Ares 1-X Ready On Pad, Launch Set For 1200 GMT

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.

Comments

Vibrations

[hyperion2010]

As long as they are good....

Query: are rockets spaceships and if so are they female like normal ships? They've always seemed a bit to... phallic and gaseous to be female.

Re:Vibrations

[Thanshin]

It's easy.

Rockets are male. Everything you intend to penetrate with rockets, is female.

Re:Vibrations

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Not necessarily. Take Uranus. Please!

Re:Vibrations

[MichaelSmith]

So the entire universe is female?

Re:Vibrations

[Anonymous Coward]

They explode easily, so they are female.

Re:Vibrations

[xyph0r]

Yarrr she be a harsh mistress...
So yes. Yes it is.

Re:Vibrations

[Thanshin]

Not necessarily. Take Uranus. Please!

Why, do you intend to penetrate Uranus with a rocket?

Re:Vibrations

[JustOK]

Tables say: Did you sanitize your input?

Re:Vibrations

[Hognoxious]

To wipe out the Klingons.

Re:Vibrations

[burisch_research]

From Futurama: Fry: Did you build the Smelloscope? Professor Hubert Farnsworth: No, I remembered that Id built one last year. Go ahead, try it. Youll find that every heavenly body has its own particular scent. Here, Ill point it at Jupiter. Fry: Smells like strawberries. Professor Hubert Farnsworth: Exactly. And now, Saturn. Fry: Pine needles. Oh, man, this is great... hey, as long as you dont make me smell Uranus. Leela: I dont get it. Professor Hubert Farnsworth: Im sorry, Fry, but astronomers renamed Uranus in 2620 to end that stupid joke once and for all. Fry: Oh. Whats it called now? Professor Hubert Farnsworth: Urrectum. Here, let me locate it for you. Fry: No, no, I, I think Ill just smell around a bit over here.

Re:Vibrations

[MrKaos]

Tables say: Did you sanitize your input?

Programmer replies: Of course. You're both the right type of union and I am left full of wonder at the view between your values. So let's take our primary keys, drop our constraints, select into something more comfortable and create sweet DB.

Re:Vibrations

[Nyeerrmm]

The rockets are male. The spacecraft that ride on top of them are female.

I'm a rocket, man!

[BadAnalogyGuy]

It's about bloody time they got this thing started. Of course, being on the pad is just the first step.

Once we've verified the structural integrity of the design, it would be nice to go ahead with astronaut insertion and extended earth orbit. People have been ragging on this design for a while, but I have high hopes that a return to the rocket-centric designs of yesteryear will put us back in the forefront of space exploration.

Tampon.

Re:I'm a rocket, man!

[cjfs]

but I have high hopes that a return to the rocket-centric designs of yesteryear will put us back in the forefront of space exploration.

With the current political climate, I wouldn't count on government to get us there. We've been idling for decades and really do need private sector involvement to start making solid progress again.

Re:I'm a rocket, man!

[cheekyboy]

how about telling the banks to piss off and die.

and tell the fed reserve to give 10 trillion of printed from nothing US $dollars to nasa.

nasa would stimulate the economy 100x more than stupid wall st stiffs who just transfer the trillions to Europe.

all banks could die, not a thing would change in our daily life, we still have cash, or new cash notes can be printed by congress.

Re:I'm a rocket, man!

[mikael_j]

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!

[MrMr]

I'm combining your
10 trillion of printed from nothing US $dollars
with
who just transfer the trillions to Europe
And I have to wonder: Don't those two issues cancel out?

Re:I'm a rocket, man!

[zach_the_lizard]

and tell the fed reserve to give 10 trillion of printed from nothing US $dollars to nasa.

Surely having the Federal Reserve arbitrarily print off a dollar amount that is close to the US GDP isn't a good idea, for all the destruction such printing would do to anyone except the guys who get the trillions first. It kind of makes your 'we still have cash' statement sound a little silly. Sure, we have paper, but if it's worth half of what it used to, are we really better off?

Re:I'm a rocket, man!

[Big Hairy Ian]

Didn't work when the Russians had Salute's 5, 6, 7 and Mir or were you asleep during the last 50 years?

Re:I'm a rocket, man!

[zach_the_lizard]

Didn't work when the Russians had Salute's 5, 6, 7 and Mir or were you asleep during the last 50 years?

I haven't been alive for 50 years, you insensitive clod!

Re:I'm a rocket, man!

[smoker2]

Salyut, the word is Salyut.
Yes I know about the translation, but I bet you never call Mir, peace or world. Hell you could have said the fireworks 5,6 and 7 but you didn't so why not use the name they gave it ? Or do you go to the River of January for the carnival ?

Re:I'm a rocket, man!

[damburger]

Burt Rutan has produced a small, suborbital toy for billionaires. The private sector has been free to get into space for decades, and hasn't done so. But then again, the private sector hasn't delivered a reliable banking system or a method of food distribution that does cause unnecessary deaths, so meh.

Re:I'm a rocket, man!

[mcgrew]

It's about bloody time they got this thing started

Actually, it's past time.

NASA test flight delayed, bad weather still looms

By MARCIA DUNN, AP Aerospace Writer Marcia Dunn, Ap Aerospace Writer - 59 mins ago

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. - NASA's newest rocket is on the verge of blasting off on a test flight, but minor problems are causing last-minute delays.

The Ares I-X rocket is set to lift off Tuesday morning. But forecasters are monitoring upper-level winds and clouds that could delay the experimental flight. It's already 1 1/2 hours late because of extra time needed for the countdown and minor communication system trouble.

This is the first step in NASA's effort to return astronauts to the moon.

The flight will last two minutes. Parachutes will drop the first-stage booster into the Atlantic for recovery. The upper portion of the rocket -- all fake parts -- will fall uncontrolled into the ocean.

NASA expects to learn a lot, even if it's for another type of rocket. The White House is re-evaluating the human spaceflight program.

Re:I'm a rocket, man!

[mikael_j]

Ah, but that was fairly late in the game, a better example (IMHO) would be early days of the space program when the general mentality among a lot of western leaders was "if they can put stuff in orbit then they can nuke us from anywhere! We need to one up them, now!".

Now, substitute "stuff in orbit" in the first part of that with "space stations (that aren't just very expensive tin cans with solar panels)".

/Mikael

Re:I'm a rocket, man!

[EvilBudMan]

The point is it worked for us and was Mir a failure?

Re:I'm a rocket, man!

[Big Hairy Ian]

Actually the Russian leadership prior to Breshniev didn't give 2 figs for the space program They simply thought Korolyev was designing new and better missiles for them. Let's face it he blagged sending Sputnik up and Gagarin. On receipt of the news that Gagarin had successfully orbited the earth Khrushchev's response was (with disdain) "Ah another successful Korolyev launch". Of course the next day when he saw the fuss in the American papers he organised parades and medals :)
To be honest Korolyev's biography should really have been entitled "The man who sold the moon". If it hadn't been for his drive and willingness to con the politburo there would have nothing to drive America to the moon in the 1st place.

Re:I'm a rocket, man!

[Big Hairy Ian]

How was Mir a failure? It operated successfully for years and was only retired because of political issues to do with the ISS

BTW the core unit of the ISS (The Zvezda module) was originally to be Mir II

Re:I'm a rocket, man!

[FleaPlus]

The private sector has been free to get into space for decades, and hasn't done so.

Um, what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigelow_Aerospace

Re:I'm a rocket, man!

[damburger]

You mean the company that can get 40% of the small rockets it has launched into orbit, 50 years after state space agencies had similar capability? Or the launcher built for the USAF, paid for with government money, and kept on a tight leash? Or the company that launches space balloons on other peoples rockets? Give me a break.

Re:I'm a rocket, man!

[FleaPlus]

Despite your denigration, for the past 30 years the private sector has had a considerably better track record at developing new launch vehicles than NASA.

Re:I'm a rocket, man!

[Nyeerrmm]

There are a lot of steps between Ares 1-X, and an actual Ares 1 + Orion that can take people to orbit. Augustine and crew say 2017 before that happens, and they seem to have a good idea of what they're talking about.

Whats on the pad now is largely a publicity stunt -- especially with the future of Ares 1 itself in doubt. Its a 4-segment SRB with a dummy 5th segment, and a dummy second stage and Orion capsule. The fact that the SRB is different means it doesn't represent the vibrations and harmonics of the actual vehicle well. The upper parts are still under development as well.

Of course, its not a worthless test. Its ridiculously well instrumented, thus why weather matters even though its a suborbital lob, and it has also been modeled extensively. Being able to compare models to actual data on this scale is quite valuable. Probably not worth the $450M this launch will cost in total, but probably worth the remaining cost in the recent decisions to go ahead and continue the launch even with Ares 1 in doubt.

Re:I'm a rocket, man!

[EvilBudMan]

Yeah, so there you go mentioning the ISS. Now it all makes sense. We will now have rings around this planet that will be visible soon. Space junk.

Re:I'm a rocket, man!

[Big Hairy Ian]

At the altitude the ISS orbits any junk they create will only be in orbit for a couple of years anyway. There is still enough atmo up there to slow it down & de-orbit it over a short period of time. It's the stuff that's 100 miles higher & more that will be up there for centuries if not millennia.

Re:I'm a rocket, man!

[EvilBudMan]

--It's the stuff that's 100 miles higher & more that will be up there for centuries if not millennia.--

True but I was on a roll. You get my point. OK the stuff at 100 miles and higher is getting ever more crowded. Were going to have rings at some point without a moon, but it might be a long way off.

Re:Awesome

[damburger]

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...

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[blackchiney]

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.

Re:Rockets are impressive, but the VAB is insane

[qmaqdk]

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

[Angostura]

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

[Mr Thinly Sliced]

My gut feeling is that doing it the way they do it (vertically) they only have to account for stress and strain in their models in one direction, in a relatively predictable setup.

Having to rotate the thing in-situ after assembly would introduce huge differences in where braces and stress / strain could occur.

Re:Rockets are impressive, but the VAB is insane

[Anonymous Coward]

because won't have to withstand the same amount of shear.

it's designed for vertical thrust, not horizontal.
in short, it's built vertical, so the tip doesn't break off, when they raise it.

Re:Rockets are impressive, but the VAB is insane

[Richard_at_work]

Because you can build lighter structures if you assume that certain loadings can be rejected - if you assemble it horizontally, then the joins and internal support structures must be strengthened to support the dyanmic weight in the raising of the entire structure, rather than just supporting the weight of the structures above it in a static way.

Re:Rockets are impressive, but the VAB is insane

[MichaelSmith]

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.

Re:Rockets are impressive, but the VAB is insane

[cheekyboy]

one question, why is the building SQUARE, and not circular, like a big cylinder , surely fast wind will pass a big TUBE easier than a square shaped building.

Blooody obvious design idea? or is it harder to build a giant tube.

Re:Rockets are impressive, but the VAB is insane

[blackchiney]

For the same reason you don't assemble buildings horizontally and raise them. The lateral forces would be great and you would end up creating a lot of supports for one time use.

Re:Rockets are impressive, but the VAB is insane

[blackchiney]

If they did it circular, like the Gerkin tower in London, the wind shear actually twists the building like a rope. So you would have to get into more exotic support systems. Building it square means you can use regular beams for crossbracing.

Re:Rockets are impressive, but the VAB is insane

[MichaelSmith]

I got to tour...inside a building that can withstand hurricane force winds. It is truly mind-boggling.

