Slashdot Mirror


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.

7 of 260 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Rockets are impressive, but the VAB is insane by qmaqdk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm watching the stream now of them assembling the Ares and I must say the VAB is the most impressive building I've ever seen. I got to tour the inside (way back in the early 90s) and the amount of empty space available, inside a building that can withstand hurricane force winds. It is truly mind-boggling.

    I've always wondered about that building. Why is it so much better to do the assembly vertically, rather than doing it horizontally and then raising the vehicle afterwards?

    --
    My UID is prime. Hah!
  2. Re:Rockets are impressive, but the VAB is insane by Angostura · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Can you imagine the lateral stress on the structure if you attempted to build it horizontally and then hoist? I suspect the engineering challenge involved in building a machine that would give sufficient support along the full length of a multi-story structure as it was raised to vertical would be substantially greater than the challenge of constructing a tall, hurricane resistant building.

  3. Re:Rockets are impressive, but the VAB is insane by MichaelSmith · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Most launch vehicles are optimised to the point where they are basically balloons. They can't support themselves unless their tanks are pressurised and then only in one direction.

    I read that US engineers watched with amazement when a Russian booster was winched off a truck at an air show supported horizontally by two cables, one at either end.

  4. Re:I'm a rocket, man! by mikael_j · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sadly I suspect that the one thing that would really get NASA and ESA some serious funding would be if say, Pakistan, India and China all started attempts at building military space stations, especially China since they have the resources coupled with a "Just get it up there right now!" attitude similar to that of the soviets.

    It's not so easy to sit back and relax when some other guy decides that you can just train more astronauts if a few die if it means you get there first.

    /Mikael

    --
    Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
  5. Re:I'm a rocket, man! by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

    --

    Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

  6. Re:Rockets are impressive, but the VAB is insane by maxume · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  7. Re:Tragically, We Cannot Afford This Now by JWW · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This logic just pisses me off right now. NASA is asking for an extra $3 billion per year to build a new viable replacement to the space shuttle. When you contrast the other things the gov't is wastefully spending its money on its ridiculous.

    You could fund NASA the extra $3 billion for

    10 years instead of bailing out GM and Chrysler

    or

    Nearly 57 years instead of bailing out f-ing AIG

    THAT is government waste. Spending for NASA has always provided benefits for science and impacted our daily lives. Its a worthy endeavor and something necessary to IMHO spur on the advancement of the human race.

    Politicians make a great noise about "science and engineering" being important to this country. Lets see them back up those words. If NASA's new rockets die on the vine the politicians will have shown their true beliefs on this issue. If this nation fails to renew its capability for manned spaceflight, in my opinion, we will also distinctly show that to America, science and engineering don't matter anymore. Why not become a doctor or lawyer, oh wait, the doctors are going to get screwed by health care reform, so why not just become a lawyer if you want to be successful. This country no longer rewards those that build and design great things anymore, the money game and the ever growing soulless corporations get quite literally TRILLIONS of dollars in support from the government, and one of the biggest science and engineering problems we are trying to solve right now gets told "sorry theres not enough left for you". Its utter bullshit.

    Sure our government doesn't really have enough money right now, but not because of NASAs budget issues, it because they've been handing it out like f-ing candy to assholes on Wall Street who f-cked the country over and went laughing all the way to the bank(err government). We need to get all that money back (or at least stop giving it away) and start spending it on the RIGHT things.