB is insane (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Rockets are impressive, but the VAB is insane (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm watching the stream now of them assembling the Ares and I must say the VAB is the most impressive building I've ever seen. I got to tour the inside (way back in the early 90s) and the amount of empty space available, inside a building that can withstand hurricane force winds. It is truly mind-boggling.
I've always wondered about that building. Why is it so much better to do the assembly vertically, rather than doing it horizontally and then raising the vehicle afterwards?
Re:Rockets are impressive, but the VAB is insane (Score:5, Interesting)
Can you imagine the lateral stress on the structure if you attempted to build it horizontally and then hoist? I suspect the engineering challenge involved in building a machine that would give sufficient support along the full length of a multi-story structure as it was raised to vertical would be substantially greater than the challenge of constructing a tall, hurricane resistant building.
Re:Rockets are impressive, but the VAB is insane (Score:5, Interesting)
Most launch vehicles are optimised to the point where they are basically balloons. They can't support themselves unless their tanks are pressurised and then only in one direction.
I read that US engineers watched with amazement when a Russian booster was winched off a truck at an air show supported horizontally by two cables, one at either end.
Question for those in-the-know (Score:4, Interesting)
What is going to happen with the Ares V? I heard rumors about it being scrapped. I hope they were wrong?
Re:I'm a rocket, man! (Score:5, Interesting)
Sadly I suspect that the one thing that would really get NASA and ESA some serious funding would be if say, Pakistan, India and China all started attempts at building military space stations, especially China since they have the resources coupled with a "Just get it up there right now!" attitude similar to that of the soviets.
It's not so easy to sit back and relax when some other guy decides that you can just train more astronauts if a few die if it means you get there first.
/Mikael
Re:I'm a rocket, man! (Score:5, Interesting)
What is the point? (Score:4, Interesting)
Why is NASA so bent on using the solid-fuel boosters, when the military already has the much cheaper Delta iV Heavy and Atlas V rockets that have been proven?
Re:Rockets are impressive, but the VAB is insane (Score:5, Interesting)
Was it "How did they do that?" amazement, or was it "Why did they do that?" amazement?
Re:Tragically, We Cannot Afford This Now (Score:3, Interesting)
You answered your own question - in the long term it will be very important. Try reading up on some of the mission objectives and payloads before you categorically deny that no "great innovations" have resulted. Long-term missions and space habitability experience cannot be solved on paper.
Re:Tragically, We Cannot Afford This Now (Score:5, Interesting)
This logic just pisses me off right now. NASA is asking for an extra $3 billion per year to build a new viable replacement to the space shuttle. When you contrast the other things the gov't is wastefully spending its money on its ridiculous.
You could fund NASA the extra $3 billion for
10 years instead of bailing out GM and Chrysler
or
Nearly 57 years instead of bailing out f-ing AIG
THAT is government waste. Spending for NASA has always provided benefits for science and impacted our daily lives. Its a worthy endeavor and something necessary to IMHO spur on the advancement of the human race.
Politicians make a great noise about "science and engineering" being important to this country. Lets see them back up those words. If NASA's new rockets die on the vine the politicians will have shown their true beliefs on this issue. If this nation fails to renew its capability for manned spaceflight, in my opinion, we will also distinctly show that to America, science and engineering don't matter anymore. Why not become a doctor or lawyer, oh wait, the doctors are going to get screwed by health care reform, so why not just become a lawyer if you want to be successful. This country no longer rewards those that build and design great things anymore, the money game and the ever growing soulless corporations get quite literally TRILLIONS of dollars in support from the government, and one of the biggest science and engineering problems we are trying to solve right now gets told "sorry theres not enough left for you". Its utter bullshit.
Sure our government doesn't really have enough money right now, but not because of NASAs budget issues, it because they've been handing it out like f-ing candy to assholes on Wall Street who f-cked the country over and went laughing all the way to the bank(err government). We need to get all that money back (or at least stop giving it away) and start spending it on the RIGHT things.
Re:Tragically, We Cannot Afford This Now (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Tragically, We Cannot Afford This Now (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Rockets are impressive, but the VAB is insane (Score:2, Interesting)
That's why cooling towers are square?
Re:Tragically, We Cannot Afford This Now (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess NASA is not big enough to fail. I wonder how the banks are going to behave now they know they are to big to fail and have been rewarded for their risky behavior. I mean you wouldn't expect them just to do the same things again only worse?
It's actually looking pretty bleak for America's space program - in terms of funding, political support and public interest, unfortunately. I think the people actually interested in a space program are, well, here or working at nasa, and some of them are here too. It's sad because it really indicates that Joe public has basically given up on space exploration and has no imagination left.
Re:Tragically, We Cannot Afford This Now (Score:3, Interesting)
"stop global Climate Change"
Only case I can make for manned space flight is for when the fossil fuels lobbies in the U.S. or China kill any effective caps on carbon emissions, we eventually hit a tipping point in CO2 levels and the runaway green house effect starts. Then there would be a compelling case for having a colony on Mars to keep our species alive when we make Earth uninhabitable. Of course as badly as our species is botching this planet not sure we deserve the reprieve. Its become pretty clear the intense greed in our species is a fatal flaw in our evolutionary development that needs to be eliminated by natural selection. Greed is a desirable trait for motivation but its become clear in our species it drives people to indulge in pathological behavior with complete disregard for the long term consquences of short term gains. Let's just hope that enough other species survive that evolution can start over on Earth, and in a few hundred million years plants will have sequestered enough CO2 to return the planet to stability and new intelligent life forms develop that don't suck as bad as homo sapiens.
