So i read that the SRB's provided 83% of the lift for the spaceshuttle.
So why is it then they don't use 4 SRB's one n each side on these new rockets? It just seems that the liquid systems don't provide enough thrust for there size
@BricktropolisStudios - NO!!! This launch vid is from Ares 1Y animation..... But on all launches Crew Access Arm must be retracted minutes before launch..... Thats why...
Oh Look, the intellectual level of the US has sunk so far we are going back to 1960 "Spam in a can" technology. This is nothing but warmed over Apollo Tech. No wonder the best space designers are working for private space companies. Total and complete trash.
@biggseye I understand your frustration although the Apollo technology is pretty fucking impressive, considering there have not been any 'magical' inventions combined with the fact that physics haven't changed leads me to ask you -would would you suggest as a better method for travel to the moon?
@MightySaturn5 Apollo would require massive funding to build one after 40 years. The facotries, dies, presses whatever else used to make it have all since been destroyed, scrapped etc. You would essentially be building a new rocket from the ground up. I would love to see apollo be built with modern tech applied to her, but I also understand its more cost effective to start over and build something even better.
Слишкмо сложная система как запуска так и посадки. Крайне ненадежная. Слишком много механизмов и устройств. На настрйоку и балансировку всей системы уйдет лет 10 и куча неудачных запусков. Так что непонятно на что они там надеються в НАСА.
@meteor4163 they cancelled this because obama need the money to bail out big companies, which failed, just like the stimulous. what we need is another JFK
America has already proved to the world they are not worthy of having a space program in the last few years, that's why the Russians are kicking theirs into high gear right now.
@gurusurfers No, it was cancelled because it was late and way over budget. Bush cancelled the Shuttle because the vehicles were old and they were getting more expensive to repair. Also the turn around times were getting longer and more complicated. The threat of another vehicle failure was growing and with Orion way off track it was felt that it was better to drop the program. Now, Congress, over-run with republican's can't even pass a funding bill for NASA.
Ares1 carries less mass to orbit than any other rocket based on its size (almost as tall as SaturnV). The rocket is problematic from the start because of using Shuttle parts (keep welfare going to Shuttle workers). If you have a SRB main stage (danger!! Can't be turned off) you need a massive escape system to have a prayer of escaping. Thus, the rocket must be a heavy lift system and thus comes great cost. Stop the insanity!
This will be great...but I bet the repugs are just chomping at the bit to get their dirty greedy hands on NASA's budget. Heaven forbid we find a way to leave them behind one day!
Yes, we know, nobody landed on the Moon, nobody landed landers on Mars, nobody launched the Hubble Space Telescope, nobody died horrible deaths on many occasions in failing machinery to perpetrate this "fantasy".
that gave us the ambition to debate about theoratical physics as many do today.\
Also experiments are done like in the iss with alot of answers.
And we acknowledged spaceflight isnt anywhere dangerous and we have settled a future goal for mankind. If were close to attaining that goal (which is life in space) in a short time period is a no period. Im afraid we just have to wait, one day private companies will be the future. Its sad that in the meantime aboma sees no value in nasa missions.
Finally! An orion video without any crazy conspiracy comments! Anyway, I don't want to be "That guy," but it seems like it's either the Ares 1 or the Falcon 9 right now. And seeing as how the Falcon has already made it to orbit, NASA might've already lost out to the private sector.
Please God! Obama you better not mess this up! I want NASA to succeed in this so bad. Building a moon base in order to mine the minerals there and all that stuff they are going to do will ignite the space race even more. Then before you know we'll have colonies on the moon, mars, and beyond! woot!
I've always found it interesting that NASA went with the design for the Orion space vehicle. It reminds me of the 1960's design. It's ashame theres no money for the proejct.
@DraconianSilenced yeah believe it or not but the Space Shuttle always was designed to be a cheap alternative to this, unfortunately it was also alot more dangerous, that is why they have gone back to this design
God is Holy, you are displaying filth that is evidence of wickness. Remove the dung from your heart and be clean. Cry unto the Lord for mercy! Help us Jesus!
Plus you cant wait 5 years? and either way OUR planet is more important not another planet though i am disappointed this wont happen for the next 5 years... ah well i got time
I know what you mean, but he didn't scarp it. He scrapped it. Actually the American Congress has to vote on the budget before it becomes law, and that could take months. There is still a chance that Constellation won't be totally scrapped.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Have I just gone back in time 40 years??? seriously wtf is this..... 1960's = Apollo with computers less powerful than todays mobile phones. 2009 = Apollo 2. wtf??????
Yes, however it still begs the question. for the millions and millions (of tax payers money) they have spent in the R&D budget.... what on??? a bigger pencil?
@Xoranium For long distance travel (i.e. to the Moon & to Mars) the space-plane design of the Space Shuttle isn't practical. The Space Shuttle's sole design purpose was for ferrying crew & equipment to an orbital space station (alas, a purpose that it's only now realizing some 30 years after it was initially built). The missions prior to the ISS were something that the shuttle wasn't designed for.
