NASA - Ares V Cargo Launch Vehicle

[ramiroeda]

That use animation program

[ds2011able]

Will someone please tell President Obama that our future as a nation

depends on funding this project?

[TheLostHibiki]

The only drawback of the shuttle program was the absence of a productive infra-structure.The shuttle program was supposed to cost $5 million per launch and ready in 30 days notice with a lifetime of 100 flights.Access to Space is going to be a challenge; but it is only going to happen when you put money, talent and a competent plan together. The Money can be in the resources of Space... talent and competency getting into individuals, not administration or big sightless groups.

[AntiGrav82]

@xvoy2002 Easier said than done

[xvoy2002]

Look at the size of this vehicle compared to the payload it gets into space!!!

The ONLY way they will ever achieve some kind of meaningful space travel, is to start buildign real high orbit space stations. And lauch vehicles from there. You would need a much smaller vehicle to launch you a lot farther. At this rate, teh best you can do is send up three guys in a phone booth.

[ww2footage]

lol americans wake up, party ended, you have no money ,you are poorer than most 3rd world countries due to jewish FED usurers

[datzfast]

@ww2footage most people in third world countries live on 2 FED dollars a day, thats dollars no matter how you slice it. did i mention dollars. FED dollars.

[davisgreen2020]

Let private companies get human to LEO ! But WE NEED THE ARES V !! Check favourites on my channel..Dr. Robert Zubrin remarked we need a HLV to go beyond LEO !! And HLV that can lift between 120 tons ( his design..) or the Constellation Ares V that can lift 180 tons to LEO and 71 tons beyond that ! Without a HLV we are going NO where beyond LEO !! Set a goal and launch to Mars by 2020 !!

[SpaceAnimator]

obama cancelled the moon program. hes sending humans to an asteroid by 2025 and orbiting mars by 2030 and landing in 2033

[datzfast]

@SpaceAnimator Obama will have died of old age buy this time.

[ww2footage]

@datzfast Obama will be propably killed by zionists if he refuse to start war with Iran

[datzfast]

@ww2footage jews are they the same as zionist for you?

[Antimatter050]

@SpaceAnimator why land on mars three years later?

[DRJames58]

The whole thing is moot since Obama killed the program.

[uzimodem]

Hindsight is always 20/20 of course. But we should have keep the Saturn 5 without a doubt. But no political leadership plus the publc screaming about the cost killed it. Both were very shortsighted.

[xvoy2002]

IF you look back a scienc documentaries from the 50s and 60s,, there should have been colonies on the moon in the 70s as well as rockets used for regular travel. Not to mention jet packs, bubble cities,, and cars that fly.. Boy were they wrong! On the other hand, they also thought computers were going to be huge!

[datzfast]

@xbox2002 huge success or huge as in floor space?

[xvoy2002]

@datzfast Huge, as in floor space. They thought computers would get bigger.

Even the Simpsons made a reference to this. In one episode, (halloween) Dr. Frink the scientist explained , showing his primitive computer, explaining, ``in the future, computers will be much faster and much larger.. hahahaha<

[dcb1138]

SCREWED BY OBAMA....The AIG executives need another bonus

[pacificguitarist]

@dcb1138

Constellation sucks. Now we will have a better space exploration plan.

[DoubleDutchBust]

5:01 -6 12:01

1:05 -6 1:2112

5:01 -6 12:01

[ti994apc]

Ares V is delayed because they are having to develop Ares1 first. Another big mistake. An upgraded second stage and capsule on Titan II would have been have made much more sense. NASA does not like low cost, safe, efficient designs.

[ZaneKaminski]

Titan launchers are expensive because they use hypergolic fuels, which are toxic and less efficient than LOX/LH2.

Furthermore, a Titan II can lift about 2.5 mT to LEO. Ares I needs to lift about 25 mT to LEO. Even equipped with a suitable upper stage, a Titan II could not possibly lift Orion into orbit. An upper stage of sufficient capability would be way too heavy to lift off the ground by its engines.

[ti994apc]

It is ridiculous that NASA chose the J-2 engines on the first stage. The supposed only reason NASA developed them is so they could stopped and restarted in Apollo. On a first stage there is no need to restart ! The Aerojet LR87 engines would have been a much better choice.

