NASA ready to test Ares 1-X rocket

[ti994apc]

Does Ares1 demonstrate a new technology? Yes. But, I can demonstrate a new technology by driving to work using compressed air. That does not mean its practical. I just to re-state, Ares1 cannot fly anyone to the moon (regardless of what the announcer said on this video.) It can ONLY go to Low earth orbit.

[ti994apc]

I think NASA killed itself on this. It should have only worked on ares V and not tried to also develop Ares I.  It should have committed to making a capsule for Atlas V (probably the safest best rocket available) or committed to helping space X with dragon. Ares1 did nothing but take people to LEO and does not do anything special to help us get to the moon.

[Qulopuaa]

this is way cheap..But woulndt it be even cheaper to build new shuttle eg just copy the design.Since its 50 years old tech so the cost should be 50 times lower even if old they work and this singlemans rocket is really ..shitty a step to 50s really

[ti994apc]

If Ares I were to have a first stage failure there is NO chance the capsule will survive even with the best crew escape system. In a solid fuel explosion, debris chunks get blown in every direction for miles and it burns for long after the initial explosion. Molten chunks of solid fuel would eat the parachute system alive. The crew escape system could not pull itself far enough away to prevent this. Liquid fuel quickly consumes itself and does not have the same problem.

[ti994apc]

Part of the problem is the Average American does not understand how rockets work. They see a smoke plume from solid rocket fuel and think its cool. When in reality solid rocket fuel is the worse possible fuel you can use, its what made Challenger blow up into a million pieces.

[bathat11165]

You are wrong. Solid rockets are ideal, save for the fact that they are not currently throttleable in real time, nor re-startable. Neither is a factor in boost phase.  They are safer, cheaper, and lighter. Ever see a turbo pump let go?

[ti994apc]

You could not be more wrong! Solid rocket fuel is BY FARE the MOST DANGEROUS and MOST expensive propellant and that is a fact. Do you even know how much the shuttle costs? Do you know how expensive stacking is? What is the most expensive rocket exposition in US History? Delta II in 1997 when its solid rocket fuel exploded and destroyed a parking lot and all its cars.

[amourdutigre]

@ti994apc,

I do not know how much solid fuel vs. liquid fuel costs, so I won't comment. What I do know is that the cause of the Challenger explosion was poor design. NASA decided to use Morton Thikol rather than another contractor who could have built the SRB in one piece. Thiokol had to build multi piece SRBs due to transportation. The other contractor could make them one piece because they were close to the launch site. Poor seals of Thiokol cuased the explosion.

[Tyrannobeast]

@ti994apc: What are you talking about? Every video of the Space Shuttle, Delta II, or any other launch vehicle with solid fuel has people commenting how "dirty" it looks, and how we should stop launching rockets because Mother Earth is dying and whatnot. I have to explain that it's just dust and that liquid fuels are evaporated when they burn, so you can't see the smoke. And anyway, Challenger was destroyed by a horizontal exhaust leak, which would not be immediately dangerous on the Ares 1.

[carveriscool]

"Bob ass"

[dbz4lifemm]

uuuummmmm, question? Did I read an article I just read correctly? The international space station is being decommissioned in 2015? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? Didn't they JUST finish practically putting the damn thing together up there with those recent upgrades? Someone tell me this isn't true...

[A86]

It isn't. The Augustine Commission suggested continuing the ISS until at least 2020 in their report last month. They also propose that Obama increase NASA's budget by at least $3-5 billion per year.

[dbz4lifemm]

ok, thank you.

[raunchbear]

I always thought it was a huge waste. Unmanned craft can to things much more cheaply in most cases.

[urbanprophet777]

ok,what progress has nasa done?what good do we benefit from it?and could the money be used on better things ?

[A86]

Do you enjoy your computer, iPod, hospital plastics, hospital scanners, hybrid fuel technology, fuel cell technology in the works, GPS, missile technology, cell phones, HD technology, etc.? Thank NASA for that.

"could the money be used on better things?"

Like what? More dumb wars and bailouts for the rich? I'd rather spent $50-150 billion on NASA (their current budget is $17 billion) than $3-5 Trillion on useless wars and corporate welfare.

[threadysparrow]

yeah lots of good experiments can only be done in zero G. in the 60s i dont think anyone was opposed to spending their tax dollars on sending man to the moon, it was like a national science fair project that everyone was behind and it helped lift the spirits of the country. good weather monitoring can be done from space, ect

[A86]

*spend, I meant

[Chrisjr2007]

For the morons who said this is a waste:

If only you HUMAN BEINGS tried to SEARCH THE WEB and looked at the BUDGET OF NASA,then you will know it is LESS than ANY OTHER Govenmental Agencies BUDGET.AND THE BENEFITS ARE BEYOND AMAZING!

NASA's budget IS LESS than 1%(O.35%) of ALL THE TOTAL FEDERAL BUDGET!

Learn or research BEFORE YOU SAY SOMETHING.

[winterstellar]

Yeah, I agree..we should stop doing all this satanic science-stuff and spend our time worshipping our holy SkyDaddy in the skies instead, haha! Sorry, but we don't live in the dark-ages anymore..science is the future and we really need to flush religion/superstition down the toilet soon! Cheers! : )

[exactitudethis]

Does anyone know how much Afghanistan + Iraq cost ? If we want to continue being the world leaders in space exploration we have to invest in the program . Either way it will still be cheaper than our foreign policy. Hey at least we're not in hyperinflation yet.

[A86]

Hell yes. If Americans would pull their heads out of Fox News and Dancing with the Stars for a second they could find out that our stupid wars are FAR more costly than NASA. The Wars have not created many new jobs and they aren't creating revenue (nor do they even work). It's just a huge scam to enrich Big Oil and military contractors.

Stop the wars (that will save $3.5 Trillion right there) and fund NASA. Project Constellation alone would create at least 50,000 new jobs.

[threadysparrow]

plus the space program allows scientists to do zero G experiments which are very important to science

[onemanarmy34]

450 million for 2 mins?????????????????

[endsequence]

The price of manpower / resources.

Wonder why we continue investing in NASA projects? Because people who are vastly more intelligent than we are, engineers, scientists, philosophers, and ordinary citizens understand that strong, sturdy investment and determination have almost always benefited society. Knee-jerk common sense is how we tend to judge those who call the shots, but our common sense isn't always an accurate filter to run complex issues through. NASA is an invaluable asset.

[onemanarmy34]

er, hmm

i didnt say nasa wasn't a invaluable asset, but 450 million dollars for 2 mins...is a but much, since the US in over 10 trillion in debt

[KMAMK123]

So we cut science funding first right? Oh and lets fight a war too.

[ExoneratedUndead]

they have to spend all the money they have on something.... What do you think they are supposed to do with it? Save it? haha no no , give it to charity?

I say build that shit and blast it off. Isnt like the money they have would ever go to anything else.

[eb352mm]

Holy SHIT!!! what a fricking waste of money, no wonder were in debt. Wonder how much they paid those 3 spokespeople to say a sentence each about the rocket

[endsequence]

Incorrect assumption.