Good job on the vid! It's amazing how complicated this whole process is. You'd think they'd figure out a way to do this without all the seprating stages, docking and jettisoning parts. It'd be pretty cool if they could build something like the Shuttle that could reach the Moon and come back in one peice instead of getting smaller and smaller with each jettison.
I wanted to hear the rocket sounds; some people think their personal taste in music is more important than the original audio. Rather selfish. Oh well.
I can't wait till it's economically feasable to mine resources up there. Then the corporate space race will begin and things will really start to take off.
@URProductions Keep dreaming pal. No seriously keep dreaming. If the corporate space race is part of your dream of the future of then who am I to debase it. It's good to have a dream. Hundreds of years ago men dreamed of going to the moon. And although some of their ideas were pretty silly at least they had a dream. A dream, a desire to escape this sick and diseased world and make a better place for themselves out among the stars.
actually in my opinion there is no reason to go to the moon anymore!, We should go to the mars straight!, instead, we spend money and time for the moon,..
we are all grandpa/s until we see a man on mars..
@cyther39 Im sorry, but no, we haven't explord the moon, we have only visited it, now we are actually going there for energy and for diamonds, platinum, water, and other metals , and minerals. We are getting energy from it having no atmosphere which can irritate light which will - on the moon - give us more power. Another example is Helium 3, 23 tons will power the U.S. for a year at least. Also, Before we go to Mars, we need to research living longterm on a base.
@cyther39 There are resources on the moon that will go a long way towards our ability to eventually visit & hopefully colonize Mars. Also, in order to design long-term, self-sustaining habitats & technology, it makes sense to start on the Moon. If a problem occurs, it's a lot quicker to send help to the Moon (approx. 1 week travel time) than it is to Mars (6 mos. to over 1 yr travel time).
i was interested in the video at first but when the song started to play, i was looking through my year books LMFAO! cause they kept on playing that song for every dances we had at school hahahah
The Americans have created the space station Skylab you remember? finished its golden age came the turn of the same space station ISS with the Russian MIR. if they had reviewed the revised by apollo head maybe now we can go to Mars, instead we should try on the moon when we know full well that a satellite is dead, devoid of apparent life ristudiare and then groped mars
have you got the money for us to go to mars. seriously there is no money. we need to create a way of sending people in space quickly and efficiently. i recommend researching in a way to manipulate the higgs boson field. we would be able to travel at the speed of light. but we would need all of the worlds power in one millionth of a cm. which youd then need to cover the entire space craft which is an unbelievable amount of electricity
They plan to use Moon as a "low gravity" base for future manned missions. Think of it: On the moon, you can get a baseball into orbit if you hit it very hard :P
What sense is there a link to the international space station with an Orion spacecraft and then to discover about the moon? To this I say that the space shuttle is a step back the orbiter can not go at the top of the atmosphere, have wasted 20 years to build the space station when they should review the apollo program has improved significantly
The international space station (iss) is leading the way in the sense that we are inside the laboratories, there is a very important Hubble telescope to observe the universe but I can not see a great use for future missions to the moon ..
They are coming out with these solar panels that they will use for solar farms on the North and South side of the moon (which means that at least one side will be in the sun) they eventually want to transfer the solar energy to the earth using microwaves and and receivers this will help power the earth because the solar panels will be producing energy 24/7... That is one thing NASA would like to do on the moon :)
Does anyone know why NASA scrapped the Ares IV? It seems like it would be a whole lot cheaper just to launch one Ares IV rather than launch the Ares I and V for the same mission.
NASA said that it would be less reliable and less cost effective for the overall mission (going to the moon AND the iss) i agree that it was a better rocket on paper, but rockets don't launch on paper.
Very similar to the Apollo spacecraft, however, the lunar module and the rest of the aircraft will travel separately during the launch and automatically locks in Earth orbit, while the apollo departed from the earth with the lunar module docked. Another change will be effective the air will change from the pure oxygen to oxygen , oxygen nitrogen (N2/O2)
To conclude my speech, I am very happy though with the "new spacecraft Orion" we return to the Moon and you get to a future on Mars, but 'can not' say that the basic concept is modern ...
The improvements we are compared to the spacecraft in 1970 but are based on the same concept.
The space shuttle (Challenger, Columbia, Discovery and Atlantis) are a further step back because the orbiter is not big to cross the Earth's orbit in fact, since the last Apollo mission man has never set foot on the moon.
but i think that the ISS is a step forward, with all of the observatories and labs. they are just different, there is no back or forward. Obviously nobody landed on the moon since apollo, and the shuttles can't cross the LSOI, they weren't designed to.
The project of NASA Orion seems like a big step back but at the same time forward.
They took as a model the spacecraft apollo and have modernized, new computers, new module lunar, new rocket (goodbye saturn V) are aesthetically very similar to the Apollo spacecraft of the years 60-70. Able to go to the moon to mars but we do not have the technology yet, maybe ...
in all honesty what is the point in going back to the moon again? the only reason to go there again is to either colonise it or mine it for it's elements i really dont see the point in another mission to the moon for man to walk on it again
Proconsulaugustus you are an idiot by calling other people idiots without any reason. I speak your language very well and you haven't probably even heard for my language. So, you are stupid like shit.
