"Frickin' Fantastic" Launch of NASA's Ares I-X Rocket 383
coondoggie writes "With a hiss and roar, NASA's Ares I-X rocket blasted into the atmosphere this morning at about 11:33 am EST, taking with it a variety of test equipment and sensors but also high hopes for the future of the US space agency. The short test flight — about 2 minutes — will provide NASA an early opportunity to look at hardware, models, facilities and ground operations associated with the mostly new Ares I launch vehicle. The mission went off without a hitch — 'frickin' fantastic' was how one NASA executive classified it on NASA TV — as the upper stage simulator and first stage separated at approximately 130,000 feet over the Atlantic Ocean. The unpowered simulator splashed down in the ocean."
Re:Did it really go ok? (Score:3, Insightful)
There was no rocket attached to the simulator and hence no method to stabalize it's flight, at least that I what I assumed.
Re:Test flight examination? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Did it really go ok? (Score:3, Insightful)
The upper stage was clearly hit by the first stage and left tumbling after the separation. In the NASA feed, they had several minutes of continued video from the upper stage with a cartwheeling background, but I'm assuming that it had no attitude control. Glad nobody was riding in it.
Necron69
Re:Uh huh (Score:3, Insightful)
This is also the NASA that is facing such intense political pressure to justify the continuation of its manned spaceflight program -- and the NASA that Feynman slammed for its veneer-over-veracity attitude surrounding the Challenger disaster.
Maybe they've changed their tune; maybe not.
Re:economic stupidity (Score:3, Insightful)
Put Up Or Shut Up (Score:2, Insightful)
Gee.. That's nice....
I wish NASA would do one of several things:
1. Concentrate on robotic missions and other non-manned science.
2. Put together a serious push for a Mars mission.
Things that I feel are an utter waste of time and money:
1. Going back to the moon purely to go back.
2. LEO (Low earth orbit) projects and questionable ISS science fair projects.
Put together a real push for Mars and get people excited about science and technology again. Or make a real effort in exo-planet research and searching for life around other star systems. (I did not say "intelligent life, or infer anything about aliens and flyingf saucers there!) The tools are available for both.
Also, manned missions to Mars are not "cost effective" but you can't beat the sizzle effect that you get from the "boots on the ground" of a live mission. Best bang for the buck there comes from the unmanned and robotic research.
Sad to say, NASA, for the most part has become another government bureaucracy. I would like to be proven wrong and see them return to what the did from 1960-1970, but the congressional money path probably won't happen again.
From 1963 to 1970 was a great time to be a kid watching all this stuff happen. Too bad there were a lot of other ugly things going on at the time, (Vietnam, Watergate, etc.) but history allows us to remember the great and suppress the ugly.
How about a space elevator project? Arthur C Clarke said we would build one roughly 50 years after we stopped laughing at teh concept. Well, the laughing seems to have died down.
Re:economic stupidity (Score:4, Insightful)
Where does the money COME FROM? Especially in a burgeoning depression? A government that produces surpluses, though it does so on the backs of the people, at least can justify some absurd pork and waste.
Not to be a downer, but cutting government spending and raising taxes to balance the budget actually worsened the 1930's Great Depression. Its the worse thing any government could do when there is a shrinkage in credit liquidity. Balanced budgets anti-inflationary measures can only be done when the economy is healthy when there is room to avoid a deflationary death cycle.
Also... NASA's budget is minuscule to some other sectors of spending:
Look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget [wikipedia.org]
Then look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_budget_(United_States) [wikipedia.org]
Notice how NASA doesn't even show up on the pie chart of spending categories. Its less than 20 billion compared to the 500 odd so billions for medicare, social security, and defense spending a piece!
Re:economic stupidity (Score:2, Insightful)
So czarangelus sez:
"Wank, wank, wank!"
Such ideological purity!
"The scientific triumphalism NASA represents is just modern day bread-and-circuses aimed at the Intelligentsia."