Just moved here from the jungle, have you?

Nice bit of selective quoting there.

Re:Rockets are impressive, but the VAB is insane

[Anonymous Coward]

Easy. It was empty, there was no fuel in it and no payload, just the fairing. Since fuel can easily be 90%+ of the weight, there's nothing to be amazed about. That booster would buckle and disintegrate had they done that when it was fueled up.

Re:Rockets are impressive, but the VAB is insane

[maxume]

Was it "How did they do that?" amazement, or was it "Why did they do that?" amazement?

Re:Rockets are impressive, but the VAB is insane

[evanbd]

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.

Actually, that is *not* true in general. It was true for the original Atlas, and is true for the Centaur high-energy upper stage, but most other modern launchers avoid balloon tanks. Most modern designs are very fragile, but self-supporting when unpressurized. That doesn't mean you can hoist them any way you please, but it's still a vast improvement in ease of handling. One of the requirements on the Shuttle External Tank design was that it not be a balloon tank. It was later discovered (to much embarrassment and annoyance) that the ET is self-supporting when empty or full, but that there is a partially-full intermediate range where it isn't, so it has to be filled while pressurized.

Some smaller launchers are assembled horizontally; in particular, SpaceX's Falcon I and Falcon 9 are. They're still fairly fragile, but they're closer to the Russian design approach in a variety of ways. Trading more structural margin, and hence lower payload fraction, for easier operations and hence lower cost per payload mass is one of those.

Re:Rockets are impressive, but the VAB is insane

[findoutmoretoday]

<quote>If they did it circular, like the Gerkin tower in London, the wind shear actually twists the building like a rope</quote>

That's why cooling towers are square?

Re:Rockets are impressive, but the VAB is insane

[EvilBudMan]

--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?--

For the same reason it is better to test rockets vertical. It may be cheaper the other way, but I think you have more failures that way too. Those SRB's were always tested horizontal (not good). Now once and for all we can get a vertical rocket test of the SRB. The same goes for the assembly. You don't have to design the rocket to take the stress of being raised sideways. This is even more important as the rocket weight and size gets larger.

I guess which is better depends upon the deign goal. Sideways is cheaper. Vertical is better. We already have sunk cost in the VAB, why not use it?

Re:Rockets are impressive, but the VAB is insane

[blackchiney]

Its a big empty building. To make it round you would need to create really exotic support system. Cooling towers are designed to move air. You can't build a rocket in the center of one because there is scaffolding inside.

Re:Rockets are impressive, but the VAB is insane

[sexconker]

One question: Why is the building a TUBE, and not a rotating triangular prism, like a Toblerone box?

Surely fast wind would pass a big ROTATING TRIANGULAR PRISM easier than a tube shaped building.

Bloody obvious design idea? Or is it harder to build a giant rotating triangular prism?

Re:Rockets are impressive, but the VAB is insane

[CrimsonAvenger]

Can you imagine the lateral stress on the structure if you attempted to build it horizontally and then hoist?

Note that SpaceX's Falcon9 (and 1 too, for that matter) is assembled horizontally and then hoisted vertically. They spent most of the past year testing the frame used to do that part of the job.

Re:Rockets are impressive, but the VAB is insane

[EvilBudMan]

What is really amazing is standing right next to the corner of it and looking up. It's one big giant box. It kicks in my fear of heights standing on the ground and looking up from the corner of it. And inside those guys in white suits look like ants up there and walk underneath of a rocket being assembled in stages. It IS amazing. It was a long time ago and I was just a kid and it was just a Saturn 1B but still it is an impressive piece of work, but I'm not amazed about how or why just that it IS.

Re:Rockets are impressive, but the VAB is insane

[Hurricane78]

Probably yes.

Re:Rockets are impressive, but the VAB is insane

[Anonymous Coward]

Here are some amazing shots of the Ares 1-X in the VAB and out at the pad. Be sure and look up and down!

http://nasatech.net/Arex1-XStack090823/

http://nasatech.net/Ares1-Xmid091015/

http://nasatech.net/Ares1-Xupper091015/

http://nasatech.net/Ares1-XPadBlvl300_091023/

http://nasatech.net/Ares1-XPadBMLPSo091023/

http://nasatech.net/Ares1-XPadBMLPNE091023/

More NasaTV Feeds and launch data

[agentgonzo]

NasaTV Feeds at different resolutions:
100k/s, 320/240
200k/s, 320/240
500k/s, 480x360(I think)
1200k/s, 640/480
All Windows Media format

Real media format
Quicktime

Launch data

Re:More NasaTV Feeds and launch data

[cpscotti]

Fun thing is... these links broadcasting show the following string on the bottom on "Windows Media Player": "NASA Space Shuttle Launch"

Re:More NasaTV Feeds and launch data

[agentgonzo]

The video is actually NasaTV's public channel, which a lot of the time is not showing live TV (instead, showing past missions, upcoming missions, press briefings etc). The only things that are shown live are really the space shuttle missions and press briefings. The vast majority of viewings are for space shuttle launches only. Yahoo (provider of the feeds) does not bother to update their metadata and just leaves it on "Nasa Space Shuttle Launch" the entire time.

Re:More NasaTV Feeds and launch data

[zrq]

Is anyone else having problems with these feeds on Linux with VLC ?

The 200k/s Windows Media stream seems to work ok, but the higher resolution streams just display a few frames of video and then lock up.

The Real Media stream only provides audio, but it seems to be at about 60 seconds ahead of the Windows Media streams.

Re:More NasaTV Feeds and launch data

[agentgonzo]

The windows media streams are about 1-2 minutes behind the live events. RM stream is about 10-15 seconds behind live events. If you're getting problems with the higher bandwidth streams, then it may be because of bandwidth issues, either at your end or because there are so many people subscribed to the feed. This has happened before (LCROSS) and I've had old versions of VLC appear to lock up if the stream drops packets (I don't know which version of VLC you are using)

Re:More NasaTV Feeds and launch data

[burisch_research]

Can somebody provide direct links to the media streams, especially lower bitrates? The yahoo links above seem to insist on playing only in the browser. I'd rather be using VLC. I'm in Johannesburg, and my bandwidth is unpredictable / slowish (supposedly 1mbps connection, actually i can only really get about 120kbps from nasa)

Re:More NasaTV Feeds and launch data

[burisch_research]

Audio feed (Real) : http://www.nasa.gov/ram/55643main_NASATV_Audio_Only.ram

Re:More NasaTV Feeds and launch data

[agentgonzo]

Just open up VLC and choose "Open Network Stream". It still hasn't launched, so you should have time.

Re:More NasaTV Feeds and launch data

[burisch_research]

Thanks, that worked. Didn't realise VLC would handle that link directly.

Re:More NasaTV Feeds and launch data

[zrq]

VLC 0.8.7 (Fedora 8) and VLC 1.0.2 (Fedora 11) both seem to be able to cope with the low bitrate Yahoo links.

I selected OpenNetworkStream from the File/Media menu and pasted the URL in the http stream box and VLC managed to decode the real stream URLs from the Yahoo links ok.
On the higher bitrate links both versions of VLC hang after a few frames.

Re:More NasaTV Feeds and launch data

[burisch_research]

VLC 0.9.8a plays the lower bitrate stream fine, but if you press stop then play again, an error occurs consistently.

Re:More NasaTV Feeds and launch data

[bill_mcgonigle]

mplayer rtsp://a1364.l1856753153.c18567.g.lr.akamaistream.net/live/D/1364/18567/v0001/reflector:53153

rescheduled for 8AM tomorrow.

Question for those in-the-know

[blind biker]

What is going to happen with the Ares V? I heard rumors about it being scrapped. I hope they were wrong?

Re:Question for those in-the-know

[Mitchell314]

Ares V is still in development AFAIK. It's for equipment lifting (except for the Ares V lite, that's crew, I think), while Ares I is for crew.

Re:Question for those in-the-know

[Geoffrey.landis]

What is going to happen with the Ares V? I heard rumors about it being scrapped. I hope they were wrong?

No decisions as yet. Stay tuned.

Re:Question for those in-the-know

[CrimsonAvenger]

No decisions as yet. Stay tuned.

What he said.

That said, NASA seems to be reconsidering some of the alternative designs that were rejected in favour of Ares 5. Which alternatives are both less capable and less expensive (and less technologically risky in that more of them are already proven technology).

Re:Question for those in-the-know

[camperdave]

I hope they do scrap it. Take the $35+billion dollars it will take to develop this beast, and spend half of it getting DIRECT going, and spend the other half on actual science. After all, why develop all new heavy lift vehicles when the STS system is working fine? Just remove the orbiter, stick the engines on the bottom, and the payload on the top, and Go!

Re:Question for those in-the-know

[Nyeerrmm]

The Augustine commission offered the administration about 10 options, some of which continue Ares V development, while others don't. All options that remain within the current budget (not the extra $3B required to do anything impressive according to the report) continue Ares V development.

However, all of the options presented push for a heavy lift capability. Other options include
- 'Ares V Lite': a lower-performance version of Ares V that would be human rated and could potentially reduce development costs primarily by eliminating the need for Ares 1
- Shuttle-derived: Either a sidemount cargo vehicle (probably requiring something like an Ares 1 for crew launch), or a top-mount shuttle derived design like Jupiter. These would be less capable than Ares V, but still powerful and potentially cheaper -- you could achieve a lunar mission with 2 or 3 launches.
- EELVs: Creating larger Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles from the Delta or Atlas family. These would be the least capable. These are also the biggest question mark because cost savings would come in a large part from a restructuring of rocket development to a DoD style model, where contractors are given requirements, not designs.

All of these, in combination with various targets and schedules were analyzed by the committee. None of the options comes out as a clear winner as cheaper or better, since Ares V has some considerable sunk costs that make its cheaper relative to the others, while designing even a sidemount cargo pod is more expensive than some probably think. Personally I like EELVs because it forces a change in the way business is done, but thats me.

Re:Question for those in-the-know

[blind biker]

Thanks a lot for your answer. (also, thanks to all the others who replied to my post - interesting read, all).

I get how the EELV model changes "the way business is done" - I just don't see why any of the other alternatives couldn't be done in the same way (DoD model).

Number one in what exactly?

[nietsch]

This 'new' rocket is basically a solid booster from the space shuttle, that needs to be extended with a 5th segment, but it now flies with a 5th dummy segment. On top of that is more dummy weight. This is just a test of an existing and older booster. Now why do you think there is some kind of competition in rocketry that the US can be number one in? Or are you just happy you or your parents paid taxes for this upcoming show?
Or am I a 'hater' because I a a little sceptic about this project of NASA because you cannot understand discourse? Personally, I am much more impressed with SpaceX and Armadillo, who seem to come up with nice projects for much less money. Wasn't there a new SpaceX big rocket on the launchpad soon?

Re:Number one in what exactly?

[sunderland56]

As well as being just a test of repackaged existing technology, this launch is costing $445 million. I'm pretty sure that Congress could find a lot of other uses for that half billion dollars.

Re:Number one in what exactly?

[zach_the_lizard]

Probably not. I think that, even if the rocket explodes before takeoff, it's money better spent than all that money spent on bailouts.

Re:Number one in what exactly?

[damburger]

SpaceX is yet to really prove themselves as a launch company, let alone Armadillo. You want a low-cost heavy lift launch, you go to Russia and buy a Proton, simple as that.