[ZaneKaminski]

1. They chose the J-2X on the second stage.

2. A J-2 was used on the second stage of the Saturn IB launch vehicle. Its upper stage did not need to reignite.

3. LR87 engines run on N2O4 and aerozine. Not the LOX/LH2 propellants which are more efficient and not toxic.

[ChrisJS1987]

I think this program could have moved a lot faster and maybe came in a lot cheaper if they added the crew capsule on top of the ares V. I can imagin two rocket launches every mission to be way too costly and impractical to keep the program going for the long term! I mean it seems a bit of a waste using one of the most powerfull heavy lift vehicles ever just to lift a lunar module.

[kalashnikova06]

it's a pretty huge module this time, plus it's not just lifting the lander, it's lifting the exit stage as well, if this was modified for low earth orbit use and you took off the upper stage, it could lift more than half the weight of the ISS

[liketoridebike14]

the shuttle is good it just that when they lunch they lose heat tiles. All they need to do is to protect the heat tiles with something and they can keep the shuttle alive

[jimiBlost]

the astronauts lost in the apollo 1 test had nothing to do with the saturn v

[Gustagoostaf]

We would use apollo launch systems (i.e. saturn 1-b or V) if we could.

We don't because 1. We lost the plans! 2. It is outdated  3. It lacks thrust needed to propel astronauts and equipment!

The shuttle program lost 14 astronauts.

And the Apollo lost two astronauts on the pad during a flight systems test. My point is: we cannot rely on old technology to get us to the moon and mars. Any rocket program has its failures.

[Gustagoostaf]

Sorry I need to correct this statement, Apollo lost three astronauts.

[dragonkingofthestars]

fair point but they still need something to replace shuttle with out more astronughts it more polticas in this case i suppose it also helps that we alread know how this kind of rocket works so we don't need to make a new lunch vecile

[copehaha]

thats cause you're a retard

[netsight]

This will be the heavy lifter needed to get man to Mars, hence it's name sake.

[airdriver]

This is so stupid. Instead of using this system, which is little more than a souped up Apollo, we should resume working on the Venturestar class space shuttle.

[Bobanort]

One flight with the Ares is cheaper than a shuttle flight. You don't have to reinspect and recertify a ship that takes a pounding (literally) everytime it re-enters the atmosphere. The X-33 is a great design, but until you get some materials that are light, durable and strong (like titanium), and capable of taking more than 5000 degrees without being fragile like the carbon on the leading edge of the current shuttle's wings it isn't worth it.

[airdriver]

@Bobanort

Well lets develop the materials that are light, durable and stronger than titanium and finally fly the Venturestar. Along with developing the VASMIR engine which can get us to Mars within one month and the Ares V which will give us a heavy lift capability that rivals the Saturn V.

[dragonkingofthestars]

if an't broke don't fix it how many men have we lost on apollo 0 (ok there were a couple training acdents) but none on the flight it self and how many on the space shuttle? those figures speak for them selfs

[airdriver]

Apollo flew oonly twenty or so flights where the shuttle has flown over a hundred. If Apollo would have flown as many missions as the Enterprise class Space Shuttles, we would have lost a crew or two as well.

But the point I'm trying to make is that we should be going forward NOT BACKWARD.

[dragonkingofthestars]

if not broken don't fix it Apollo worked and we lost no one. the space shuttle has lost at leat 6 people. though i admeit that in the futer a space shuttle might to be more cost effective the fact is teh current shuttle is to costly in evere way, repires, matince lives

[RmanDC]

1930 Benz is a fine car too. But I bet you'd prefer to take a trip in brand new one.

[yvesgomez]

sad that NASA waste so much money and time (and astronauts...) with the space shuttle. Space Shuttle is half or quarter success.

[briandamage77]

i agree the space shuttle was a bad mistake, the saturn v was a superior heavy lift vehicle (similar in performance to ares) capable of launching the entire ISS in just a few launches, instead they lost 20 years flying tons of extra cargo in the form of a plane......... well we are back where we started .... the best o hopes for this new phase

[Bobanort]

The worst part of the Space Shuttle program is that they NEVER flew her anywhere near what her lift capacity was. These new rockets are cheaper, faster to produce for each launch, safer than a shuttle, and a proven technology (and these are improved!!). Can't wait for the next moon shot!!!

[AmmoBravo]

@briandamage77 They did not waste any money. The advantage of the space shuttle over the saturn is that it is reusable. On the contrary ,they would have wasted a lot more money building more saturn rockets. Ok so there were about 20 SS missions for the ISS and since the Saturn can hold twice the amount of cargo as the SS imagine building 10 Saturns. Thats way more expensive than a reusable Discovery or Atlantis.