Sorry, I meant to write, "Such ideological masturbation!"
"Where is the government getting the money to waste on the stupid foolishness that is space exploration at a time like this?"
The general revenues of the United States. That's where. And such a minuscule fraction [nasa.gov], at that. Barely US$18 billion.
How much American treasure and blood was spent on Chimpy McCokespoon's Excellent "See how big my dick is!" Adventure in Iraq?
Wank all you want, just don't do it where we can see it.
kthnxbai!
Re:What's next? (Score:4, Insightful)
My grandfather fell out of a tree when he was 45 years old and powdered his hip and femur. He wasn't able to walk for a year after that.
You can imagine he was pretty excited when he took his first halting step after a year of immobility.
This is sort of like the US space program.
Re:What's next? (Score:4, Insightful)
... four years between missions? We went from nothing to the Moon in under ten years; it's taking us four years between test launches of something that we've done before?
Re:economic stupidity (Score:3, Insightful)
You are a parasite, you are driving around on roads that you refuse to pay for.
Re:What's next? (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, yes -- I'm aware of that. That's not a criticism of NASA -- it's a criticism of the United States' screwed-up way of doing things. We spend $600 billion annually on the military, and the Iraq war will cost $2.5 trillion when all is said and done ... and yet we can't give NASA enough support that they can launch more than once every four years?
My nation is pathetic.
Re:Uh huh (Score:4, Insightful)
This is also the NASA that is facing such intense political pressure to justify the continuation of its manned spaceflight program -- and the NASA that Feynman slammed for its veneer-over-veracity attitude surrounding the Challenger disaster.
Unfortunately that idiotic attitude advocated by Feynman-- "never take risks" -- is pervasive through NASA, and avoiding risk-taking is now NASA's standard operating procedure.
Unfortunately, "taking risks" is exactly what NASA should be doing. You cannot progress without taking some risks.
I don't know any way to get around this problem-- any program funded by Congress is going to be incredibly risk-averse, because the one thing that they cannot stand is bad publicity.
Yeager's comment was that when an Air Force test pilot is killed, they name a street at Edwards after him, and go on with the program. When an astronaut dies, they shut down the program for two years and congress holds hearings.
Re:economic stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
"Space is a frontier for our great-grandchildren to consider"
We will always have the poor.
If not now, when? If not us, who?
Re:What's next? (Score:4, Insightful)
September 12, 1962. President John F. Kennedy says "We choose to go to the Moon [historyplace.com]". Nine years later Alan Shepard is playing gold at Fra Mauro.
Fast forward to 2009, when President Barry Obama says "Well, I guess you can go to the Moon, but I can't pay for it. Maybe you could go to an asteroid or play some chess instead." NASA starts looking for loose change in the couch to finance the next test launch.
"So it is not surprising that some would have us stay where we are a little longer to rest, to wait. But this city of Houston, this state of Texas, this country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them. This country was conquered by those who moved forward--and so will space."
...just not today, so maybe we should wait and rest and look behind us for a while, until that darn economy fixes itself.
Don't blame NASA (Score:4, Insightful)
NASA has always been "another government bureaucracy". The difference between the 60's and now: in the 60's, we had 1) a clear goal to aim for, and 2) sufficient funding to achieve the goal. In recent years we've had neither of these things... and that's not NASA's fault, it's the fault of Congress and the President.
And regarding the space elevator: the laughter has died down, and been replaced with... nothing. That's because there's nothing to talk about. We still don't have the technology to produce carbon nanofibers in anything like the lengths that would be required to build it. Nor do we know if other technical obstacles to building one can be overcome. Nor do we have even the slightest idea what it would cost (and won't until we solve the first two issues). And if you don't know the cost, you can't evaluate whether it's more cost effective than just using rockets. All of which means there's no basis to proceed with a project.