Now about Orion - after 45 years of research they use same principles (multistage), same propulsion, same orbiters and landing techniques. And that isn't even your technology. It's German technology from WW2. Please educate your self.
Virtually everything reenters the atmosphere and burns up or in the case of the solid rocket boosters and other major components parachute back to earth and are sometimes reused in later missions. But yes, there is always residual debris, insulation and crystallized gasses that can be potentially dangerous but the alternative is to not go to space at all. Some day we will create orbital dust bins to clean the most dangerous stuff up.
No. Building winged vehicles that went up to space like rockets and returning to Earth like gliders. Do I need to elaborate? What'd you expect we'd have by now, X-Wings?
You're an idiot. The only thing that is old is the Ares I rocket. Everything else on board is absolutely one of a kind brand new stuff. You can't even spell Apollo let alone get a basic understanding of the complexities of the Orion mission. The water dispenser on the crew vehicle would boggle your insect mind.
Proconsulaugustus you are an idiot by calling other people idiots without any reason. I speak your language very well and you haven't probably even heard for my language. So, you are stupid like shit.
Now about Orion - after 45 years of research they use same principles (multistage), same propulsion, same orbiters and landing techniques. And that isn't even your technology. It's German technology from WW2. Please educate your self.
You are right. They have new materials, new computers and other improvements. I'm not talking about such improvements. I'm talking about concept that is the same and a step backwards comapred to shuttle.
Design concept for the shuttle was reusablity, which the Ares has, and landing horizontally on land to cut refurb time. The mission profile has changed since shuttle design in the '70's. Post Challenger, we don't have an interest in space launches every two weeks because it means less time for safety. HTOL or VTO-HL would be nice, but it's not the important piece of the vehicle: payload. Ares is a *reusable* Saturn V. We've never had that much lifting capacity on a reusable platform before.
That sounds reasonable, but this is just a compromise because NASA doesnt have sufficient budget. US government spends money on hundreds of useless things, like making expensive weapon systems and than destroying them without any operational use, etc.
Burning up parts of rocket in atmosphere and landing by parachutes shouldn't be technology of 21st century. Technology of 21 century should be based of totally new physics. I hope LHC is one of steps in that direction.
@TemplarOnHigh Of course, however this only strenghens the question "what did the R&D spend all the money on?" given the design is the same. Innovation I feel is lacking somewhat within NASA.
@Xoranium I completely agree, you would think with the Shuttle being developed almost a quarter of century ago. We would easily be able to develop some sort of technology where we could literally "shuttle" to and from space. Looking at this it reminds me of videos of the Saturn rockets and makes you wonder why hasn't there been any sort of leap in technology. The money has always been there for NASA, I am all for NASA but the advances from 1960-1985 were huge were are they from 1986-2010
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Okay seriously, this is stupid. Over 50 years later, huge leaps in technology and we're back the Apollo? And then to make it even more of a joke, the first mission is to the moon?!
survival... if we colonize space, then we will still be around when earth is gone, i'd say that's worth more than a lot of the things the government spends tax payers money on
NASA's budget only accounts for less than 2% of the Federal budget. If you're gonna complain about where your tax money is going, try complaining about that chick who gave birth to octuplets, and was gonna get the government to support her with taxpayer money. Mmkay? Thanks for sharing.
Climate pollution from a heavly lifting rocket:1.000:000car tanks burned all in the atmosphere in 12 minutes. a million times 10000€ (for each car) = 10billion euros for each rocket. Now im more fond of a space race to settle it but you cant deny that current rocket missions are really expensive weight to many other factors.
The only things we gained from spaceflight is a general discription of almost any planet and or moon in our solar system, far away things
@Armigo91 "Climate pollution from a heavly lifting rocket:1.000:000car tanks burned all in the atmosphere in 12 minutes" Hydrogen-oxygen rockets don't pollute (they blow water out of the nozzle). Guess what was the main fuel of Space Shuttle and is the fuel of Ariane 5?
It's the solid rocked boosters that spit crap, but thankfully they burn for a fraction of that time (a few minutes)
@Armigo91 "a million times 10000€ (for each car) = 10billion euros for each rocket" Bullshit. Look at astronautix.c om to find the real prices. Saturn V costed around 400 1971 dollars = 2.2 billion dollars. And was a MOON ROCKET. Smaller stuff is cheaper.
Although I agree that in general spaceflight is costly.
Anything with this kind-of music needs to be cancelled.
PirateSygnal 1 week ago
I want to fly into space))
pidvinyurr 2 weeks ago
So i read that the SRB's provided 83% of the lift for the spaceshuttle.