[Politcalamity]

@briandamage77 Sometimes you have to learn the hard way what NOT to do. I do agree with you, but it's not all hopeless. Consider this...in the grand scheme of things, humanity has a LONG way to go before reaching the stars. 30 years of development setbacks...in the larger picture...isn't really very long.

[Starpilot149]

@Politcalamity The Obama administration is trying its hardest to extend that 30 years of nothingness...

[bombarderoazul]

They should have added a service module to the capsule, like other countries spacecraft. It's going to be very cramped in there, and probably won't have a toilet just like apollo, where you had to use a vacuum for urine and a plastic bag for #2. If you put a service module, you can put a toilet there and it offers more living space, check out the chinese Shenzhou, that's a spacecraft designed for crew comfort.

[chinesesamurai12]

Why can't we just use the old Saturn V rockets?

[ukraina95]

because they are building a moon base! Ares will have much more cargo space to hold every materials needed for construction

[swunt10]

no it doesn't.

[cantescape1987]

Because they cost 2 billion to launch?

[ideastoday]

I know where you're coming from, but they won't do that for a number of reasons. The facilities that built the Saturn V don't exist anymore. NASA doesn't have that type of fuel available at the Cape. Congress gets involved in these decisions and they want the money to keep flowing out to Utah. The Saturn V was shipped by barge to the Cape. If you built a Saturn V in Utah there'd be no way to transport it to Florida. Contractors have a $ incentive to reinvent the wheel, and so they do.

[kyleb9899]

It's too late to turn back to the Saturn V for many reasons. First, it would take too long to reconfigure the circuits and computer technology. I mean now, we have better and safe systems and guidance sensors. when we landed on the moon with the LEM, it barely ran on the power of a wrist watch. Now, we can land on the moon with more power and more payloads. We actually have the technology to set up a lunar base now.

[CJCymru]

sounds exciting doesn't it. But after like a year its been built, we'll forget all about the station. Heck, sometimes I even forget we have the international space station. They never share anything with us

[Juands10]

that it? thats your next spaceship? wow you would have thought that after 40 years we would have a spaceship that could take off from a runway. this is embarassing, to say the least.

[whatthehellbrosef]

kill yourself.

[Juands10]

hey asshole i'm just voicing my opinion.

[EMANUELSOND]

Que loco, que despues de casi 40 años las naves parescan del 60. Encima desaprovechando 1 sistema lanzador de mas, para mover al modulo lunar. La NASA va de mal en peor, es una lastima.

[dcb1138]

Obama is going to Cancel this. And Burn $350 billion Dollars by throwing it into Bank of America etc. We are screwed.

[asjeot]

Cancel this in favor of the Direct 2, which is far better in my opinion

[dcb1138]

Yup..your right. what about Delta 4 heavy ? Seems to have enough power to get Orion to LEO.

[cixelsyD1988]

Supposedly early in his campaign he said he would push it back 5 years to put into education and green energy.

But then he had a change of heart and now says he'll fully support it. I guess we'll just have to see. But cancelling NASA programs for funds won't get him a lot of dough, NASA doesn't get funded that much as it is.

[JezeroCraterDweller]

He's not canceling anything. Theres 45 million in the stim for this project. This is a great project.

[ssametdemir]

intelligently

[neodelphi]

finally we're going to the moon for real :D

[dagnemrth]

180T to LEO, that's insane, in both a good and bad way. I mean, it would be awesome if it works, for a reasonable price. ON the other hand, making it work is going to be hell, and paying for it, well, let's hope the money's still there in 10 years.

[tyranusmaul]

what is the Ares V Cargo Launch Vehicle? some one please? what did they drop off on the moon in this video?

[Shadowsnshades]

What they left behind was part of the lunar lander. That's what they did back in the sixties.

[tyranusmaul]

no way, why did they leave it?

[TooFreakinLazy]

Every extra bit of weight costs fuel to move so these craft are designed in stages that can be discarded once spent to lighten the load. Only the capsule is designed for re-entry into Earth's atmosphere.

[violatenor26]

I love how you compare a space program to a personal computer. In what way are they even similar? Plus, this program is a lot more cost effective than the shuttle program (which was originally designed to ultimately build a space station). I don't know how you'd think we could get to the moon again without rocket technology. So, while it looks similar to the 60s NASA missions, it is much more advanced ie) six-month moon mission/colony and

[Aviator178]

okay I was way off on the moon with the sun and everything, but it actually does have to do with the Earth's tilt.

[icyplanetnhc]

I have a question. Since stage 1 of Ares 1 is based on the solid rocket booster, is that stage reusable?