Re:Uh huh (Score:4, Insightful)
Risks are one thing. Unnecessary risks are another. If someone warns you "those O-rings are not safe," you fix them. If someone warns you "this debris falling may damage tiles which should be inspected," you do something about it. There are going to be PLENTY of risks associated with manned spaceflight about which you do not have detailed prior knowledge. That's no reason to be careless when you have a problem staring you in the face.
Re:economic stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
$17B a year is not going to make a dent in the economy or in poverty or homelessness, or climate change or anything else. Those are the results of human nature and/or normal cycles, and fixing them is a matter of political will and good policy, not a few extra dollars.
Spending a small amount on space exploration is EXACTLY what the government exists to do -- do things that require large amounts of money (for an individual or group) with high risks and low immediate reward, but that have the potential for great reward for all of society.
And if you think $17B a year with increases less than inflation and ever new directives and goals are 'endless resources' I think you need to take a look at the scale of the federal budget.
Re:Test flight examination? (Score:3, Insightful)
...guns which also if used incorrectly can be very dangerous.
Isn't the point of guns that they're dangerous when they're used correctly?
Re:Uh huh (Score:3, Insightful)
What's with the negative waves man? I watched it. It did exactly what they said it was supposed to. So I guess it's still criticize NASA time around here. BTW minor stuff is expected.
Re:Uh huh (Score:1, Insightful)
"The instructions "don't take stupid risks" will end up translating to "don't take any risks."
"
Christ on a pogo stick, are you being dense on purpose?
Some risks are STUPID IN FORESIGHT. Like, for example, if NASA engineers are telling their bosses, "Hey, this is is bad, this could result in disaster in this very specific way, but we have some ideas on how to fix it", and the bosses say, "we will ignore you for reasons having nothing to do with science, math, or engineering", that's a FORESEEABLY STUPID RISK. Not only SHOULD someone have seen it coming, someone DID, and NOTHING WAS DONE.
See: Challenger disaster.
Proper risk-taking means nutting up and dealing with the fact that you don't know certain things and those things could kill you. Stupid risk-taking is when you know something could kill you and for whatever reason you choose not to give a shit.
If there's someone around to say "I told you so, but you wouldn't listen", chances are you fucked up not listening to them.
Re:Uh huh (Score:5, Insightful)
Every risk, in hindsight, is a stupid risk. And there will always be someone there to say "I told you so, but you didn't listen!"
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what risk is. There are no risks in hindsight, but only outcomes. Second, not every risk can be anticipated (these risks are often called "uncertainty"). Nobody is going to say "I'd told you so!", if the Shuttle were to be zapped by aliens while on the pad.
Third, stupid risks have two characteristics: 1) they are easily anticipated or were anticipated (someone will be there to say "I told you so") and 2) the cost of mitigating the risk is far less than the benefit gained.
Re:Uh huh (Score:2, Insightful)
Absolutely correct! The Challenger incident was one where the engineers knew that the shuttle wasn't designed for the operating parameters and notified their supervisors. The supervisors ignored the warnings and went anyway.
Launching the shuttle is risky. Launching the shuttle under conditions the shuttle was not designed for is stupid.
Confirmed - Works on Linux with mplayer plugin (Score:3, Insightful)
Used mplayer plugin w Firefox - works flawlessly
Re:economic stupidity (Score:3, Insightful)
The newly discovered continent has all manner of valuable and exotic fruits, vegetables and animals. The savages living there are in need of being converted to christianity and having their gold and silver plundered. There is trading to be done. There is rich farmland and vast unexplored forests teeming with game. Why it's a whole new world (tm), and ours for the taking!
vs.
We can spend billions of dollars to send no more than 4 people to a barren, desolate place where they will die almost instantly if there are any problems with their complex and expensive life support equipment. In return we get invaluable scientific knowledge and practical experience in living under such conditions.
I ask you - which is the easier 'sell' to the public?
Re:What's next? (Score:3, Insightful)
Because Art doesn't help feed billions of peoples.