So why is it then they don't use 4 SRB's one n each side on these new rockets? It just seems that the liquid systems don't provide enough thrust for there size
Darkie007 2 weeks ago in playlist NASA
i think rucka red rocks would have been a better song
ultraAnonymous556 1 month ago
@BricktropolisStudios - NO!!! This launch vid is from Ares 1Y animation..... But on all launches Crew Access Arm must be retracted minutes before launch..... Thats why...
135poly 2 months ago
@135poly Oh, thanks for the info:)
BricktropolisStudios 2 months ago
Oh Look, the intellectual level of the US has sunk so far we are going back to 1960 "Spam in a can" technology. This is nothing but warmed over Apollo Tech. No wonder the best space designers are working for private space companies. Total and complete trash.
biggseye 2 months ago
@biggseye I understand your frustration although the Apollo technology is pretty fucking impressive, considering there have not been any 'magical' inventions combined with the fact that physics haven't changed leads me to ask you -would would you suggest as a better method for travel to the moon?
MightySaturn5 1 week ago
@MightySaturn5 Apollo would require massive funding to build one after 40 years. The facotries, dies, presses whatever else used to make it have all since been destroyed, scrapped etc. You would essentially be building a new rocket from the ground up. I would love to see apollo be built with modern tech applied to her, but I also understand its more cost effective to start over and build something even better.
xXDEICIDE216Xx 5 days ago
Great video, but I think that you put the launches in the wrong order. I think it is Ares V first and then it is the launch of Ares I.
BricktropolisStudios 2 months ago
is that just an SRB with a capsule on top?
eddsworldfan333 2 months ago
Did anyone else see that there was no way for the astronauts to get on Ares 1?
BricktropolisStudios 2 months ago
@animalover24511 I love it too :)
BricktropolisStudios 2 months ago
Great song
BricktropolisStudios 2 months ago
Слишкмо сложная система как запуска так и посадки. Крайне ненадежная. Слишком много механизмов и устройств. На настрйоку и балансировку всей системы уйдет лет 10 и куча неудачных запусков. Так что непонятно на что они там надеються в НАСА.
ravendots 3 months ago
@ravendots Что в ней такого сложного?? Она почти полностью повторяет программу Аполлон, только командный модуль выводится отдельной ракетой.
tairbakiev 3 months ago
Victory is mine!
Enatbyte 3 months ago
What is spacebat????? Can anyone say what is spacebat???
135poly 5 months ago
Good song
135poly 5 months ago
Still don't get why did they cancel this.
meteor4163 5 months ago
@meteor4163 they cancelled this because obama need the money to bail out big companies, which failed, just like the stimulous. what we need is another JFK
gurusurfers 1 month ago
@gurusurfers
America has already proved to the world they are not worthy of having a space program in the last few years, that's why the Russians are kicking theirs into high gear right now.
Shuttheheckup735 4 weeks ago
@gurusurfers No, it was cancelled because it was late and way over budget. Bush cancelled the Shuttle because the vehicles were old and they were getting more expensive to repair. Also the turn around times were getting longer and more complicated. The threat of another vehicle failure was growing and with Orion way off track it was felt that it was better to drop the program. Now, Congress, over-run with republican's can't even pass a funding bill for NASA.
Postie218 1 week ago
1:33 absolutely kickass!!
ilgetz 5 months ago 5
they shouldnt have destroyed the schematics for the saturn V rocket....we'd be living on mars right now!
blahblahblah696869 7 months ago
Ares1 carries less mass to orbit than any other rocket based on its size (almost as tall as SaturnV). The rocket is problematic from the start because of using Shuttle parts (keep welfare going to Shuttle workers). If you have a SRB main stage (danger!! Can't be turned off) you need a massive escape system to have a prayer of escaping. Thus, the rocket must be a heavy lift system and thus comes great cost. Stop the insanity!
ti994apc 7 months ago
If it wasn't for the language in the music---or the annotation---I would have "liked" it.
Lavenderrose73 7 months ago
This will be great...but I bet the repugs are just chomping at the bit to get their dirty greedy hands on NASA's budget. Heaven forbid we find a way to leave them behind one day!
americanzero8503 7 months ago
They Should Build A Station in orbit where ships can be made and launched. It would save on used fuel to get out of the atmosphere.
deadlus16 9 months ago
do they have to wear g suits when they land?
Astronautical123 9 months ago
Comment removed
Astronautical123 9 months ago
nice video man
MrInsects 11 months ago
lol don't forget your water purifiers! you'll be scooping up water from the ground! awesome
bboyzjimmy1 1 year ago
Comment removed
eruditemaestro1 1 year ago
@eruditemaestro1 "Suck on that you fantasistic morons."
.
Yes, we know, nobody landed on the Moon, nobody landed landers on Mars, nobody launched the Hubble Space Telescope, nobody died horrible deaths on many occasions in failing machinery to perpetrate this "fantasy".
.
How's the ADVERTISING REVENUE?
.