The only other rationale for manned space exploration is it does restore a sense of adventure and frontiers to conqueror which is something our species has always had until the last century, and life is a little bleak when we become rutted as a species. There are no longer any frontiers on this planet with the possible exception of the deep oceans. Of course NASA in particular has turned the manned space program in to such a complete yawner no one believes they will break through any frontiers if you did give them the funding. Robotic spacecraft are the only ones breaking frontiers at this point so they deserve the money until you are going to commit to colonizing Mars.
Re:What is the point? (Score:1, Interesting)
Yep. The SRB's size was determined by the width or a horse's rear-end.
The SRB has to go through a train tunnel.
Train tunnels are sized to fit trains. (Duh.)
Trains are sized to be stable on train tracks.
Train tracks are a certain width apart because of the conventional width of a wagon's wheel base.
The conventional width of a wagon's wheel base was inherited from the Roman chariot.
The width of the Roman chariot's wheel base was determined by the width of two horses.
My favorite episode of Connections. Ever.
Re:Awesome (Score:3, Interesting)
Ares 1-X has no capability to LEO at all as it is a sub-orbital rocket, like the first Saturn I flight. Furthermore, you place the start of the Saturn I design (beyond 'we need a dedicated launcher') about a year too early. So don't presume to lecture me on facts.
The Ares team has a number of advantages over the Saturn team:
1. The first stage of Ares 1-X is already in service as the Shuttle SRB
2. The second stage engine of Ares 1 (which isn't even ready for use as such yet) is a tried and tested design
3. Computer technology has come along astronomically since then; the Saturn team didn't even have access to microprocessors.
The inescapable fact is, that the Ares development next to the Saturn development shows serious structural problems in NASA, and perhaps in the science and engineering culture of the US as a whole (which NASA is almost indisputably at the forefront of).
You have one or two facts, rather than an in-depth knowledge, and you have fitted them into a narrative you find pleasing (US still no. 1! Woo!) and think this makes you intelligent. You are wrong, what you are displaying here is cargo-cult rocket science. You've seen how smart people post and you are trying to imitate it.
Re:What is the point? (Score:4, Interesting)
There is certainly a benefit to SRB's in that you don't have all the complexities of cryogenic fuels, and having to fuel before launch. That's why the Air Force uses them in ICBM's, they are extremely simple to launch. They are also somewhat safer than liquid fuels in some respects. It certainly remains to be seen if they will work the way NASA is trying to use them, especially how bad the vibration will be.
On the other hand, there's plenty of ways that SRBs are also more dangerous. Pretty much the only failure modes SRBs have are catastrophic explosions, and since you can't shut them off like you can with liquid rockets it makes it rather difficult to launch-escape if something goes wrong. It's also considerably more difficult to handle for the ground personnel, as summarized well in this blog post by "Chair Force Engineer":
http://chairforceengineer.blogspot.com/2009/10/worlds-largest-stick-of-dynamite.html [blogspot.com]
Just when it seemed like the history books had been closed on the Challenger disaster, I came across a review of Truth, Lies & O-Rings, an interesting look at the faulty decision-making leading up to launch. (hat tip to Clark Lindsey's Hobbyspace.) The reviewer makes an interesting point about the dangers inherent in ground handling of solid rockets. Many of the inherent disadvantages of SRBs have been long-discussed, such as the inability to shut them down during abort situations. But handling and storing the motors carries all the potential dangers of riding on them. For that reason, SRB stacking operations are classified as "hazardous operations," and all non-essential personnel are banned from the Vehicle Assembly Building. The procedure is similar for stacking the stages of other solid-fuel launch vehicles. In spite of all the precautions and built-in safety mechanisms, the potential always exists for a catastrophic solid-fuel detonation, as occurred with Brazil's orbital launch vehicle.
While I tend to think that the risk is overstated (the industry has been dealing with large solid rockets since the 1940's,) it can never be entirely eliminated. For this reason, Jeff Bell predicted that the SRB would be deleted from the shuttle-derived launch vehicles under development by NASA. Many "space boosters" are dismissive of Jeff Bell, viewing him as a cynic whose arguments aren't worth the paper they're written on. I'll concede that his predictions often come with fatal flaws, but he does make a lot of solid arguments and presents plenty of pertinent facts. In the case of the aforementioned prediction, Jeff Bell's fatal flaw is assuming that NASA would choose a safe, clean-sheet launcher design over one that protects the shuttle's entrenched workforce and contractors.
The ground-handling of large solid rockets (and even the individual segments) was an issue that should have been re-examined when Ares I was designed to be "safe, simple and soon." While NASA personnel have done an admirable job in handling the SRB's up to this point, it's sobering to know that just one mistake could cost a lot of lives and pull the plug on the nation's manned space program. The Ares 5-segment SRB will be the world's largest stick of dynamite, and that risk should never be lost on anybody who works in the space business.
Re:What is the point? (Score:1, Interesting)
Solids aren't any more dangerous than liquids in a properly designed vehicle - that means one with a working abort system, which the Shuttle has none. Put the people on the top with an abort system to pull them clear of whatever happens. If NASA had designed the shuttle properly, Challenger would never had happened. Plenty of liquid boosters fail catastrophically every year, but solid failures always get highlighted.
As far as "Chair Force Engineer" is concerned, the propellant used in the RSRM is incapable of detonation. They traded performance for safety - there's much more performance available in other, more dangerous propellants which DO detonate. Think "submarine-based ICBMs" for truly explosive stuff.
Calling the Ares SRB the "worlds largest stick of dynamite" is bullshit.
And, by the way, I used to be one of the design engineers on the RSRM in the 80's and 90's - I do have some idea of what I'm talking about.