Re:Number one in what exactly?

[mustafap]

>I'm pretty sure that Congress could find a lot of other uses for that half billion dollars

Yea, think of all the coke the bankers could buy with handouts from half a billion dollars.

Re:Number one in what exactly?

[davmoo]

Yeah. They should add it to the hundreds of billions already spent on killing people in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Funny how we can always find hundreds of billions for war, but nothing for science.

Re:Number one in what exactly?

[MrKaos]

As well as being just a test of repackaged existing technology, this launch is costing $445 million.

Wow, so we could do two launches for Microsoft's legal bill.

Re:Number one in what exactly?

[sexconker]

Oh please.
We all know the real science is being done in military black ops... to prepare for the next war.

Remember kids! Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran^H are political occupations, not wars!

Re:Number one in what exactly?

[johno.ie]

Agreed.

It bugs me that the PR spin around this launch is praising NASA for developing a totally new launch vehicle in just 4 years. Like you said it's just a SRB with some weight on top of it and some new avionics.

I'm also bothered about the launch because I think that there should be a list of criteria that will decide whether this launch can be deemed a successful test or not, and as far as I am aware this hasn't been done. I've said it many times before that the Ares I design is seriously flawed, without a set of pass/fail criteria to judge the results by, NASA cannot recognize the flaws in it's own design. It's the wrong way to design science experiments or engineer any kind of project. You should start with an honest unbiased hypothesis/goal and compare everything back to that.

It is projected that the launch of Ares 1-Y will be in 2013, that means 4 more years of wasted R&D if the fundamental flaws aren't recognized during this launch.

Re:Number one in what exactly?

[megamerican]

I really wish you were joking. The taxpayer exposure to all of the bailouts is at $23.7 Trillion.

Back in April it was reported that bailouts had already reached near our entire GDP at $12.8 Trillion. With that much money you could launch an Ares rocket every day for 78 years.

Medicare fraud is estimated to be at least $60 Billion.

Letting banks steal whatever wealth is left in the US doesn't seem like money well spent by Congress.

Re:Number one in what exactly?

[BJ_Covert_Action]

SpaceX is yet to really prove themselves as a launch company, let alone Armadillo. ...

Oh yeah, I forgot that SpaceX has never had a Successful Launch with any of their Falcon 1 rockets yet.

And before you start saying, "Yeah, 3 failures and 2 successes is not really a good record." Please see the beginning launch history of the Atlas Rocket Family and other currently common launch vehicle systems. All rockets start out with a few bugs and, once those bugs are worked out, they tend to go into production mode where they can turn out successful launches repetitively. The Falcon I is already there or at least very very close. The Falcon 9 is just the next stage in the game for Space X.

Re:Number one in what exactly?

[DynaSoar]

[Accurate design observations not quoted]

Or am I a 'hater' because I a a little sceptic about this project of NASA because you cannot understand discourse? Personally, I am much more impressed with SpaceX and Armadillo, who seem to come up with nice projects for much less money. Wasn't there a new SpaceX big rocket on the launchpad soon?

I'm much more impressed with the others also. However, Ares was never intended to be a 'new' vehicle. It was NASA's own call for proposals that specified the designs for the new vehicle be based as much as possible on existing designs and preferably existing hardware. When von Braun did this with Redstones and came up with the Saturn 1 booster he was called a genius and everyone remembers him for it. When NASA proposed and got a repeat based on shuttle parts everyone's critical and if they were ever aware of the fact this was a redesign project from the start, they apparently can't remember.

Re:Number one in what exactly?

[cyn1c77]

This 'new' rocket is basically a solid booster from the space shuttle, that needs to be extended with a 5th segment, but it now flies with a 5th dummy segment. On top of that is more dummy weight. This is just a test of an existing and older booster. Now why do you think there is some kind of competition in rocketry that the US can be number one in? Or are you just happy you or your parents paid taxes for this upcoming show? Or am I a 'hater' because I a a little sceptic about this project of NASA because you cannot understand discourse? Personally, I am much more impressed with SpaceX and Armadillo, who seem to come up with nice projects for much less money. Wasn't there a new SpaceX big rocket on the launchpad soon?

That's it. Keep knocking NASA, who is able to consistently put payloads in space with decreasing and inconsistent funding from the Congress that we elect and with increasing red tape... again from the government we elect.

I don't know why you are impressed with SpaceX... NASA was producing superior products to them in the 1960's. They talk a good game, but how many payloads have they put into orbit? 1? All of their launchers have payloads that are a fraction of that of the shuttle or Ares 1, except the Falcon 9 heavy lift, which they have not fielded. They are simply using technology established by NASA and avoiding the government red tap to reduce costs.

Want to see more cool stuff come out of NASA? Make Congress stop changing their mission every 4 years and give them a consistent budget so they can plan properly.

Re:Number one in what exactly?

[damburger]

The fact that you think moving from a single engine per stage small rocket like Falcon 1 to a heavy lift, cluster powered rocket like Falcon 9 is just 'the next stage in the game' betrays your abject ignorance of the subject. SpaceX have not demonstrated reliability with one engine, let alone 9.

Re:Number one in what exactly?

[FleaPlus]

As well as being just a test of repackaged existing technology, this launch is costing $445 million. I'm pretty sure that Congress could find a lot of other uses for that half billion dollars.

I doubt Congress would allow NASA to spend it in a productive way, at least not without pressure from the White House. For example, this past year NASA wanted to spend $150 million in stimulus funds on jump-starting development of spacecraft for commercial crew to the ISS. Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) put up a fuss and threatened all of NASA's stimulus funding, until they diverted $100M of the funds to the Ares program based in his state, leaving only $50 million to get commercial crew started. Article:
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2009-07-03/news/shelby_1_rocket-constellation-space-shuttle

Re:Number one in what exactly?

[FleaPlus]

I'm much more impressed with the others also. However, Ares was never intended to be a 'new' vehicle. It was NASA's own call for proposals that specified the designs for the new vehicle be based as much as possible on existing designs and preferably existing hardware. When von Braun did this with Redstones and came up with the Saturn 1 booster he was called a genius and everyone remembers him for it. When NASA proposed and got a repeat based on shuttle parts everyone's critical and if they were ever aware of the fact this was a redesign project from the start, they apparently can't remember.

The problem is that with the Ares I, NASA's pretty much has a case study in how *not* to reuse existing launch components. Mike Griffin's conceptual design of using a single giant solid rocket as the first stage of a manned vehicle had some pretty fundamental flaws, and the only reason it's NASA's current focus is because he shoved it down NASA's throat when he was administrator. On top of that, the Ares I design has moved from the 4-segment SRB used on the shuttle to a 5-segment solid rocket booster (which will have entirely different flight and vibration properties) and different liquid engines for the second stage, meaning there essentially aren't even any reused components anymore. Finally, the projected cost per launch is $1-$2 billion, for a vehicle with even less capability than the Space Shuttle at a considerably higher cost -- what was the advantage of reusing components supposed to be again?

Although I have my own qualms with them, a far more reasonable approach is that taken by DIRECT or NASA's sort-of new sidemount design, which actually *would* take advantage of existing components and not introduce huge fundamental design problems like the Ares I. Of course, IMHO even better would be to use already-existing commercial boosters like the EELVs, which have a proven track record and cost substantially less over time.

Re:Number one in what exactly?

[FleaPlus]

I don't know why you are impressed with SpaceX... NASA was producing superior products to them in the 1960's.

And NASA hasn't successfully developed any new launch vehicles at all since the 70s, although they've had plenty of failures. As for SpaceX, any totally brand-new design is going to have bugs, and they seem to have worked out theirs. All of the SpaceX problems have been easily-fixed quirks, and none of them have indicated any fundamental problems in the way SpaceX operates or have been due to reliability problems.

Want to see more cool stuff come out of NASA? Make Congress stop changing their mission every 4 years and give them a consistent budget so they can plan properly.

The other big caveat to keep in mind about NASA is that it's basically politically impossible for them to fire anybody, meaning its really difficult for them to restructure towards any goals other than their status quo. That's one of the big differences between the NASA of the 60s and the NASA of today -- during the space race NASA was able to hire the best and brightest for its goals, whereas nowadays any plan NASA has needs to figure out what to do with the multiple layers of middle management which have accumulated (and been unable to fire, regardless of competency or lack thereof) over the decades and the thousands of Space Shuttle maintenance personnel.

Re:Number one in what exactly?

[FleaPlus]

The fact that you think moving from a single engine per stage small rocket like Falcon 1 to a heavy lift, cluster powered rocket like Falcon 9 is just 'the next stage in the game' betrays your abject ignorance of the subject.

Clustering liquid engines is actually fairly easy compared to the much more difficult problem of developing a liquid engine and single-engine rocket stage in the first place (as SpaceX has already done). SpaceX has also already performed test firings of its full 9-engine first stage.

Re:Number one in what exactly?

[EvilBudMan]

---Yea, think of all the coke the bankers could buy with handouts from half a billion dollars.---

If you think about that, your head will explode.

Re:Number one in what exactly?

[damburger]

Tell that to the guys who built the Soviet N-1

Re:Number one in what exactly?

[Thag]

Comparing the Falcon 9 to the N-1 is like comparing a Honda Civic to a Trabant.

The N-1 was a half-assed design from the beginning, it didn't even have the fuel tanks integrated into the structure of the rocket because the Soviets were too cheap to build the tooling necessary. So they built it with spherical tanks like a Goddard rocket, giving it a lousy mass to thrust ratio. Then the Soviets compounded the problem by only testing selected engines out of each production batch, instead of test-firing all of the engines. Lastly, their design didn't cope with engine failure at all well, which is a problem when your testing regimen guarantees engine failure.

The Falcon 9, on the other hand, uses a thoroughly modern design. Its engines are more reliable than the N-1's, and have been test-fired as a group successfully. Plus, it shares many components with the now-proven Falcon 1a design.

It is possible that they will still have problems with the Falcon 9, just like they did with the Falcon 1, but I think it is very likely that they will overcome them.

Re:Number one in what exactly?

[chibiace]

or bullets.

Vortex shedding

[AliasMarlowe]

A cylindrical structure is subject to unstable wake flows, where small asymmetries in the flows around the structure lead to alternating vortices behind it. This is commonly termed vortex shedding, and leads to substantial lateral loads which vary fairly quickly and may cause resonance problems in the structure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_shedding. That's why tall smokestacks nowadays usually have corkscrew fins - to deliberately introduce turbulence, so that the load is less variable and resonant load frequencies have negligible amplitudes.

Re:Vortex shedding

[burisch_research]

Some months ago I was curious about the reason behind these corkscrew fins, but couldn't find anything related on the net. Could someone qualified add something about this to wikipedia?

Re:Vortex shedding

[sexconker]

Yes someone could.
You could.

By having read the vaguest of descriptions of unknown accuracy from a random slashdotter, you are as qualified as any Wikipedia editor. Your source is even modded +5, that's better than 99% of Wikipedia sources!

Re:Awesome

[lul_wat]

Fox News is now slashdots #1 news source? :(

Solid Rocket Vibrations Are Not Pogo

[jstults]

The vibrations that are commonly called 'pogo' in big rockets are caused by a feedback / resonance of thrust oscillations with inlet pressure of the turbopumps, see this extensive discussion. Pogo is fixed by adding dampers to the propellant lines. Ares I, like every big solid, has combustion instabilities that cause thrust oscillations, but there's no feedback like in a liquid rocket. Only danger is hitting one of the structural resonances and ringing the rocket like a bell (and possibly causing the structure to 'diverge').