Does it still PAY to DISINFORM others, then?
beachcomber2008 1 year ago
Comment removed
eruditemaestro1 1 year ago
Comment removed
eruditemaestro1 1 year ago
@eruditemaestro1 It isn't me that takes down your pearls of wisdom
Are you biphasic or is it that others feel the same way as I do?
beachcomber2008 1 year ago
Comment removed
eruditemaestro1 1 year ago
Comment removed
eruditemaestro1 1 year ago
Comment removed
eruditemaestro1 1 year ago
that gave us the ambition to debate about theoratical physics as many do today.\
Also experiments are done like in the iss with alot of answers.
And we acknowledged spaceflight isnt anywhere dangerous and we have settled a future goal for mankind. If were close to attaining that goal (which is life in space) in a short time period is a no period. Im afraid we just have to wait, one day private companies will be the future. Its sad that in the meantime aboma sees no value in nasa missions.
Armigo91 1 year ago
the modern saturn 5 rocket :D
drey4lyfee 1 year ago
Finally! An orion video without any crazy conspiracy comments! Anyway, I don't want to be "That guy," but it seems like it's either the Ares 1 or the Falcon 9 right now. And seeing as how the Falcon has already made it to orbit, NASA might've already lost out to the private sector.
LegosPL0X 1 year ago
loved the vid! You forgot the alitair and orion docking after the lunar landing, so it looks like orion abandonned the alitair on the moon! lol
Traxxasman11 1 year ago
Please God! Obama you better not mess this up! I want NASA to succeed in this so bad. Building a moon base in order to mine the minerals there and all that stuff they are going to do will ignite the space race even more. Then before you know we'll have colonies on the moon, mars, and beyond! woot!
SaMaG37 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
gay gay gay
OTULP62 1 year ago
Why the jigaboo music?
noacronym 1 year ago
Can we be done with rocketry please? Good god. Outdated much?
bweazel 1 year ago
@bweazel
I guess you know how to build something better?
MokomaSusi 1 year ago
amazing that the chutes can open at that speed, 25,000 mph. I think the chutes wouldn't deploy.
nrobnas43 1 year ago
lol, spacebat, nice reference there.
EdouardDubois 1 year ago
I've always found it interesting that NASA went with the design for the Orion space vehicle. It reminds me of the 1960's design. It's ashame theres no money for the proejct.
DraconianSilenced 1 year ago
@DraconianSilenced yeah believe it or not but the Space Shuttle always was designed to be a cheap alternative to this, unfortunately it was also alot more dangerous, that is why they have gone back to this design
LucasJodoKast 1 year ago
@LucasJodoKast mind you they are only using the original method, everything in these new space craft is state of the art
LucasJodoKast 1 year ago
it should be crew exploration vehicle for CEV
bnncff 1 year ago
SCREWED BY OBAMA....The AIG executives need another bonus
dcb1138 1 year ago
Obama wants to re-pave the same old highways, instead of building more paths to space
manofsan 2 years ago
Obama = sence 800 billion to do the moon and mars mission planed by Bush. Think its better we fix our planet first.
NielsShoe 2 years ago
@NielsShoe precisely what is wrong with this planet?
JRtransport379 1 year ago
obamas real name is barack nobama
damonkat26 2 years ago
God is Holy, you are displaying filth that is evidence of wickness. Remove the dung from your heart and be clean. Cry unto the Lord for mercy! Help us Jesus!
ReadPsalms1 2 years ago
@ReadPsalms1 Please take that off here. No one wants to read that nor does anyone care.
Apollo580 2 years ago
Jeez, Obama is such a visionary isn't he?
Are you starting to feel the hope now? I bet you're certainly noticing the change?
CharmingLordSausage 2 years ago
OBAMA = One Big Ass Mistake America
Hope ? There is none for Nasa space programs
Change ? That's what you'll be lucky to have left in your pocket.
crakrjack 2 years ago
@crakrjack
Calm down
FS9Media 1 year ago
@crakrjack
Plus you cant wait 5 years? and either way OUR planet is more important not another planet though i am disappointed this wont happen for the next 5 years... ah well i got time
FS9Media 1 year ago
Comment removed
guitarnashelter 2 years ago 4
@guitarnashelter And by reading your message it's obvious that the school system has failed too.
Enatbyte 3 months ago
Comment removed
guitarnashelter 3 months ago
@guitarnashelter Nope, he's right.
illustriouschin 3 months ago
@illustriouschin Thanks for the support.
Enatbyte 3 months ago
It will be so amazing and see this for real in July 2020 ! 51 year since Apolla 11 !!
kurt30001 2 years ago 2
@kurt30001 Obama scarped constellation program
FirbenEU 2 years ago
Hi FirbenEU,
I know what you mean, but he didn't scarp it. He scrapped it. Actually the American Congress has to vote on the budget before it becomes law, and that could take months. There is still a chance that Constellation won't be totally scrapped.
SuperMagnetizer 2 years ago 2
Obama has cut all funding to constellation. The once great USA won't be going back to the moon for a very long time..
Estexan07 2 years ago 3
Comment removed
47arff 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Have I just gone back in time 40 years??? seriously wtf is this..... 1960's = Apollo with computers less powerful than todays mobile phones. 2009 = Apollo 2. wtf??????
