The new Ares 1-X rocket from NASA
I see that NASA is testnig a new design of rocket called the Ares 1-X.
Are they stopping use of the Space Shuttle or will that still be used in the future?
Are there any of details or is it still being kept fairly quiet?
What will it be used for in the future if the tests are successful?
In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.
Unfortunately, the launch today was canceled due to the weather. Today wasn't the first day it was scheduled for, either, so there've been a couple of delays so far, though they've all been due to the weather. According to NASA, the hardware is all perfectly ready. They're aiming for tomorrow, but there's a 40% chance the weather will stop them again.
If all goes according to plan the Space Shuttle will be replaced in 2015 or thereabouts, with the Ares 1 taking over for launches. The Ares 1-X is not intended for anything other than the tests, though. The internal hardware is going to be entirely different on the Ares 1. This is simply to test out the flight characteristics, external hardware, and ground facilities in preparation for the Ares 1 later on.
The Ares 1 launch vehicle will be used with Orion crew exploration vehicles. The ultimate goal is to use them in tandem for returning to the moon by 2020, and then to Mars and elsewhere in the solar system. Of course, right now they can't even get the launch date right, so we'll see just how long that takes.
This PDF from NASA has a pretty good description of the test vehicle, how it works, and what they hope to eventually accomplish.
Zuul hit it on the head. The 1-X is just the test rocket, whilst the full on Ares-1 will launch, with any luck in 2015. There is talk that maybe the program will be cancelled, and we'd work to make existing rockets "man rated", or pursue a partnership with the aerospace industry to create a shuttle replacement.
The Shuttle was already aeronautically obsolete when it was first launched, and its becoming increasingly difficult to maintain the fleet, not least because parts are damn near unobtainable (and the hassle that one has to go through to persuade manufacturers to produce these parts in ones and twos leads to:Shake::Shake:
With the delays they've been having with this launch and the fact that the Obama administration is supposed to be making a decision on whether or not the program is going to be canceled pretty soon here, I'm kind of concerned. Do you have any idea on its chances of survival, Angua?
No real news as yet Zuul. The general suspicion is that Ares will survive, and that Obama will approve the increase in funding required to complete mission objectives. Failing that, something termed "Sera", a NASA-private partnership may go forward (this is just from the internal rumour mill mind you), mainly because the Shuttle is too old and decrepit to really limp on for much longer. As a last case scenario, based on the outcome of the Augustine Report, if Ares is totally cancelled, there'll probably be a lot of work to make the Delta rockets man-rated, so that we have something to send people into space with.
Awesome. It's good to hear its chances are positive and there are a lot of backup plans. Thanks for the response, Angua.
I've heard the earth's orbital velocity is between 30,000 and 60,000mph, so every day the launch is delayed, we are between 720,000 and 1.440,000 miles from where we were - it seems mad that a bit of bad weather down here can have more of an effect than being that far from where we started!
Space travel baffles me! If time is relative, shouldn't speed be relative also?
Like, help me understand this - if the earth is travelling at 30,000mph in a specific direction, why doesn't a 22,000mph space craft not get "left behind" once it leaves earth's gravitational pull?
Last edited by ivan astikov; 27 Oct 2009 at 01:57 PM.
To sleep, perchance to experience amygdalocortical activation and prefrontal deactivation.
Because speed is relative.Originally posted by ivan astikov
The reason why you or I don't just go flying off into space -- since, like you say, the earth is moving very, very quickly -- is not because we're being pulled along by the earth's gravity so much as that we're also already going that speed. When my ass is parked in a chair I'm moving at 0 mph relative to the earth, but at the same time I'm going quite fast (I'll have to take your word that it's 30,000 mph, I don't really know) relative to the sun. Of course, the sun isn't really "still" either, it's moving relative to the center of the galaxy, which in turn is moving as well.
A spaceship in orbit doesn't have to use its engines to "keep up" with the earth. It's already going at 30,000 mph (relative to the sun), just like it was back when it was parked on earth. It doesn't have to somehow remain attached to the earth and get "pulled along", it was already going that fast to start out with. If the spaceship wanted to be stationary relative to the sun, it would have to get out into space and then burn its engines in order to decelerate relative to the sun.
I was on the top floor of the Orlando airport's center terminal today at 9ish. There were a bunch of people out there watching for the launch. It had been bumped from 8 -> 830 -> 930 before I had to leave to catch a flight. There was someone from the FAA there in contact with NASA who told us that the 9:30 time had to be bumped because a cargo ship had entered parts of the ocean where the rocket were close to being dumped.
I have nothing more to add, except that I was down at Kennedy Space Center on Friday and I got to see the launch pad and rocket from a viewing gantry.
(really cool)
That is really cool, beebs! Too bad you didn't get to see it launch.
Well the launch was a spectacular success!Go MSFC!
(This is why we were so excited about it over here... MSFC...)
For laymen who remember Apollo, this stuff is so frustrating. I wish for success with the program, of course, but, jeepers -- NASA went from Mercury to the manned Moon missions in less than ten years. Why is it taking so long to develop this rocket? (Of course, I guess the Cold War, a strong imperative to succeed, and a big budget helped in the '60s.)
Because this time we're trying to do it right. A direct quote from someone who worked on Apollo:
I suspect that if a tragedy like that which claimed Apollo 1 (and the lives of three astronauts) occurred during the development of Ares, public opinion would turn so quickly, money (and jobs) would be lost before you could even say "oh no".The only reason we didn't have more fatal tragedies with Apollo was shear bloody luck. Those things could have shaken themselves apart at launch.
Basically, yes we could do it quickly. Or we could do it properly and safely. And anyway, the Ares program was launched 3 years ago, and the first manned spaceflights (funding permitted) are scheduled for 2015. Its not that long a time interval.
Posting rules
Reply with quote