Re:Solid Rocket Vibrations Are Not Pogo

[raymansean]

structure to 'diverge'

Never hearing the term before, it very succinctly communicates the situation. I must say the mental image is also quite pleasant. Well done!
~the chemical engineering student who uses numerical methods to solve large problems

Re:Solid Rocket Vibrations Are Not Pogo

[turing_m]

Never hearing the term before, it very succinctly communicates the situation. I must say the mental image is also quite pleasant. Well done! ~the chemical engineering student who uses numerical methods to solve large problems

I suspect that the term "blow up" would be just as apt, though a little less British in the degree of understatement.

Re:Solid Rocket Vibrations Are Not Pogo

[jggimi]

feedback / resonance of thrust oscillations

Wouldn't NASA's ocillation overthruster would handle the feedback.

Re:Solid Rocket Vibrations Are Not Pogo

[evanbd]

Never hearing the term before, it very succinctly communicates the situation. I must say the mental image is also quite pleasant. Well done! ~the chemical engineering student who uses numerical methods to solve large problems

I suspect that the term "blow up" would be just as apt, though a little less British in the degree of understatement.

Rocket engineers are fond of that form of understatement. I've also heard "unscheduled disassembly", and I'm particularly fond of "turbine-rich exhaust".

Re:Solid Rocket Vibrations Are Not Pogo

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice.

Re:Solid Rocket Vibrations Are Not Pogo

[DerekLyons]

The vibrations that are commonly called 'pogo' in big rockets are caused by a feedback / resonance of thrust oscillations with inlet pressure of the turbopumps

Pogo is any oscillation along the vehicle's longitudinal thrust/flight axis. It's most familiar form is caused by interactions with liquid fuel, but that's a specific case not the general one.
 
Pogo in solids attracts much less attention because either the solids are attached to a liquid fueled rocket (and the Pogo is damped in the liquid fuel system) or they are part of a big military rocket, which the general public as well as many space experts are largely unfamiliar with.
 
 

Ares I, like every big solid, has combustion instabilities that cause thrust oscillations, but there's no feedback like in a liquid rocket.

You might want to read up on the Ares I and note that is has a liquid second stage.
 
On top of that, vibrations caused by combustion instabilities occur along all vehicle axes - including the longitudinal (I.E. the 'pogo' axis). Which means you can also get feedback by having combustion instability induced vibrations at a frequency that matches a structural resonance frequency - the same failure mode that destroyed the original Tacoma Narrows Bridge.

Re:Solid Rocket Vibrations Are Not Pogo

[CrimsonAvenger]

Pogo is damped in the liquid fuel system) or they are part of a big military rocket, which the general public as well as many space experts are largely unfamiliar with.

The "big military rockets" you're thinking of are ICBMs.

Which, being unmanned, can handle a lot more vibration than can a rocket carrying a crew of 4-7 people.

Re:Solid Rocket Vibrations Are Not Pogo

[jstults]

You might want to read up on the Ares I and note that is has a liquid second stage.

I'm curious, by what mechanism would the liquid propellant in the *second stage* have any positive feedback (not damping) to thrust oscillations in the *first stage*?

The reason longitudinal oscillations (call them what you like) can be really huge in a liquid is because of the positive feedback loop in which a thrust oscillation causes a reinforcing change in the inlet pressure of the pumps, this mechanism does not exist in a solid; that was my only point.

I guess I just disagree that 'any longitudinal vibration is pogo'. YMMV.

Re:Solid Rocket Vibrations Are Not Pogo

[DerekLyons]

The "big military rockets" you're thinking of are ICBMs. Which, being unmanned, can handle a lot more vibration than can a rocket carrying a crew of 4-7 people.

The issue under discussion isn't the level of vibration, but the frequency of the vibration and whether or not that frequency matches a one of the vehicle's resonant frequencies. If it does, then even a modest level of vibration can (if undamped) quickly generate dangerous forces.

Re:Solid Rocket Vibrations Are Not Pogo

[EvilBudMan]

What I always wondered is how the direction of the burn is controlled? On the shuttle you have those little but powerful liquid fuel nozzles to control which way the thing will go. I would just like to see wht the plan is for using a shuttle booster as the main thing doing the steering? It might point it's way into the ground too if this hasn't been thought through.

Re:Solid Rocket Vibrations Are Not Pogo

[jstults]

The space shuttle's solids have a small amount of thrust vector control.

Re:Solid Rocket Vibrations Are Not Pogo

[EvilBudMan]

Interesting. I wonder what kind of control the Ares would have? This would concern me more than oscillations. Liquid fuel has always been assumed to be safer but this may not still be the case.

The failure rate of the Russian program vs the US failure rate seem to be about equal. Now I think we do have and edge when it comes to deep space exploration, but we did have Russian help in the design of the Martian rovers. So I guess we will see if the launch will be a success or not.

I hear a lot hear about letting the commercial people do it (Space X). We'll fine. Do it just like the military. Write a specification. Send it for bid. Then let NASA test it to make sure that it will work. This is already being done mostly since before Apollo.

Different defense (and other) contractors built different parts for Apollo.I guess Thiokol got the original shuttle contract for the boosters and now it's whatever company absorbed them.

I think Space X would have a different goal than manned launches. I'm not sure why they would think they could make money doing that but there may be a possibility that they could launch commercial payloads and make a little money.

Re:Solid Rocket Vibrations Are Not Pogo

[jstults]

Pogo is any oscillation along the vehicle's longitudinal thrust/flight axis.

Not so, I ripped some figures and a couple paragraphs from a 1970 report on what pogo is and how to prevent it in case you are interested.

Re:Solid Rocket Vibrations Are Not Pogo

[DerekLyons]

Yes, so. Or did you even bother to read what you cut and pasted and noted it's absolute failure to define Pogo as only being characteristic of liquid fueled vehicles?

Re:Solid Rocket Vibrations Are Not Pogo

[DerekLyons]

I'm curious, by what mechanism would the liquid propellant in the *second stage* have any positive feedback (not damping) to thrust oscillations in the *first stage*?

In case you hadn't noticed - the second stage is attached to the first stage.
 
 

The reason longitudinal oscillations (call them what you like) can be really huge in a liquid is because of the positive feedback loop in which a thrust oscillation causes a reinforcing change in the inlet pressure of the pumps, this mechanism does not exist in a solid

That's one mechanism for Pogo. It's not the only one.

Re:Solid Rocket Vibrations Are Not Pogo

[jstults]

Actually if you read the last two paragraphs I cut and pasted Rubin describes the two types of pogo oscillations; both involve coupling between the propellant feed and structural oscillations. This only occurs in liquids (or perhaps a large hybrid), but certainly not a solid! How could it be any clearer?

Re:Solid Rocket Vibrations Are Not Pogo

[jstults]

I'm curious, by what mechanism would the liquid propellant in the *second stage* have any positive feedback (not damping) to thrust oscillations in the *first stage*?

In case you hadn't noticed - the second stage is attached to the first stage.

Touche, I've clearly been trolled.

The reason longitudinal oscillations (call them what you like) can be really huge in a liquid is because of the positive feedback loop in which a thrust oscillation causes a reinforcing change in the inlet pressure of the pumps, this mechanism does not exist in a solid

That's one mechanism for Pogo. It's not the only one.

Sure there may be another mechanism that causes dynamic instability of longitudinal modes in a rocket, but that would have a different name. There are two published mechanisms for 'pogo', both involve coupling between a liquid propellant feed system and vibrations of the rockets structure.

Read up on what 'pogo' refers to:

http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/winter2004/05.html

http://www.itea.org/files/2008/2008%20Journal%20Files/September%202008/jite-29-03-03.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogo_oscillation

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but your "lolz" make you unqualified to comment on any serious matter and be taken seriously.

Tragically, We Cannot Afford This Now

[curmudgeon99]

Though I have always adored the thought and reality of space travel--this is just a luxury we cannot afford now. There is no pressing problem that would cause this need to travel to the Moon or Mars to occur.

We have so many problems in the United States right now and I really don't see why this is necessary. Since this just recycles Space Shuttle technology, I don't see that this Ares I rocket represents any innovation that would justify the expense.

Though I know all the Aerospace Engineers are going to hate me for killing off their jobs program, there are other scientific needs--such as the need to develop clean energy sources and stop global Climate Change in its tracks--that warrant priority over any dough we spend at NASA.

Example of International Space Station
Currently, for example, the ISS is slated to be decommissioned in a few short years. I ask you, what sort of great innovation has resulted from the ISS? I am hard-pressed to think of any great advances in knowledge that were not already known from by the time the cruddy but long-surviving MIR burned up in the atmosphere.

Again, though I adore seeing these rockets take off and follow every STS-n mission with great interest, it's just a joyride and is not justified in a country like ours that is in danger of becoming a has-been global power.

NASA should halt the Ares-I and, even more painful because it would have been the biggest rocket to date, the Ares V. They are boondoggles that do not solve a pressing problem.

Re:Tragically, We Cannot Afford This Now

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep in mind these missions are generally budged for years in advance. In the case of the 1-X launch, it was paid for with the equivalent of 2006 US $.

Re:Tragically, We Cannot Afford This Now

[curmudgeon99]

So what? That's logic on a par with "two wrongs make a right." 2006 dollars or 2009 ones--we cannot afford it right now.

Re:Tragically, We Cannot Afford This Now

[Anonymous Coward]

They are boondoggles that do not solve a pressing problem.

Wrong. In the fullness of time, space exploration will be understood to be the most important thing 21st century man ever did.

Climate change, on the other hand, will be seen to have been complete bollocks.

Re:Tragically, We Cannot Afford This Now

[curmudgeon99]

I agree that in the long term space travel will be deemed very important. However, that does not create the funds to pay for it. You sidestepped my point, which is that we cannot afford it.

As for your politically-based comment regarding Climate Change, you're just showing your Right-Wing Jackassedness, Mr. UK.

So, your lack of an argument is showing. And my response? Go to Hell

Re:Tragically, We Cannot Afford This Now

[MxTxL]

I am hard-pressed to think of any great advances in knowledge that were not already known from by the time the cruddy but long-surviving MIR burned up in the atmosphere.
I hate it when people like you pull the what-have-you-done-for-me-lately schtick. Listen, just because you can't think of anything doesn't mean there isn't useful science coming out of NASA EVERY DAY.

You should look at the NASA Spinoff page. http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/

NASA is pushing the state of the art in materials, robotics, communications, structural engineering, environment and many others. Things that have real-world impact on our lives today. It's not just Tang and Velcro.

The ISS, despite all it's flaws and short comings, gives us lessons every day in how to survive and thrive in the harshest of all environments. It will give us the technology and know-how to do longer range and longer duration missions than were ever before possible.

Re:Tragically, We Cannot Afford This Now

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe we should just pull it off the pad and return it to the Boeing store? I hear the restocking fee is a shocker!

Re:Tragically, We Cannot Afford This Now

[FatAlb3rt]

I agree that in the long term space travel will be deemed very important. However, that does not create the funds to pay for it. You sidestepped my point, which is that we cannot afford it.

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

[Geoffrey.landis]

Though I have always adored the thought and reality of space travel--this is just a luxury we cannot afford now. There is no pressing problem that would cause this need to travel to the Moon or Mars to occur.