Xoranium 2 years ago
Correcting: The computers with the same power of a hand calculator.
MusicLOG1 2 years ago
Yes, however it still begs the question. for the millions and millions (of tax payers money) they have spent in the R&D budget.... what on??? a bigger pencil?
Xoranium 2 years ago
@Xoranium For long distance travel (i.e. to the Moon & to Mars) the space-plane design of the Space Shuttle isn't practical. The Space Shuttle's sole design purpose was for ferrying crew & equipment to an orbital space station (alas, a purpose that it's only now realizing some 30 years after it was initially built). The missions prior to the ISS were something that the shuttle wasn't designed for.
tchapman1977 1 year ago
Good job on the vid! It's amazing how complicated this whole process is. You'd think they'd figure out a way to do this without all the seprating stages, docking and jettisoning parts. It'd be pretty cool if they could build something like the Shuttle that could reach the Moon and come back in one peice instead of getting smaller and smaller with each jettison.
TonyN737 2 years ago
I wanted to hear the rocket sounds; some people think their personal taste in music is more important than the original audio. Rather selfish. Oh well.
QuantumStates 2 years ago 2
I can't wait till it's economically feasable to mine resources up there. Then the corporate space race will begin and things will really start to take off.
URProductions 2 years ago 8
ya nigga STAR WARS!
JEDIMASTERZAK 2 years ago
@URProductions Keep dreaming pal. No seriously keep dreaming. If the corporate space race is part of your dream of the future of then who am I to debase it. It's good to have a dream. Hundreds of years ago men dreamed of going to the moon. And although some of their ideas were pretty silly at least they had a dream. A dream, a desire to escape this sick and diseased world and make a better place for themselves out among the stars.
redmartianresident 1 year ago
@URProductions wont happen, its so much $ just to leave...
mrswartz 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What the fuck is with the music?
URProductions 2 years ago
actually in my opinion there is no reason to go to the moon anymore!, We should go to the mars straight!, instead, we spend money and time for the moon,..
we are all grandpa/s until we see a man on mars..
sorry for bad english..
cyther39 2 years ago
Comment removed
numantunak 2 years ago
@cyther39 Im sorry, but no, we haven't explord the moon, we have only visited it, now we are actually going there for energy and for diamonds, platinum, water, and other metals , and minerals. We are getting energy from it having no atmosphere which can irritate light which will - on the moon - give us more power. Another example is Helium 3, 23 tons will power the U.S. for a year at least. Also, Before we go to Mars, we need to research living longterm on a base.
numantunak 2 years ago
@cyther39 There are resources on the moon that will go a long way towards our ability to eventually visit & hopefully colonize Mars. Also, in order to design long-term, self-sustaining habitats & technology, it makes sense to start on the Moon. If a problem occurs, it's a lot quicker to send help to the Moon (approx. 1 week travel time) than it is to Mars (6 mos. to over 1 yr travel time).
tchapman1977 1 year ago
Send robots first. Cheaper, quicker. Have the robots set up the environment for humans. Send humans next.
2242bzo 2 years ago
Very realistic i hope that can be done soon. Looks like more effiecent than space shuttle.
eal1011 2 years ago 4
I love the video and I sincerly hope that this project is completed but please get ride of the subtitles.
collegetown10 2 years ago
ouch!
natewebb 2 years ago
@collegetown10
how can you not like spacebat?
AustralianPyro 7 months ago
i was interested in the video at first but when the song started to play, i was looking through my year books LMFAO! cause they kept on playing that song for every dances we had at school hahahah
sugoiking 2 years ago
1:25 the 2nd or 3rd stage of ares 5, looks a lot like 3rd stage saturn 5
itsaidhi 2 years ago
The Americans have created the space station Skylab you remember? finished its golden age came the turn of the same space station ISS with the Russian MIR. if they had reviewed the revised by apollo head maybe now we can go to Mars, instead we should try on the moon when we know full well that a satellite is dead, devoid of apparent life ristudiare and then groped mars
C4ille4n 2 years ago
have you got the money for us to go to mars. seriously there is no money. we need to create a way of sending people in space quickly and efficiently. i recommend researching in a way to manipulate the higgs boson field. we would be able to travel at the speed of light. but we would need all of the worlds power in one millionth of a cm. which youd then need to cover the entire space craft which is an unbelievable amount of electricity
kahuna390 2 years ago
They plan to use Moon as a "low gravity" base for future manned missions. Think of it: On the moon, you can get a baseball into orbit if you hit it very hard :P
Helge129 2 years ago 3
What sense is there a link to the international space station with an Orion spacecraft and then to discover about the moon? To this I say that the space shuttle is a step back the orbiter can not go at the top of the atmosphere, have wasted 20 years to build the space station when they should review the apollo program has improved significantly
C4ille4n 2 years ago
The international space station (iss) is leading the way in the sense that we are inside the laboratories, there is a very important Hubble telescope to observe the universe but I can not see a great use for future missions to the moon ..
