Ares I-X

[Rackhir]

Yeah, this is pretty cool. It's awesome to think we're heading back to the moon in a few years.

If you mean manned, we're not. Not any time soon. That and mars have always been pipe dreams that were never funded. Just some political theater to make the prezs that proposed them look like they had a vision. With the baby boomer retirements + all that entails in terms of Social Security and medicare, there simply was never the money nor was there ever going to be. Not without some hefty tax increases, which aren't going to be happening either. The Ares project are largely just boondoggle projects that seem to have as their primary goal, protecting as many NASA jobs as possible.

I mean for gods sake, they're talking about de-orbiting the Space station in 2017 to pay for Ares. They've only JUST THIS YEAR finished the dammed thing.

If you want to actually get something done in space, I've given up on NASA. They'll do some good stuff with the "big picture" projects like the space telescopes and hopefully basic research into stuff like the Ion drives that are finally starting to look like they're getting to a useful stage. If there's any hope for the US in space, it's in the hands of companies like SpaceX, Scaled Composites (AKA Virgin Galactic), Armadillo Aerospace and the other small privately funded companies that are building an affordable, reliable, infrastructure for actually getting things done.

(What me bitter about what we've accomplished in the past 40 years. No not in the least. What would give you that idea?)

 

[El Mahdi]

The entry about the mission at Wikipedia here is really good. It breaks down the mission objectives, and the construction of the actual rocket used for the test with a bit about differences between it and the final versions. Being an avionics guy, I found the part about the avionics on the rocket most interesting. Such as, along with the necessary avionics for flight, this version also had 720 thermal, acceleration, acoustic, and vibration sensors all for test data. I always felt that aircraft flight data recorder systems for ASIP* had a lot of sensors. Man, they've got nothing on these rockets!

I've found it surprising, although I guess I shouldn't have, just how similiar avionics on a rocket or the shuttle are to standard aircraft avionics. When I took a tour at NASA this last spring, I was able to identify a good portion of the avionics components inside the Saturn V Instruments Package Ring. Although the components seemed to be much larger versions of what would be on a typical aircraft - and almost 50 year old technology. It had a gyro installed that had to have been well over a hundred pounds. Even most modern directional gyros weigh in at less than 10 pounds. But then, I guess the avionics on a rocket have to withstand significantly more g-forces than an aircrafts avionics.


Anyways, congratulations to NASA for a successful first test flight.

I'm looking forward to more, and have no doubt that NASA will get us back to the Moon, and eventually on to Mars.


I guess for me, hope springs eternal...

...and I'm gonna dance with the one that brought me!



(*ASIP stands for Aircraft Structural Integrity Program. Not to be confused with Flight Data Recorders on commercial aircraft. Those record instrument and navigation data about a flight. ASIP Flight Data Recorders record structural integrity data such as signals from strain gauges, in order to monitor the long term health of an aircrafts structure.)

 

[Thunderfoot]

We must be wary of false economy. It would seem to be a win to have a reusable vehicle, but we must remember how much more engineering and technology and maintenance and oversight must go into a vehicle to make it and keep it reusable.

The Shuttle was arguably the most complicated machine on the planet. For most jobs getting to orbit you don't need such a complicated machine.

Great point! When the shuttle series was first rolled out, it was assumed that the then projected manned deep space exploration missions would be the foundation on which their service was built. Of course, right after the first shuttles rolled out the long range manned space exploration projects were pulled and switched to solely automated sources (satellites, probes, HST and the like).

I think the idea of mission oriented capsules, as dated as that concept sounds was viewed as a strictly financial win/win situation. I hope the government/people can see the actual benefits of space exploration instead of just some folks floating around; my calculator, watch, computer and cell phone all thank them.

 

[El Mahdi]

Here's a very cool picture from the launch.

 

[Orius]

I mean for gods sake, they're talking about de-orbiting the Space station in 2017 to pay for Ares. They've only JUST THIS YEAR finished the dammed thing.