No, actually, space exploration is essentailly done on the bubble-gum budget of the US. Deleting NASA or doubling NASA would have no noticible effect on the US budget-- the funding level is down in the noise compared to the main budget items.

Re:Tragically, We Cannot Afford This Now

[JWW]

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

[curmudgeon99]

I never said it will not be [note: future tense construction] important. But, again, we don't have the money for it now.

For example: spending $500 billion dollars to find a cure for cancer will be very important. [We can't afford it right now.]

Even if I read up on the mission objectives--that does not create money out of thin air to pay for it! Why does every Space Travel Booster (I consider myself one) totally disregard the cost! This is so frustrating. Are you little children who can't see the obvious. No matter now important it is--if we can't pay for it--it's unattainable right now. Maybe in 20 years we will be able to afford it but right now--we can't!

Re:Tragically, We Cannot Afford This Now

[curmudgeon99]

I agree those things piss me off too. However, that is an argument for eliminating those wasteful items of spending, NOT an argument for wasting MORE money in NASA.
I agree the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs hugely expanded our knowledge.
The Space Shuttle really did not and even less so the International Space Station. I believe the ISS should have been canceled even though at the time I was all for it. It served no great purpose other than providing a vacation location for millionaires with $20 million.

Re:Tragically, We Cannot Afford This Now

[Anonymous Coward]

If it isn't done now, how do you reasonably expect it to happen in the future?

Re:Tragically, We Cannot Afford This Now

[Gravatron]

We can afford it fine, its just we keep spending the money on military misadventures or corporate bailouts. If we used your logic for funding it, we'd never have a space program, as we would endlessly be spending money on whatever crisis or crapshoot interests us, and not bother with space tech till its too late.

Re:Tragically, We Cannot Afford This Now

[damburger]

Considering the banks here in the UK alone received £1 trillion, the amount spent on a space program is a drop in the ocean and is frankly spent in a far more responsible manner (rather than give greedy sociopathic bankers massive bonuses despite the fact they fucked us all).

Re:Tragically, We Cannot Afford This Now

[damburger]

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.

And THAT is why NASA won't get the money that is eagerly shovelled into the pockets of crooked businessmen who would sell their own grandma to a glue factor for a dollar.

The word is 'Kleptocracy' - despite all protestations, modern western governments exist solely to enrich the participants in those governments and their friends/business associates.

Re:Tragically, We Cannot Afford This Now

[curmudgeon99]

Not true. Has there ever been a time when we were engaging in Space Travel while our country was going through a Greater Depression?

I don't think so. Sadly, this is a time when we cannot afford this.

Re:Tragically, We Cannot Afford This Now

[curmudgeon99]

What, is there an expiration date on space travel? What a ridiculous statement. Trust me, it will be waiting for us.

Re:Tragically, We Cannot Afford This Now

[TheKidWho]

Once you stop the wheel, it takes a lot to get it to start turning again.

Aerospace engineering expertise exists in the engineers that live/work/breathe/teach their profession. If you temporarily cancel a program, all of those engineers will have to find work elsewhere and all of their knowledge that is stored in their heads will be lost.

Tell me, as an engineer who recently graduated, why I should even go into aerospace engineering if I have to deal with the opinions of people like you who would rather we not spend money on such frivolous activities. Instead we are so broke we need to allocate a few billion for national health care or for bailing out wall street. Why would any student go into aerospace engineering in the kind of an environment where they don't even have a potential job.

You claim we have more pressing problems to solve like clean energy etc, but you don't realize that just throwing more people at the problem isn't going to necessarily solve it. Those engineers might want to design rockets instead of fuel cells yah know.

Re:Tragically, We Cannot Afford This Now

[Geoffrey.landis]

Your original argument was "we can't afford this because we have other problems."

You are now saying that space exploration is "wrong."

That's a different argument. You are entitled to your opinion.

Re:Tragically, We Cannot Afford This Now

[TheKidWho]

Space isn't a luxury... In the long term it will become a necessity and the nation that is first to exploit it will be the one that prospers the most in the future.

Re:Tragically, We Cannot Afford This Now

[curmudgeon99]

I share your rage at the bankers. Being as I work in Midtown Manhattan, I walk around these bastards on a daily basis.

Alas, that does not provide a reason for us to blow money on the space program. Conflating the two is meaningless.

If you are pissed at the things our government wastes money on, that's an argument for eliminating that waste--NOT for wasting more.

Re:Tragically, We Cannot Afford This Now

[TheKidWho]

Yes I trust you Mr. Expert. You have obviously given so much thought to this and have such an informed perspective.

Re:Tragically, We Cannot Afford This Now

[TheKidWho]

Is this a serious statement?

Bravo, your trolling skills are epic indeed.

No space travel in a previous depression? HAH.

Re:Tragically, We Cannot Afford This Now

[damburger]

Giving a (very small) amount of government money to scientists and engineers is waste. Giving a huge portion of pretty much every western nations budget to their respective banks, who fucked up, just so those banks can reward themselves with bonuses is waste. They aren't even in the same order of magnitude, and this has been repeatedly pointed out as a fatal flaw in your 'cant afford it' argument - but you have simply covered your ears and carried on spouting pure molten wrongness.

Re:Tragically, We Cannot Afford This Now

[curmudgeon99]

Once you stop the wheel... True
Aerospace engineering expertise exists... True
Tell me, as an engineer who recently graduated... True but nobody promised anybody a job
Those engineers might want to design rockets... True


True true true... we still can't afford it!

Re:Tragically, We Cannot Afford This Now

[wayLateToTheGame]

What, is there an expiration date on space travel?

Obviously not but what would you suggest? Cut all of NASA's funding for now and when the economy picks up in a few years time start again from scratch? It might be a better idea to try and keep them going even though money is tight.

Re:Tragically, We Cannot Afford This Now

[TheKidWho]

Yes, we can.

NASA's budget is a drop in the bucket compared to everything else congress spends money on, and it provides jobs, trade, expertise, technology, and national pride.

For a country that prides itself on having a high level of technology, it would be an indicator that the USA has truly fallen.

The Russians and Chinese can afford it, yet the USA can not anymore...

Re:Tragically, We Cannot Afford This Now

[MrKaos]

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.

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

[Gulthek]

Nothing would speed our journey to becoming a has-been superpower faster than the cessation of government funding for scientific research. Especially critical is government funding of pure research: that is, research that has no immediate and obvious commercial benefit. Even if you think that space exploration/research is a luxury you should argue for doing as much of it as possible to keep our science on the cutting (leading) edge.

Of course, if you think that space is a luxury with no benefit then you are, simply, either woefully underinformed or an idiot. Weather satellites, NASA's projects have directly led to the creation of dozens of industries that have revolutionized the world. http://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/spinoff.html

Science is what catapulted us to being the dominate superpower. Applied science is money today, pure science is money tomorrow. We can't afford to cut any of it.

Re:Tragically, We Cannot Afford This Now

[curmudgeon99]

You missed my point entirely. I completely agree on the urgent need to fund scientific research--but research that addresses current pressing needs.

I applaud the past research done by NASA. However, that research is done. We need to focus our scientific research--which agreed should be increased--but only on current pressing needs. I fail to see how a trip to the Moon or Mars is going to address the obviously pressing needs we have on this planet for green energy and to address climate change.

Merely because you prefer to spend money on NASA, you are conflating NASA research with all scientific research. The two are not necessarily connected. It is possible to do tons of pure scientific research that does not send people or machines to the Moon or Mars.

You must have some vested interest that you're not disclosing. There is plenty of pure scientific research that does not revolve around blasting off into space.

Re:Tragically, We Cannot Afford This Now

[demachina]

"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:Tragically, We Cannot Afford This Now

[Anonymous Coward]

And methinks your lack of not being an ass is showing a little bit too...

Re:Tragically, We Cannot Afford This Now

[rainmaestro]

For example: spending $500 billion dollars to find a cure for cancer will be very important.

Will it be, really? People will continue to die by the thousands every year. And then we will have the same cry: We must stop (whatever becomes the new cause of death) before we can think about space. People are supposed to die, and a lot younger than we currently do. Eliminate the big causes of death and you *increase* the load on the planet's resources. And why cancer? Only *one* cancer (lungs) is in the top 10 causes of death worldwide.

And what happens when 20 years from now we now we realize that the climate change won't stop. Climates *always* change, and not always into a form that is comfortable for us. The idea that we can freeze the climate in a configuration that we like is the ultimate in hubris. You can slow it, you can try to minimize the change, but you can't stop it "in its tracks". So what happens when we realize the planet will continue to change and we have nowhere else to turn because we've been ignoring space all this time?

Any economist will tell you: running four programs concurrently at 25% of max capacity is more efficient than running one at 100% and retooling between each. Money is always tight, but if you *stop* a program, more times than not it never gets restarted.

NASA's budgets is approx. 0.5% of GDP. If you want to find money, look at the big money sinks. Which is more feasible: killing NASA or finding a way to reduce defense spending by 2.75%? They both free up the same amount of money.

Re:Tragically, We Cannot Afford This Now

[curmudgeon99]

You, sir, may be a weak advocate for your opinions but I am not. If you have an opinion, support it vigorously.

Re:Tragically, We Cannot Afford This Now

[tburkhol]

I agree that in the long term space travel will be deemed very important. However, that does not create the funds to pay for it. You sidestepped my point, which is that we cannot afford it.

Your claim that space travel is important conflicts with your claim that the US can afford to spend $0 on it. Like all real world problems, the NASA budget is a question of priorities. We can "afford" to do everything, if only a little bit at a time. NASA is 0.5% of the non-defense budget - less than half of education, homeland security, HUD, Civil defense; less than a quarter of transportation and VA; one fortieth of HHS; one 50th of Treasury.

You seem to be quite fond of pressing problems, but you have not said what problems are so pressing that we can't afford NASA. "The economy"? It's already getting 50x more support than NASA. "Healthcare"? Already getting 40x. "Bringing Democracy to the backward nations of the world"? Seriously: you can't just say "Space exploration is too expensive. There are more important priorities." without saying what those priorities are. If NASA is too expensive, what is the desperately immediate need that would be completely satisfied by reallocation of NASA's budget?

I'm sure you have one. I'm also sure that someone else will have a similarly pressing problem that's more important than your pet project. I'm likewise certain that, having closed NASA this year, a similarly pressing problem will appear next year to prevent re-opening NASA. And the year after that. Once you decide to focus all of your resources on the Problem of the Week, you give up all of your long term goals. The whole reason the government invests in research is that there is no pressing problem to provide economic, market-driven motivation for solution of the problem, despite that we know it's in our long-term interest.

Re:Tragically, We Cannot Afford This Now

[daid303]

What's a more pressing problem then the human race getting fried by the sun in about 5 billion years?

Re:Tragically, We Cannot Afford This Now

[khallow]

I hate it when people like you pull the what-have-you-done-for-me-lately schtick. Listen, just because you can't think of anything doesn't mean there isn't useful science coming out of NASA EVERY DAY.

There's useful science coming out of most universities EVERY DAY. And the budget for those is usually one to three orders of magnitude cheaper than what NASA spends directly on the International Space Station.

You should look at the NASA Spinoff page. http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/

The problem with claims like this is that we do not consider either whether NASA make a significant contribution, the opportunity cost of the NASA funding, nor whether the spinoff would have happened anyway.