[rwboa22]

It can be, although NASA has not made the decision on whether to recover the SRBs. If NASA was to recover both the 5-segment SRB for Ares I and the 5.5-segment SRBs for the Ares V, they would need parachutes bigger than the ones currently in use on the Shuttle SRBs.

[pianoclassclown]

I spoke to an engineer at the Air and Space Museum the other day. It is still reusable. In fact it will be used more than 10 times.

[robbie785]

first

[vicbub71]

I think nasa is doing the best it can on all the projects that it has with the funds that it gets. Do you realize the price of building and testing a new launch vehicle with all the safety concerns this country has these days. Besides what do you want them to land on the moon with? The reason we used capsules in the 60's, and why the Russians still use them today is because they are the best bang for the buck. It cost more to launch a used shuttle then than it does for a new capsule.

[pupplesan]

Ares V: 2020 looks quite a bit like Appolo 11: 1969.

[the2death5of6pathos]

Physics hasn't changed since 1969.

[joachim2464]

technology has, hehe

[lostinseganet]

I can understand why they did this, but they will have a harder time impressing the hearts of children in this thing...

[74man]

... but they won't lose a teacher in space with this thing.

[CriX098]

What would you suggest instead? The mechanics of space flight haven't changed. This capsule is an excellent and robust design. Until we discover some magical Star Trek stuff we're going to have deal with reality. I'm incredibly excited to see the Constellation systems come about.

[kingofmonkeyfolk]

Also, the Ares-V could boost an 8 meter telescope to space. The hubble is 2.5 meters for comparison.

[r0ck3tsm0k3]

Why use two solid rockets when you can use 4? Someone explain?

[brianbogdany]

Because they weigh A LOT. The crawler transporters would not be able to take that much weight, and neither would the Vehicle Assembly Building floor. Also, the pads would have to be completely rebuilt to handle that amount of thrust. Oh, and to top it all off, with 2 5-seg solid motors (SRBs) almost every building and house in the area would have their windows shattered (true btw). I wish we could do that, but the money just isn't there to support it.

[brianbogdany]

Sorry I meant to say 4 5-seg SRBs would blow out everyone's windows. This was in response to r0ck3sm0k3.

[CriX098]

Four would provide too much thrust and therefore too high of G-forces on the astronauts.

[kingofmonkeyfolk]

Well, the moon isnt the most exciting project but these rockets (ares I) will get us to orbit for the ISS or gets ship parts to orbit for the asteroids or Mars (Ares V).

I'm not a fan of the moon, but we can certainly use these rockets. Assuming we don't throw them away like the Saturn V.

[mikeypox]

I'm not a fan of the moon either, but how will learn how to get rid of it, unless we go there and study it some more? Maybe we could blow it up Armageddon(The Movie)-Style.

[Aviator178]

okay now one thing, if we blow up the moon, we will die in a matter of minutes probably, cause the moon protects us from some of the suns strong rays, so why the heck would we blow it up.

[nawitus]

I don't think the Moon has any significant part in "protecting us from suns strong rays".

[Aviator178]

well Idk, but I do know that without, we would be in another ice age.

[Antimatter050]

@nawitus except for the fact we could stay in its large craters.

[slafkec]

Maybe Superman can help us!

[54spiritedwill54]

Nice video. Awsome animations

[SkyguyXXX]

Its just there plans No one knows if they gonna ever land on the moon

[TransamJc]

it is offical 2017 is the year, they are having some trouble with the crew side of the rockets

[almavore]

Congratulations, NASA. You've built a time machine!  It's 1967, hurray!

[flyinfighter]

exactly-the shuttle only kept going long after its scheduled decommission date b/c the ISS. up, then down-Constellations lets us actually get past that to the moon in 2020 and Mars in 2030

[mdb4360]

Lots of misinformation out there. This design is obsolete? Compared to what? The Millenium Falcon? Let's be real. Who else has a vehicle that can make it to the moon? Believe me I hate to see the shuttle go, but it wasn't made for interplanetary travel. We have learned a great deal from it. Venturestar was cancelled because it was unworkable. Why keep pouring money into something that doesn't work. NASA is doing their best on the budget they have.

[petik96]

How do you know this design doesnt work. do you work at NASA? Are you the person that hacked NASA? Venturestar isnt cancelled...

[mdb4360]

Why yes I do....I honestly do hope billions of dollars weren't wasted and someone is making use of the research conducted. I will clarify my statement: Nothing is unworkable with enough time and money, neither of which NASA has in abundance.