That is ridiculous. What's the point of building that thing if we're not going to use it? The whole point of the shuttles were to build and service the space station to begin with, but then they were supposed to get started on it like 20 years ago. Then Challenger blew up, funding got cut, and then we started getting wimpy on space. That's about as much as I can really say before violating the whole politics ban, but a lot of this stuff is supposed to be long term gains. It'll be difficult and expensive at first, but I seriously believe that we need to start working on lunar and Martian colonies for the long term benefit and survival of the human race, and do it seriously.

Plus while space probes are interesting, they don't capture the imagination of the public like manned missions do. Look how excited people were when we dropped that rocket onto the moon a few weeks ago.

If you want to actually get something done in space, I've given up on NASA. They'll do some good stuff with the "big picture" projects like the space telescopes and hopefully basic research into stuff like the Ion drives that are finally starting to look like they're getting to a useful stage. If there's any hope for the US in space, it's in the hands of companies like SpaceX, Scaled Composites (AKA Virgin Galactic), Armadillo Aerospace and the other small privately funded companies that are building an affordable, reliable, infrastructure for actually getting things done.

I'm feeling the same way. These private comanies have the money, the backing of investors who want to go into space because there's no tourist spots left on Earth for the wealthy to brag about, they've been to all of them (), and the dream. And they don't have to worry about elections and budgets and stuff. Ok, maybe they have to worry about their stocks losing value, but that'll just weed out the inefficient companies.

 

[Umbran]

That is ridiculous. What's the point of building that thing if we're not going to use it?

Needs change.

The whole point of the shuttles were to build and service the space station to begin with, but then they were supposed to get started on it like 20 years ago.

That is not nearly the whole picture.

Back in 1969, President Nixon decided to take the US Space Program down the road of building a low earth orbit infrastructure - in essence, to have space station(s) and shuttles to and from them. The immediate follow-on from that was neither the Shuttle, nor ISS, but Skylab.

A reusable vehicle costs more to create and maintain than an expendable one. The way to make up that cost is in launch frequency - one reusable vehicle used many times is cheaper than many expendable vehicles. However, the infrastructure-support program alone was known to be insufficient to make shuttles viable. So, other launch programs were added to what the Shuttle needed to do, including some capabilities that have rarely been used (launching satellites into polar orbits, and launching from Vandenburg AFB among them).

So, being a servant of multiple masters had some hefty impact on the design and complexity of the Shuttle, and thus its costs. Unfortunately, nobody fully understood the impact at the time...

Nixon green-lit starting research on building reusable vehicles back in 1971 - back before we had anything like the technology, or the practice of flying things so complicated. The whole idea is 40 years old. We should be applying all that we've learned in that time to our plans going forward.

 

[drothgery]

We must be wary of false economy. It would seem to be a win to have a reusable vehicle, but we must remember how much more engineering and technology and maintenance and oversight must go into a vehicle to make it and keep it reusable.

Really, the most important factor to reducing costs is operational tempo. If you only do three or four launches a year, even with a completely reuseable vehicle (as opposed to the rebuildable shuttle), it's going to be insanely expensive per launch because the development costs and fixed operational costs (i.e. the stuff you'll need whether you do one launch a year or one a week) aren't going to spread out among enough launches.

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[Rackhir]

Not really a big surprise. Ares was taking a long time, underperforming and was a step backwards while being horribly expensive.

Anyone who thought that W's "space" program was going to be going any further than H's, I'm sure would be interested in some federally protected wetlands I have for sale in florida. Neither the so-called moon or mars "programs" were anything other than an attempt at PR. They were never funded with anything like the money it would have taken to do either or even just replace the space shuttle in a timely manner. It was PR BS from the start.

 

[Umbran]

It was PR BS from the start.

Yes, but some of us would prefer to try to make a silk purse from a sow's ear than to just let all our stuff fall on the floor forgotten.