NASA is pushing the state of the art in materials, robotics, communications, structural engineering, environment and many others. Things that have real-world impact on our lives today. It's not just Tang and Velcro.

So is any university with decent materials engineering research.

The ISS, despite all it's flaws and short comings, gives us lessons every day in how to survive and thrive in the harshest of all environments. It will give us the technology and know-how to do longer range and longer duration missions than were ever before possible.

Yea, yea, yea. And we could have that with a MIR-sized (and priced) vehicle.

The single rebuttal to all this is that the science on the ISS is both too expensive and comes from funds that could fund equivalent science research for orders of magnitude less.

I have a modest proposal. Give me a hundred billion dollars. I'll make sure there are spinoffs, science every day, and people living in the harsh reaches of space. Then I'll squander the other 90% of the funds. We both win. You get your science and I get 90 billion dollars.

Re:Tragically, We Cannot Afford This Now

[icebrain]

Why is it everyone assumes (like you did) that "trash earth and leave" is the only way to do it? Did it ever occur to anyone that maybe it just might be a good idea to leave earth and use resources from Mars and asteroids instead of trashing earth? That maybe the entire point of space colonization could be to expand and survive while leaving earth in good shape? That maybe the very technologies we'd develop in a large-scale colonization effort might be exactly the same ones that would help us reverse environmental damage? Fixing any damage we have done to the planet does not require abandoning it, self-elimination, or massive standard-of-living reductions. It can be done through technology and expansion, but taking that path doesn't satisfy the near-religious assertion of some self-proclaimed "environmentalists" that it's not really a good fix unless someone's suffering.

This nonsense that we need to just stay here and withdraw in our shells like hermit crabs or scared turtles, and never leave or go beyond our planet because doing so is "bad" is the same controlling line of BS that religious leaders fed to the masses (Tower of Babel) and that modern political/economic leaders feed to everyone to maintain their status.

Re:Tragically, We Cannot Afford This Now

[khallow]

Your original argument was "we can't afford this because we have other problems." You are now saying that space exploration is "wrong."

No, he's not. My view is that he's saying that there's too much spending now (or at least there are "problems") and in that environment, spending on "luxuries" is wrong. In a better financial climate, he may well advocate spending money on things like space exploration. It sounds quite consistent to me.

Re:Tragically, We Cannot Afford This Now

[mrwolf007]

I have a modest proposal. Give me a hundred billion dollars. I'll make sure there are spinoffs, science every day, and people living in the harsh reaches of space. Then I'll squander the other 90% of the funds. We both win. You get your science and I get 90 billion dollars.

Ill come back to you as soon as i find someone willing to pay a trillion dollars for that science stuff.

Re:Tragically, We Cannot Afford This Now

[IndigoDarkwolf]

Only case I can make for manned space flight is for when [...] we eventually hit a tipping point in CO2 levels and the runaway green house effect starts.

You know, or the sun explodes. Granted, that's a ways off, but it's far more certain to occur regardless of human intervention.

Of course as badly as our species is botching this planet not sure we deserve the reprieve.

That's why my proposed solution is to just nuke the entire planet from orbit. When we're as barren as the surface of Mars and our species is little more than a memory, we can stand assured that we will no longer be an ecological hazard.

Let's just hope that enough other species survive that evolution can start over on Earth

...an asteroid the size of a football field wasn't able to kill off all of life, neither was the collision event scientists currently believe is ultimately responsible for the moon, in fact it seems life is extremely hardy and its ingredients are not only capable of surviving re-entry but some actually require impact energies to be formed...

and in a few hundred million years

K-T boundary 'till ecological recovery was less than 50 million years...

The only other rationale for manned space exploration is it does restore a sense of adventure and frontiers to conquer

History 101: Mankind's early ventures across the ocean were in search of unclaimed mineral wealth (read: GOLD).

There are no longer any frontiers on this planet with the possible exception of the deep oceans.

Spelunkers would beg to differ.

Of course NASA in particular has turned the manned space program in to such a complete yawner

No, the politicians and press did that after we beat the Russians to the moon, even before the Cold War had ended.

no one believes

...except Slashdotters, amatuer astronomers, space fans, or and scientists around the world

they will break through any frontiers if you did give them the funding. Robotic spacecraft are the only ones breaking frontiers at this point

...Itself no small feat, though admittedly easier and less risky than sending living organisms...

so they deserve the money until you are going to commit to colonizing Mars.

Well, I seem to recall that a recent U.S. president had tried to commit us to colonizing Mars within a few decades, but then some bad people ran a couple of airplanes into a few buildings, and things kind of went to shit and the Mars things got forgotten about.

If I had mod points, you'd totally be getting modded down.

Re:Tragically, We Cannot Afford This Now

[demachina]

You might be able to tap asteroids for mineral resources. I think the odds of you tapping Mars for resources and shipping them to Earth are slim indeed. Chances are you will have to go the other direction for a long time to even keep a small colony going on Mars. You would certainly need space elevators on both ends, and I imagine it would still be prohibitively expensive until there are some major advances in propulsion and assorted other technologies.

Only way Earth survives long term is if we control the population one way or another, and its equally delusional to think you are going to move enough people to Mars or anywhere else in space to make a dent.

It is maybe a positive sign that advanced countries are stabilizing population growth but poor countries simply aren't and that is going to be the thing that kills Earth. Climate change is just one manifestation of overpopulation, so even if you fixed CO2 emissions if you don't fix population growth the planet is still in for a really nasty crash when you run out of fresh water, food, living space, etc. As long as you have major religions like Catholicism and Islam promoting, nay compelling, unrestrained breeding, and other assorted religious fundamentalists blocking birth control programs, especially in poor countries, our civilization is inevitably going to crash in the not so distant future.

Re:Tragically, We Cannot Afford This Now

[khallow]

Notice that I'm actually asking for an order of magnitude less. That should make it an order of magnitude easier to find someone with the money.

Re:Tragically, We Cannot Afford This Now

[jamstar7]

NASA's budget is microscopic compared to other government programs. The 5-8 billion a year they're budgetted would pay about a day, maybe a day & a half of the welfare budget of New York City, IIRC. To me & thee on the street, 5 billion sounds like a lot of money. To the government, with 25 TRILLION dollars of debt to tax off, it's not even coffee & donut money.

Re:Tragically, We Cannot Afford This Now

[demachina]

"You know, or the sun explodes"

Which is of course billions of years in the future so your argument is pointless in any context that matters. Overpopulation and its many manifestations which include climate change is a here and now problem and it most definitely does post an immediate existential threat to us as a species and all the other species on the planet. You do know we are exterminating species at a furious rate partially just through massive habitat destruction? Even if you fix CO2 emmissions, if you don't stop population growth our species is still going to crash, and take most of the other species with it, when it runs out of water, food and space, unless there are some huge advances in technology. I am confident bacteria, cockroaches, rats and weeds will survive to start evolution over.

"That's why my proposed solution is to just nuke the entire planet from orbit."

A probably more effective approach would be to prevent Catholicism, Islam and assorted other religions from continuing to promote uncontrolled breeding, and make birth control widely available across the globe. If you stabilize Earth's population or better start it on a gentle downward slope our prospects for long term survival would dramatically improve. Our predominant economic system also works against us, since Capitalism and Capitalism induced greed demand constant growth. It isn't a sustainable economic model on a planet with limited resources. You either have to expand in to space, or you have to adopt an economic model which is sustainable.

"able to kill off all of life"

We have however had numerous extinction events which have wiped out most life. Its also taken hundreds of millions of years for plants to sequester CO2 to its pre-industrialization level. On its current course Man will release it all back in to the atmosphere in less than a thousand years unless we make a major course change. I don't even pretend to know what the actual consequences of that will be, but it is almost certain to result in a dramatic change in our planet. Its almost certain to be a problem that half our population lives at basically the current sea level and we need more habitable space, not less if we continue unrestrained population growth.

"History 101: Mankind's early ventures across the ocean were in search of unclaimed mineral wealth (read: GOLD)."

Not really sure of your point other than yes some explorers were obviously motivated by greed. They did for the most part manage to loot, plunder and infect every culture they encountered and pretty much wiped out every one. The explorers that lasted were not quite so bad. The colonies that stuck on North America were usually people fleeing religious persecution and political oppression in Europe. There have been a host of explorers who did it for adventure, knowledge and more benevolent motives.

"Spelunkers would beg to differ."

You are certainly welcome to live in caves, I'll pass....

"Well, I seem to recall that a recent U.S. president had tried to commit us to colonizing Mars within a few decades"

So did his dad a decade earlier. All they did was proclaim a goal which they knew NASA wouldn't achieve especially with the finite resources allocated and NASA's ability to squander time and money. These are always on a time line so they wont be done until long after they long gone. Call me a cynic but I'm pretty sure most initiatives out of the White House are just a way to buy votes in Florida and Texas, Florid being particularly important. Presidents also need to keep the Congressional delegations of places like Florida, Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, Maryland, Virginia, Colorado and California. The space program is now mostly just another avenue to distribute pork and create jobs, one of many. Its what happens anytime you build a huge bureaucracy and then let it entrench, bloat and rot. The CIA, DOD, Treasury, DOE, etc. are just as bad. The Dept. of Homeland Security was that way from inception.

Re:Tragically, We Cannot Afford This Now

[mrwolf007]

Well,
i must say i was most impressed with the idea of keeping 90% and delegating the work...

Re:Tragically, We Cannot Afford This Now

[khallow]

Indeed, I thought about doing the whole manned space program since oh, 1975 (that trillion dollar figure, you know). But the unmanned bits are actually a bit too productive, driving up my overall costs and really cutting into my profit margin. I figure I'd only be able to keep around 80% in that case, and that's really too little for the effort.

What is the point?

[new death barbie]

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:What is the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they are pressed to keep funding this crap so Aerojet doesn't increase the pricing for solid boosters and related maintenance to the military.

Re:What is the point?

[icebrain]

Well, Delta and Atlas don't keep former shuttle employees busy. And everyone knows that reusing large components of something entirely different will make the end result cheaper... because you never have to do rework and the reused components are always optimal for the design.

Oh, I'm sorry, I'll wipe up the extra sarcasm I spilled there...

Re:What is the point?

[demachina]

Solid-fuel boosters keep jobs in the state of Utah so you can count on Orrin Hatch, very powerful senator from Utah supporting NASA's budget....

Someone said on a previous thread the Ares 1 has such a goofy look because the SRB's built in Utah have to pass through a train tunnel so they can't be increased in diameter which is why it looks so top heavy.

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.

It certainly would have been better if NASA could have finished the SRB facility in Mississippi, which was killed twice, so they could be shipped to Kennedy on barges and the diameter constraints would have been removed. I wager Utah's senators helped kill it to keep the jobs in Utah.

NASA's manned space program is 90% jobs program, 10% space program at this point, in case you hadn't noticed.

Re:What is the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

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:What is the point?

[DynaSoar]

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?

The military doesn't 'have' those boosters. They buy those boosters from Douglas and Lockheed Martin respectively, as NASA could (and has for other programs). The distinction is minor, but the accusations and criticisms continually leveled often hang on this too often repeated error that started out as an intentional misdirection by critics with no cleaner agenda than what NASA and Morton Thiokol are credited with having.

Similarly the answer to 'why' is a matter of public record, as the entire process was publicly announced and conducted. If the news media is to cumbersome to sift through, very even handed summaries are available at http://www.astronautix.com/

Re:What is the point?