[petik96]

so ur saying tht the prototype capsule worth a few thousand dollars is fake? And what do you do at NASA then? Even if you do, are you the genius who has spent long hours away from their families to send Amrica back to the Moon?!?! So answer this question: Are we spending millions of dollars that could help America for a lie??? Congress is pretty stupid but a trillion dollar lie? RIIIGGGHHHHHHTTTTTTTTT!!!! Listen. How about when I join the astronaut Corps. and go to the Moon, we'll talk!!!!!!!!!!

[mdb4360]

Every day foreign powers are competing with us (and gaining) in an undeclared space race and they must not succeed if we are to secure the benefits of space access that we have already invested lives,decades and trillions of dollars on. And we must do it with approximately 1% of the Federal Budget.

I'm just pointing out that people need to be realistic. You don't need to be a hacker or a NASA employee to understand that.

[danieleriskay]

I guess the real question for Nasa is how can so many other countries be competing with us after the invested lives, decades, and trillions of dollars.

[mdb4360]

If it was easy anyone could and would be doing it. Do you not see the benefit of such risks? After NASA proves it can be done and does most of the research, it's easy for other countries and corporations to take less risk by copying their designs. Check out Buran.

[openandskeptic]

Recycling old space hardware is on giant leap backward for mankind. NASA should go in the direction of the original Orion project in which they hijacked the name. The original Orion project used nuclear pulse propulsion capable of powering a spacraft to hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of miles per hour. Enabling to do quick trips to Mars, Jupiter,and beyond.Look at the video "Project Orion: A Re-imagining." The present leadership in NASA has a one track mind only using chemical rockets.

[MarsFKA]

Are you proposing that Orions should be used to launch payloads and space craft from the ground? Do the words 'atomic explosions' ring a bell? What do you think Merritt Island and the KSC would look like after just one Orion launch? Perhaps you'd better do some reading up on how Orion works and what it was originally proposed for.

[LegosPL0X]

Plus, going millions of miles per hour, any crew inside would be killed. And the equipment wouldn't handle the high-G strain.

[airdriver]

For those of you who are interested type in Venturestar and see what we could have had.

[shelle1even]

Are These Re-usable Like The Space Shuttle??

[airdriver]

No! This is nothing more than a souped up Apollo.

[pianoclassclown]

ACTUALLY THEY ARE REUSABLE! YOU ARE WRONG SIR! The crew module or Orion is reusable up to 10 times. However, the Service module and Lunar Surface access module are not reusaable. As for the J2X upperstage engines, they are also not reusable:however, i think the Solid rocket boosters are reusable but don't hold me to it.

[Franciszek64]

I believe like the supersonic airplane Concorde, is another "setback" in the Space Program meanwhile enterpreneurs like Sir Richard Branson and Burt Rutan developes the "VSS Enterprise" known as SpaceShip 2, or the europeans, specially the germans bussinesmen create the own space shuttle version.

[Aviator178]

You never know, we aren't going back to the moon until 2020, so some of this may change alot more than you think, and plus this stuff is alot better than the Apollo Rockets, just that these will probably be even safer. No offencse the Apollo Rockets were awsome though.

[MightySaturn5]

In what way are they "alot better" then Apollo (Saturn V) rockets?

The F-1 and J-2 designs were complex but very robust.

The amount of effort involved in the design, testing etc. of the Saturn V was far greater then anything before or since hence Saturns "man rating".

The Ares v design looks much like one of the various future versions of the Saturn V (strap on boosters)- considering that the Saturn was "man rated" and the Ares v does not need to be how specifically is it alot better?.

[Aviator178]

Well these are also better because they will be alot faster and probably more durable.

[MightySaturn5]

lol

[Aviator178]

hey come on ya jerk, I know alot more than you do about space, I don't know to much about these new rockets, but I do know they will be better, so don't make fun of what I know and I don't know, do you see me making fun of someones opinion except yours, NO!

[slafkec]

are you like, 8 years old? I guess all you knowledge about space comes from watching Superman movies

[giantleap1969]

Save NASA! Vote against Obama!

[Franciszek64]

Yeah!!..it´s like somekind of "back to basics" in space or "Apollo Reloaded"...what do you thing?

Regards from Mexico City.

[airdriver]

What it is is nothing more than a disgrace. We were within a few years of launching a SSTO(Single Stage To Orbit) vehicle that would not have had the flaws that destroyed Challenger and Columbia. It was called the Venturestar. It would have been a logical replacement to the Space Shuttle. It was cancelled by Bush and instead we have this.