C4ille4n 2 years ago
They are coming out with these solar panels that they will use for solar farms on the North and South side of the moon (which means that at least one side will be in the sun) they eventually want to transfer the solar energy to the earth using microwaves and and receivers this will help power the earth because the solar panels will be producing energy 24/7... That is one thing NASA would like to do on the moon :)
Jontheking100 2 years ago
ive always thought there was nothing more cooler to me as an american than to see one of our shuttles launching into space.
jbarbou3 2 years ago 2
Agreed. Although F-14's launching off of aircraft carriers is a close second. :)
mitrumpetplaya 2 years ago
Does anyone know why NASA scrapped the Ares IV? It seems like it would be a whole lot cheaper just to launch one Ares IV rather than launch the Ares I and V for the same mission.
ClassValedictorian 2 years ago
NASA said that it would be less reliable and less cost effective for the overall mission (going to the moon AND the iss) i agree that it was a better rocket on paper, but rockets don't launch on paper.
SparkPlugRocks 2 years ago
Very similar to the Apollo spacecraft, however, the lunar module and the rest of the aircraft will travel separately during the launch and automatically locks in Earth orbit, while the apollo departed from the earth with the lunar module docked. Another change will be effective the air will change from the pure oxygen to oxygen , oxygen nitrogen (N2/O2)
C4ille4n 2 years ago
To conclude my speech, I am very happy though with the "new spacecraft Orion" we return to the Moon and you get to a future on Mars, but 'can not' say that the basic concept is modern ...
C4ille4n 2 years ago
The improvements we are compared to the spacecraft in 1970 but are based on the same concept.
The space shuttle (Challenger, Columbia, Discovery and Atlantis) are a further step back because the orbiter is not big to cross the Earth's orbit in fact, since the last Apollo mission man has never set foot on the moon.
C4ille4n 2 years ago
but i think that the ISS is a step forward, with all of the observatories and labs. they are just different, there is no back or forward. Obviously nobody landed on the moon since apollo, and the shuttles can't cross the LSOI, they weren't designed to.
SparkPlugRocks 2 years ago
Kennedy said we must reach the moon. To prove that mankind can achieve real progress, since then; no president "wanted to".
FederationAdmiral 2 years ago
The project of NASA Orion seems like a big step back but at the same time forward.
They took as a model the spacecraft apollo and have modernized, new computers, new module lunar, new rocket (goodbye saturn V) are aesthetically very similar to the Apollo spacecraft of the years 60-70. Able to go to the moon to mars but we do not have the technology yet, maybe ...
C4ille4n 2 years ago
in all honesty what is the point in going back to the moon again? the only reason to go there again is to either colonise it or mine it for it's elements i really dont see the point in another mission to the moon for man to walk on it again
Cozzi0 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Proconsulaugustus you are an idiot by calling other people idiots without any reason. I speak your language very well and you haven't probably even heard for my language. So, you are stupid like shit.
Now about Orion - after 45 years of research they use same principles (multistage), same propulsion, same orbiters and landing techniques. And that isn't even your technology. It's German technology from WW2. Please educate your self.
123Miroslav 2 years ago
omg one of the crew came to my school bc my school name orion lol
killere56 2 years ago
Ares and Orion are The Emperor's New Clothes - complementing something as new that is actually the equivalent of public nudity.
j363j 2 years ago
Well, there will probably be another apollo 13 repeat.
stew1213 2 years ago
what are the chances of Oxygen Tank 2 exploding in the sim panel bay to two missions though?
SparkPlugRocks 2 years ago
I was under the impression that the fuel was methane
Hansolo60 2 years ago
only problem with this craft with all the junk floatin around in space this will add alot more everytime it launches
mkimkilop 2 years ago
Virtually everything reenters the atmosphere and burns up or in the case of the solid rocket boosters and other major components parachute back to earth and are sometimes reused in later missions. But yes, there is always residual debris, insulation and crystallized gasses that can be potentially dangerous but the alternative is to not go to space at all. Some day we will create orbital dust bins to clean the most dangerous stuff up.
proconsulaugustus 2 years ago
i think they try and re use most of it because of cause most of it will fall back through earths atmosphere
Cozzi0 2 years ago
Cool video. The song playing in the background really sucks.
punkboi2007 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This project is disaster. It's the Apolo technology. What have they been doing last 45 years? Spending money on cars and chicks? What a shame.
123Miroslav 3 years ago
No. Building winged vehicles that went up to space like rockets and returning to Earth like gliders. Do I need to elaborate? What'd you expect we'd have by now, X-Wings?
punkboi2007 3 years ago 3
You're an idiot. The only thing that is old is the Ares I rocket. Everything else on board is absolutely one of a kind brand new stuff. You can't even spell Apollo let alone get a basic understanding of the complexities of the Orion mission. The water dispenser on the crew vehicle would boggle your insect mind.
proconsulaugustus 2 years ago 6
Proconsulaugustus you are an idiot by calling other people idiots without any reason. I speak your language very well and you haven't probably even heard for my language. So, you are stupid like shit.