[k6mfw]

> SRB's size was determined by the width or a horse's rear-end. I talked to someone that worked at Thiokol (now ATK) for eight years. He said diameter was set in the 1950s based on largest size that can be moved by trucks [ with a big trailer ]. I've not taken measurements but those SRBs look a lot thicker than a width of a train tunnel. He also said ATK is also removing the word "Thiokol" from the history.

Re:What is the point?

[FleaPlus]

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

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

IIRC, neither the Delta IV nor the Atlas V are currently human rated, though they have the potential to be. This would take more time and money, and the SSRB's have a pretty good track record, with dozens of launches with only a single failure (due in part to it being used outside it's spec range).

I think reusing the SSRB's in this manner is actually a pretty smart idea. There's a lot of infrastructure already in place to support them that would be costly to build to suit the other rockets.

Re:What is the point?

[recharged95]

"As of noon Monday it appeared that there was a 60% chance of showers and/or high altitude clouds interfering."
"It certainly would have been better if NASA could have finished the SRB facility in Mississippi,"

Or better yet, just move everything into the desert (or NM's new spaceport) and have places/spaces to build it correctly and without freaking weather issues.

If the gov't space program dies, we can blame everything on the politicans involved. Pure political fiasco. "Hi Mr. Engineer, I want to build rockets in illogical areas and launch in high risk areas, just so I can move $$ to my state"...

Re:What is the point?

[Nyeerrmm]

While the locations of development and construction are based largely on political reasons, the selection of launch sites is not. When selecting a launch site, you want something as far as south as possible with water along the direction of travel. You want to go south because you get more speed from the Earth's rotation and you can get into lower inclination orbits (you can't go lower than the launch site latitude. You want to fly over water so that if there's an accident you're not raining flaming debris on people. Downrange is quite far so ocean is still preferable to desert.

For most satellites you want to launch East, so you get the speed boost from Earth's rotation, so the east coast of Florida is pretty ideal. For polar orbits (Earth science primarily) you launch north or south, so Vandenberg on the south end of California is a good choice. Weather is a problem in Florida, but I don't think flying rockets over New Mexico and Texas is going to be a viable strategy.

Re:What is the point?

[EvilBudMan]

A great deal of their budget goes for aeronautics. In that part, there is a great deal that they have done that affects us but it's not publicized much at all.

Re:What is the point?

[demachina]

There all kinds of good things NASA does especially in it lesser known fringes. JPL is a never ending source of good things. I saw earlier this week one of NASA's best aerodynamicists passed away this week at 88. He slept on a cot in his office at Langley and lived to make things better. He designed the wasp waist on supersonic aircraft making them practical, the supercritical wing and the winglets on the ends of commercial aircraft which dramatically increased speeds and reduced fuel consumption for just about every plane flying.

I'm sure there are probably still good people in NASA's manned space program but the problem is its turned in to a giant self perpetuating bureaucracy and its flaws now far outweigh its benefits. This is a nearly inevitable end for every big bureaucracy not just NASA's.

Re:What is the point?

[demachina]

The Southern tip of Texas is substantially closer to the Equator than Kennedy is and it would launch over the Gulf for the early part of the flight which is the really dangerous part. Brownsville does get some rain but it not nearly as bad as Kennedy. It will never happen at this point but it would have been a lot better choice than Florida.

Re:What is the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to work on the SRM at what was then Thiokol, and the plant at Missippi would have been a disaster. It wasn't just building it somewhere else - it was building an entirely new design by folks who'd not build such large motors, untried production techniques (like monolithic casting), new igniters that had a tendancy to explode instead of start the motor...

Switching to a wider diameter motor would have dictated redesigning the Shuttle and the launch pads - that was never in the works, just transferring jobs from Utah to Missippi.

Solids are easy to make, extremely reliable, and produce a lot of thrust. Just don't ride alongside of one, or expect to be able to throttle it. I was very happy to see NASA put the astronauts on top of things with an ejection system (which, by the way is also powered by solid rockets, also by ATK) for safety.

Re:What is the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:What is the point?

[EvilBudMan]

--This is a nearly inevitable end for every big bureaucracy not just NASA's.--

Now you've done it. You are into the real subject that matters. Small business employees 85% of the workers. 1% that own 90% of the wealth got bailed out twice by both the Republicans and Democrats. So it appears Washington and Wall-street are one and the same. The head of the treasury worked for GS. GS and MS got bailed out under both Democrats and Republicans. OK I see a disturbing pattern here.

I am very sure that you are right about that bureaucracy thing, but on the other side of things, I can see where you would need to put up with a big bureaucracy, because there wouldn't be another way to make unprofitable things happen.

--flaws now far outweigh its benefits--

I'm not so sure. A lot of this blame can be placed squarely at the ones running the government. Of course NASA is going to tell them what they want to hear to keep their jobs. I still think they are worth something. Maybe they need to make some changes to shake things up and the space program is really a prestige thing at this point.

Back in the day is was a race to beat the Russians. The race is over and people now need some other form of motivation to work off the clock and things like that.

What some said about the boosters coming from Utah and all of the other pork in the project makes me think that stuff was wanted by a congressman or they wouldn't vote for the bill. So NASA may also be hamstrung by that aspect as well.

It's swaying around in the wind a bit....

[distantbody]

...I wonder if it could get blown off course :0

Re:It's swaying around in the wind a bit....

[sconeu]

Scrubbed due to weather at around 0820 PDT.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, CNN and MSNBC are done at the White House for now... they're filling the time until they can go back with thrilling coverage of "Balloon Boy" and "Michael Jackson: Yep, still dead!".

Cut the welfare and go to space

[tjstork]

I would rather throw a few thousand people off of disability and have the spaceship, then not, if it comes to that.

Re:Cut the welfare and go to space

[curmudgeon99]

So, since you're more than willing to allow [other] people to shoulder some pain so you can have your gee-wiz moments of watching blast offs, I would bet it's fair to say you're not on disability. How magnanimous of you.

[Full disclosure: I have never taken any sort of government benefit and am not on any now.]

Re:Cut the welfare and go to space

[IrquiM]

People like you is why the rest of the world hates USA (and not Canada)

Re:Cut the welfare and go to space

[TheKidWho]

So, since you're more than willing to allow [other] people to lose their jobs so you can have your gee wiz feel good moments, I would bet it's fair to say you're not one of the thousands employed by NASA or subcontractors.

[Full disclosure: I don't work for NASA or a subcontractor.]

Re:Cut the welfare and go to space

[mcgrew]

I would rather throw a few thousand people off of disability

Sorry, but you're a heartless bastard. The entire NASA budget for an entire year wouldn't pay for one day of the Iraq war nonsense. It costs each American something like $.07 per day for NASA's operation, well worth it IMO. Do you have any idea how much technological progress has come from the space program? Apparently not.

I think IHBT...

Re:Cut the welfare and go to space

[tjstork]

Sorry, but you're a heartless bastard.

Am I? The potential wealth in space is damn near infinite. Based on all available evidence, we have at least our solar system and likely hundreds of solar systems in our immediate vicinity at our disposal. If we did starve a generation, cut the federal budget for both the military and welfare and half, and spent it all on developing space technologies, sure, a hell of a lot of people would starve, but future generations would have unimaginable wealth and opportunity.

Re:Cut the welfare and go to space

[Anonymous Coward]

likely hundreds of solar systems in our immediate vicinity at our disposal

Not really. The nearest star to ours is about 2.5 light years away. Even assuming we could have a quantum leap in technology that allows us to get to HALF the speed of light, that's a 10 year round trip. To make any sort of mining/resource gathering/anything happen would require a round trip of ten years. Further assuming that you wouldn't be able to just touch down and start the trip back, you would need to add more time before the return trip/shuttle. Extrapolating that, if your return trip is that amazingly long, you better have either an amazingly valuable cargo (unlikely) or you would need to return with enough of the stuff in a trip to make over ten years of investment pay dividends.

I think a much more likely scenario for extra solar travel would be likely not to get out there, make some cash and return, but make a one way trip and seed a colony of sorts. I am not saying I don't think it's worth it. I really do think that general scientific research and space program's should be getting a much bigger slice of the pie compared to what they get, after all if there is so much money being thrown around right now, why should only the people who were BAD at their business get the "general fix this economy funds" thrown their way.

I don't think that cutting welfare is the best option for a country. I do however think that if a tenth of the money that the US spends on the military was spent instead on NPOs in other countries, even the very ones that you are at war with right now, there wouldn't be a need to be at war with them. Each day at war costs around $720 million dollars (Source Washington Post) and if instead of spending that much money to effectively do nothing (sorry, it's been such a miserable failure) the same money was spent on building hospitals, schools and general infrastructure in the same areas, there would not be such a high level of hostility and resentment from that region to the US. You don't make someone like you by invading their country, throwing out their leaders (no matter how they got there) and then telling people how to live. You make them like you by doing nice things for them. How can someone hate you when you built the school they went to, donated the hospital their family goes to and fixed their water and electricity supply from something shoddy and broken to functioning?

So, cut the war budget, be a little altruistic to other nations and do your "shock and awe" through sending amazing pictures to the world of what you did. Make a moon colony. Send a space ship to Mars. Send some real probes in hordes to every planet in the system. That will once again give people some awe of your country.

This won't make you directly rich by bringing back intergalactic booty, but it might just make you richer in ways you didn't expect and through other money you won't have to spend.

- Fluffeh.
(Posting Anon Cow because I already moderated in this forum)

Re:Cut the welfare and go to space

[mcgrew]

Sorry, but you're a heartless bastard.

Am I?

Ten years worth of disability payments wouldn't pay for one week of the Iraq war. It's chicken feed. You would deprive the handicapped for no reason whatever. And there are no other solar systems in our immediate vicinity! The closest one is Proxima Centauri, iinm it takes LIGHT four years to get there. It's going to be a long time before we can achieve even a considerable fraction of light speed.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nothing like a giant phallic symbol shot into space to prove your superiority, is there?

Delayed to 9:44 EDT

[cmiller173]

As I write, delayed till 9:44 EDT

Re:Delayed to 9:44 EDT

[burisch_research]

Just announced, T-4 resume delayed to 1500Z (11:00 EDT) putting the launch at 1504Z

Re:Delayed to 9:44 EDT

[cmiller173]

Just announced, T-4 resume delayed to 1515Z (11:15 EDT) putting the launch at 1519Z

Re:Delayed to 9:44 EDT

[cmiller173]

They did just mention that a fairly respectable break in the clouds is coming up and should give them a 25 min window. But you know how weather is...

Re:Delayed to 9:44 EDT

[cmiller173]

Make that Just announced, T-4 resume delayed to 1510Z (11:10 EDT) putting the launch at 1514Z

Re:Delayed to 9:44 EDT

[burisch_research]

Go for launch, just waiting for weather window to open up. T-4 resume imminent.

Re:Delayed to 9:44 EDT

[cmiller173]

No back to, T-4 resume delayed to 1515Z (11:15 EDT) putting the launch at 1519Z

Re:Delayed to 9:44 EDT

[cmiller173]

Now, T-4 resume delayed to 1520Z (11:15 EDT) putting the launch at 1524Z due to high winds.(21 knots)

Re:Delayed to 9:44 EDT

[cmiller173]

Scrubbed.

Further Delay

[cmiller173]

Just announced cargo ship in the range will need up to 90 min to clear the area.