Man on the moon by 2020? Bush must want the stronauts to walk this time.

[mdb4360]

I hate to let the truth interfere with your "Bush bashing" tirade, but that program was doomed many years before his administration and was officially cancelled as a result of earlier failures in early 2001 by LAWMAKERS, i.e. congress. Even if it would have succeeded, it would not have been capable of interplanetary travel or landing in a different atmosphere, or no atmosphere in the case of the moon.

[98rallets]

Some say the above design is obsolete and I'm sure there is some truth to that, but the fact that they're going back to the old way and that it is expected to be more succesfull than the shuttle program show the the brilliance of those original engineers.

[transhuman7]

This is really an amazing video.

[transhuman7]

Nice video. It would have been nice if NASA had developed a spacecraft that could launch and land on its own power, like a traditional aircraft. Maybe in a few decades.

[luxardo2001]

almost arcaic ship, but the weapons in Irak work fine...

[sitobazito]

Yeah i agree, it's pretty much the same thing, but better and with more the same thing, but better and with more capacity for crew and supplies.

[Franciszek64]

For me is the "Apollo version 2.0" or "The Apollo Project Reloaded"

[Membrane556]

I think Orion could be replaced by Spacex's Dragon or spacedev's Orbital vehicle based off the HL20 for much lower cost esp since Lockheed has pretty much dropped the ball on Orion blame this partly on Ares I under performing while NG has met or exceeded all the deadlines on the LSAM.

We are actually going to run the risk of having a lander before a crew vehicle.

[chinaman0389]

no the nauts are already training in the capsule i work at the JSC nasa tours

[Membrane556]

Yah but Orion isn't really that good a design and it's already obsolete as many other craft that will be flying the same time or before such as the RSA klipper,Dragon, and the spacedev HL20 based vehicle pretty much meet or exceed it's capabilities for a faction of the cost.

[teatreeboyboy]

I have serious doubts that NASA is designing the moon lander to actually land on the moon. Have you ever tried to stop a four legged chair or table from rocking on an uneven surface? Have you ever stuffed folded napkins under one leg of a rocking restaurant table? Only a three legged lander can land solid on an uneven surface. Chances are pretty good that a four legged lander never landed and relaunched from the moon and is never likely to.

[MarsFKA]

The Apollo Lunar Modules were four-legged. As I recall, they all worked, including Apollo 15, which landed on uneven ground and tilted over a few degrees.

[Membrane556]

Actually the funny thing is the LSAM is farther along then Orion and could very well be ready before it is so Nasa might end up having to use a vehicle like spacex's dragon with the LSAM.

[thirdclass2006]

That IS funny.

I hope it's not a case of being all dressed up an no means to get to it's intended destination.

[Membrane556]

The ares I and V system is very sub optimal a better launch vehicle would be direct launcher as it really isa shuttle derived vehicle and even uses the 4 segment srbs.

I find it a grevious waste of resources to even build ares I just another medium class launch vehicle esp when in reality it has no commonality with the shuttle or ares V as the srb experiences completely different forces then it sees on the shuttle or ares V and requires a different burn rate etc.

[thirdclass2006]

Changes have been made to use a 5 segment booster for Ares 1.

I get the feeling that Ares 1 is just a quick fix to get Orion flying with less of a wait after the decomming of the shuttle.

What's rarely mentioned is Ares 4, a variation on Ares 5 that can be used for a direct flight to the moon (like Apollo 8). A boosterless version can be used for orbital missions. I hope this rocket gets made, as it can make Ares 1 obselete.

[Membrane556]

I have a feeling some billionaire space tourist will beat nasa back to the moon .

[sh0t0kan]

what amazing to me is that with greater technology than in the 60's why is it so difficult to send men to the moon now?

[mmysama]

Because nowadays nobody wants to spenf 135 billion on half a dozen missions that are less than half a week long.

[ca1221]

we had the political will back then.

[hershe2005]

incorrect the first veiical lanch is the crew vehical but the second is the crew veical we plan too launch the un crew veical fist so a apporximatle +44:40 the crewed and non-crewed shuttles are going to ronadayvoo in space

[heroineworshipper]

Why don't they ever animate a crew leaving the capsule after landing in these movies?

Too bad a movie is as close to this as they're going to get.

[Xigano1]

Awsome animations, but the editing ...

[chengloki]

Nope! This mission to Mars is treated like the mission to the moon. Will not work! There is a huge time difference! Logistics is totally different.=Stefan=