Now about Orion - after 45 years of research they use same principles (multistage), same propulsion, same orbiters and landing techniques. And that isn't even your technology. It's German technology from WW2. Please educate your self.
123Miroslav 2 years ago
And every time you get in a Ferrari you're using technology from the 1890's. Just because it's old, proven, and works doesn't mean it's outdated.
TemplarOnHigh 2 years ago 11
You are right. They have new materials, new computers and other improvements. I'm not talking about such improvements. I'm talking about concept that is the same and a step backwards comapred to shuttle.
123Miroslav 2 years ago
Design concept for the shuttle was reusablity, which the Ares has, and landing horizontally on land to cut refurb time. The mission profile has changed since shuttle design in the '70's. Post Challenger, we don't have an interest in space launches every two weeks because it means less time for safety. HTOL or VTO-HL would be nice, but it's not the important piece of the vehicle: payload. Ares is a *reusable* Saturn V. We've never had that much lifting capacity on a reusable platform before.
TemplarOnHigh 2 years ago
That sounds reasonable, but this is just a compromise because NASA doesnt have sufficient budget. US government spends money on hundreds of useless things, like making expensive weapon systems and than destroying them without any operational use, etc.
Burning up parts of rocket in atmosphere and landing by parachutes shouldn't be technology of 21st century. Technology of 21 century should be based of totally new physics. I hope LHC is one of steps in that direction.
123Miroslav 2 years ago
are you stupid the shuttle is much under advanced compared to the rocket all the shuttle was, was a simple quick design for iss runs.
Cozzi0 2 years ago
@TemplarOnHigh Of course, however this only strenghens the question "what did the R&D spend all the money on?" given the design is the same. Innovation I feel is lacking somewhat within NASA.
Xoranium 1 year ago
@Xoranium I completely agree, you would think with the Shuttle being developed almost a quarter of century ago. We would easily be able to develop some sort of technology where we could literally "shuttle" to and from space. Looking at this it reminds me of videos of the Saturn rockets and makes you wonder why hasn't there been any sort of leap in technology. The money has always been there for NASA, I am all for NASA but the advances from 1960-1985 were huge were are they from 1986-2010
17Ezz 1 year ago
How is it Apollo technology? Just because it's a capsule now?
Apollo580 2 years ago 3
nice video
5/5
ahriman46 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Okay seriously, this is stupid. Over 50 years later, huge leaps in technology and we're back the Apollo? And then to make it even more of a joke, the first mission is to the moon?!
Seriously, This is where my tax money is going?!
urna55 3 years ago
lets see
pentagon 2000 billion
bank bailout 700 billion
stimulus 800 billion
NASA 3 billion
natewebb 3 years ago 4
Right, what possible reason could humankind possibly have for reaching out beyond the confines of the Earth?
GammyGoose 3 years ago
survival... if we colonize space, then we will still be around when earth is gone, i'd say that's worth more than a lot of the things the government spends tax payers money on
supertrinko 2 years ago
NASA's budget only accounts for less than 2% of the Federal budget. If you're gonna complain about where your tax money is going, try complaining about that chick who gave birth to octuplets, and was gonna get the government to support her with taxpayer money. Mmkay? Thanks for sharing.
punkboi2007 3 years ago 3
wow only 2% that sux seen as nasa are going to get us out into space in the future
Cozzi0 2 years ago
@urna55
NASA 3 Billion
Climate pollution from a heavly lifting rocket:1.000:000car tanks burned all in the atmosphere in 12 minutes. a million times 10000€ (for each car) = 10billion euros for each rocket. Now im more fond of a space race to settle it but you cant deny that current rocket missions are really expensive weight to many other factors.
The only things we gained from spaceflight is a general discription of almost any planet and or moon in our solar system, far away things
Armigo91 1 year ago
@Armigo91 "Climate pollution from a heavly lifting rocket:1.000:000car tanks burned all in the atmosphere in 12 minutes" Hydrogen-oxygen rockets don't pollute (they blow water out of the nozzle). Guess what was the main fuel of Space Shuttle and is the fuel of Ariane 5?
It's the solid rocked boosters that spit crap, but thankfully they burn for a fraction of that time (a few minutes)
bobafetthotmail 1 year ago
@Armigo91 "a million times 10000€ (for each car) = 10billion euros for each rocket" Bullshit. Look at astronautix.c om to find the real prices. Saturn V costed around 400 1971 dollars = 2.2 billion dollars. And was a MOON ROCKET. Smaller stuff is cheaper.
Although I agree that in general spaceflight is costly.
bobafetthotmail 1 year ago
sweet.
DeaNovo 3 years ago
awesome!!!!!!!!
britishareawesome69 3 years ago 4
i love this video, but now when i watch the launches in 2014 to the iss all i'll be thinking is let it rock let it rock let it rock, lol.
SparkPlugRocks 3 years ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
hayyyyyyyyyyy sup girl!!
if U are reading this and horny u should check out my PROFILE 4v
cemdinc86 3 years ago