Re:Further Delay

[cmiller173]

Range Control says clear. Curently 9:49 launch.

Re:Further Delay

[Anonymous Coward]

Countdown stopped, weather.

Re:Further Delay

[cmiller173]

Now targeting 10:54.

Re:Further Delay

[burisch_research]

Currently looking at 10:54 launch. Range is still red, but that's being cleared.

Re:Further Delay

[HotBBQ]

Still cloudy here (about 20 miles away).

Re:Awesome

[Enry]

I'd like to discuss this more, but we're out of time, so we'll have to leave it there.

Re:Awesome

[c0mpliant]

They're the most professional network in the business, three times more professional. Most people agree they have 20 to 35 to 70% more facts

Re:Awesome

[EvilBudMan]

nn

not necessarily

NASA had unlimited funds for Apollo. The funds are more limited in this case, so some "afro engineering", for lack of a more politically correct term, is bound to occur.

Lots of nits to pick

[Vexar]

First, it was a piece of string hanging off the top of the sensors, then it was a stray wisp of puffy cloud. After that, it was a ship that was somewhere around the launch location, although how close, I'll never doubt it was far enough not to get caught up in the blast, perhaps in danger of falling bits if the thing exploded. Presently, more wispy clouds and a failed radar system are plaguing a large but mostly harmless activity.

Personally, I think they should go ahead and launch it. The amount of money wasted in the hundreds of people running amok in Florida is outstanding.

Re:Lots of nits to pick

[ender-]

I agree. Lets face it, how are we going to have reliable manned space travel if they can't even handle launching through some light cloud-cover?

Re:Lots of nits to pick

[John Hasler]

> Personally, I think they should go ahead and launch it.

Sure. And then if it doesn't seem to go quite right in a way might have been due to the wind or lightning but the cloud cover and the broken radar mean they don't have enough data?

This is a test launch. Better to wait for perfect conditions. You don't want them to have to do it all over again.

Re:Lots of nits to pick

[Megane]

...except this isn't a "normal" launch. It's a test launch, and I'm sure they would really like to have nice clear camera views all the way up.

Still, hooray for choosing Florida as a launch site way back when. It may have a lot of clear downrange because it's along the "Dymaxion Equator", but it sucks for launch weather.

Re:Lots of nits to pick

[Nyeerrmm]

The entire point and purpose of this launch is to receive telemetry from the large number of instruments on the vehicle. Being able to compare the data to the models is the single most valuable thing that will come from this launch, since otherwise its mostly a publicity stunt (everything that is not a shuttle SRB is a dummy component) and theres a good chance that Ares 1 will be canceled.

With clouds and the potential to build up an electrical charge on the surface, there's a risk of losing data along the way. The cost of postponing the launch is far less than the cost of wasting this $450M launch.

Russians do it with Soyuz

[fantomas]

"Can you imagine the lateral stress on the structure if you attempted to build it horizontally and then hoist?

Ask the Russians, that's how they rig the Soyuz rockets. Been doing it pretty successfully for 40 years or so now.

Re:Awesome

[sexconker]

What about a giant phallic symbol driven violently and repeatedly into the ground of another nation?

Of course, rockets, lighthouses, obelisks, whatever are NOT phallic symbols. I know ACs have trouble finding theirs, but if you look at an actual penis, it doesn't look like any of those things. It carries a vague resemblance only in regards to it being longer in one dimension than it is in the others. Of course that resemblance is coincidental - that shape serves a purpose both for a penis and for a structure.

Scrub

[burisch_research]

Launch scrub for today due to weather.

Re:Scrub

[Anonymous Coward]

I liked the are you fucking kidding me tone of the other guy's "You're not going to resume?" towards the end. About the most exciting thing that happened when I was watching it.

Re:Scrub

[Anonymous Coward]

Few minutes for launch, get your seats!

Re:Scrub

[burisch_research]

The endless delays are killing me. At the moment looks like countdown will resume 11:26EDT (1526Z)

Re:Scrub

[burisch_research]

Flight successful.

forecast red for wind

[MrKaos]

looks like they have to scrub the launch.

Re:Awesome

[megamerican]

My giant corporate news source is way better than your giant corporate news source!

Scrubbed

[WolfeCanada]

Mission officially scrubbed

launch scrubbed to today

[WUNHJazz]

Launch is scrubbed for the day. They will try again tomorrow.

Re:Awesome

[DynaSoar]

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...

Since you are comparing launch vehicles rather than stage 1 boosters, I'll take it you mean Saturn C-1 which had the Saturn 1 first stage. It was the first of the Saturn family to fly. For comparison purposes we'll use that vs. the Ares 1-X CLV presently sitting on Pad 39B

Capabilities:
Saturn C-1: 19,800 lbs to LEO
Ares: 54,000 lbs to LEO

Development (proposal to first launch)
Saturn: 'Proposal for a National Integrated Missile and Space Vehicle Development Plan'; Werner von Braun 30 DEC 1957, to 27 OCT 1961 = ~46 months
Ares CLV: Initial design proposed September 2005 to (not yet flown but on pad 4 days ahead of schedule and awaiting a clear launch window) now = ~49 months

The 6.5% longer Ares development time is insignificant considering the August 2006 redesign from proven 4 segment SRB booster + shuttle main engine sustainer to untried 5 segment
SRB derivative + J-2S sustainer. The C1 didn't change significantly during development from the originally proposed cluster of Redstone airframes/tanks and engines.

As an aside, if the parent was posted with prior knowledge of these facts, the post itself the being purposefully false with the intent to instigate otherwise unnecessary replies, it would be a 'troll'. If the parent was posted in ignorance of the facts but simply intended to initiate arguments, it would be 'flamebait'. Intentionally or not, parent is quite the opposite of 'informative'. Sadly we do not have a '-1 misinformative' mod.

I'll not speculate on your intentions or on your possible state of ignorance/intellectual impairment, as time will produce a result more definitive than my mere opinion. I will note that like both the dummy payload carrying Saturn C1 and Ares 1-X, you appear to be capable of accomplishing little more than blowing a lot of smoke out of your ass.

Not a "pogo stick" test

[Anonymous Coward]

The "pogo stick" vibration is due to the frequency of the five segment motors, this test is flying a four segment motor and a mass simulator/instrument package. The vibration will not occur.

Re:Awesome

[Foobar of Borg]

Obama didn't start Ares, Bush did.

So then, Bush sucked ass as a president because he was too busy designing rockets? That must be why he ignored Katrina for as long as he did. He was immersed in a stability calculation.

Re:Awesome

[damburger]

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.

It's damping, not dampening.

[HomerJ]

I don't know why people like to toss that extra "en" in there. It's like when people spell ligthening for lightning.

Re:It's damping, not dampening.

[burisch_research]

You're right - damping is the correct usage in this instance. damping (dam'ping) n. The capacity built into a mechanical or electrical device to prevent excessive correction and the resulting instability or oscillatory conditions. dampen (dam'p?n) v., -ened, -ening, -ens. v.tr. 1. To make damp. To deaden, restrain, or depress: “trade moves . . . aimed at dampening protectionist pressures in Congress” (Christian Science Monitor). 2. To soundproof. v.intr. 3. To become damp. damp'ener n. http://www.englishforums.com/English/DampingVersusDampening/lpzh/post.htm

Some notes regarding the Ares I-X (and Ares I)

[FleaPlus]

Some items to note:

• The rocket is the tallest (and possibly most expensive, at $450 million) suborbital rocket ever assembled, consisting of a solid rocket motor from the Space Shuttle and an Atlas V avionics system, with a non-functional upper stage put on top.
• The Ares I-X has roughly the same shape (but different internal components) compared to NASA's planned medium-lift Ares I, which is scheduled to be completed after 2017 with an estimated cost of $1-$2 billion per launch. A lot of people have been calling this a flight test of the Ares I, but considering how drastically different the Ares I would be in flight, it's really quite a stretch. If anything, it's more similar to a full-size wind tunnel test.
• Even though the fate of the Ares I itself (and the overall future direction of NASA spaceflight) is uncertain, the >700 sensors on the Ares I-X should provide data useful for validating computer models used by NASA."
• For all its faults, it's still worth noting that this is somewhat of an accomplishment for NASA, as its the first new launch vehicle design they've attempted to launch in 30 years, after a long string of failed designs (X-30, X-33, X-34, National Launch System, Space Launch Initiative, Orbital Space Plane). Actually, now that I think about it, the DC-X successfully launched, although I suppose that was constructed by McDonnell Douglas for the DOD before it was transferred to (and canceled by) NASA. Of course, one could still ask why NASA is trying to internally design a new vehicle when the private sector has a much better track record over the past 30 years of bringing new launch vehicle designs into service, but I imagine it's still been a learning experience for NASA. Hopefully they'll learn the right lessons from it, whatever those are.

Re:Awesome

[EvilBudMan]

We may see who is right tomorrow if Obama doesn't take another trip to Florida in the presidential yacht. It seemd to be scrubbed just because of that boat being to close.

Knock off the censorship, moderators.

[tjstork]

You know I have 10 mod points, but I already posted this thread, so I can't mod you up. But let me say to others with points that you should not be modded down for what you wrote. This is not flamebait.

Re:Knock off the censorship, moderators.

[curmudgeon99]

Thank you. If one is advocating to spend more money, everybody is happy. Take a critical eye to any Sacred Cow and you're a pariah.

Ridiculous idea

[amightywind]

Look at a map, Yahoo. Brownsville is about at the same latitude as Miami. The increased payload due to latitude would be negligible. And there aren't any safe launch azimuths at all. A direct easterly launch would drop a first stage on Miami. A high inclination launch to the ISS would put the drop zone in St. Louis. Nice try. Cape Canaveral was well chosen site, indeed.

Re:Ridiculous idea

[demachina]

Uh, you should have looked at a map. The Shuttle SRB's splash down 160 miles down range, that isn't anywhere close to Miami or St Louis, its in the gulf unless you are launching on a polar trajectory. I doubt Ares or Apollo first stage would be much different. Worse thing about the Gulf, and its a more recent hazard are all the offshore oil platforms.

Russia has launched entirely over land for their entire history though the population in that area is somewhat sparser.

If you add up all launch delays and scrubs it must have cost NASA years in delays and billions of dollars so I doubt Florida really was a great choice hind sight being 20/20.

On top of that they play Russian roulette with every launch with lightning strikes which is a seriously bad thing for vehicles full of explosives and sensitive mission critical electronics, so Florida where severe thunderstorms are a daily occurrence was a dubious choice.

Would also have been a pretty good idea to partner with Mexico and put the launch site further south kind of like Europe did.

New attempt set for tomorrow!

[Rascally]

Just in case anyone's missed it, the Ares I-X is going to attempt again on Wednesday between 8 a.m. EDT and noon EDT.

Let's hope the weather works out better (well, and the missing piece from the top); I waited the whole night for the darn thing and it didn't even happen! :P

Wednesday 28th Launch Attempt

[burisch_research]

Currently launch is planned to take place at between 8.45 and 9.00 EDT (between 1245Z and 1300Z)

Re:Wednesday 28th Launch Attempt

[burisch_research]

Rotating service structure has been retracted. Launch targeted for between 9.00 and 9.15 EDT (1300Z and 1315Z). Triboelectrification is still a concern.

Re:Wednesday 28th Launch Attempt

[Anonymous Coward]

Success, done.