Ares I, Ares V and the Orion CEV (the best animation ever)

[sergeylemm]

The astronauts leave too clear traces :)

[ti994apc]

We can wait 20 years and billions later for Lockheed to maybe deliver Constellation (or just use all the money like Lockheed did with x-33). Or, we can use Falcon9, and Falcon Heavy. It exists now and it safer, more cost effective, & better in so many ways.

As a space enthusiast, cancelling Constellation inadvertently is the best thing that could have every happened. It will actually boost SpaceX's position and we will see real achievement rather than ground tests and fancy animations.

[happyguy82]

@ti994apc But Falcon is Private

[ti994apc]

@happyguy82 NASA already has contracts with SpaceX for resupply missions to ISS. But the CEO of SpaceX primary goal is to go the the Mars and beyond. That's why its dragon capsule will hold 7 people and has heat shield rated at Mars re-entry speeds.  So in this case private is good because can launch at least

20 falcon9 cargo missions (or) 10 falcon9 heavy's (or) 10 falcon9 crewed for the cost of a single Ares1. Ares1 after development costs was expected to be 1.4 billion p/launch.

[happyguy82]

@ti994apc ohh right, ok.

[masoaviator]

@ti994apc Perhaps the Ares V should be preserved? Its sheer thrust can be used to haul large interplanetary cargos. We continue developing and testing the Ares V, while flying low-cost orbital and lunar missions with the Dragon and Falcon 9 series(we don't need such immense launchers for that). When the Ares V is ready, manned interplanetary missions will no longer be a dream!

[happyguy82]

@masoaviator yeah agreed.

[LRT2432]

@ti994apc Lockheed = worst company ever. Late and over budget on every commitment, yet it gets every gov't contract.

[TheRobloxian23]

If we beat russia to the moon, WE CAN DO IT BLOODY AGAIN! >=D

[brianewsu]

@TheRobloxian23 uh huh... but as it stands now America is unable to send humans into space. Only the Russians have that capability.

[7711082]

It certainly stimulates the imagination. I do not believe, however, that NASA has solved the radiation problem.

[brianewsu]

@7711082 if you're referring to space based radiation then yes they've solved it. the solution is to use lightweight polyethlene (like plastic bags) as it's been proven to block radiation as well as lead does. there's a documentary on it.

[7711082]

@brianewsu

Do you have a link to the documentary?

[happyguy82]

@7711082 not the one that I saw but it says so even on NASA's website. I have the link but I'm not sure how to share it with you here. try 1.usa.gov qz9azz

[happyguy82]

1.usa.gov(/)qz9azz remove the brackets and it'll work :)

[Lavenderrose73]

Man, all those things discarded on the way up there, where the heck do they go? And for that matter, where do the rockets that launch Atlantis go once they're separated? Is there a way of retrieving them, or are there now a bunch of rockets floating around in the Universe?

[happyguy82]

@Lavenderrose73 The 'rockets' that launch Atlantis? Atlantis itself is a rocket and it returns to earth :P. Its External Tank's orbit decays within a very short amount of time and burns up in the atmosphere during re-entry. The 2 Solid Rocket Boosters that are strapped on its sides fall back to the ocean and are then recovered by NASA's Liberty Star or Freedom Star recovery vessels.

[Lavenderrose73]

@happyguy82 I appreciate the insight---all but the first part which only served to insult my intelligence. It wasn't the Atlantis itself I was asking about, but the Rocket Boosters (if that's what they're called) which separate once into space. It's ridiculing remarks like that, that make me hesitant to ask questions later on.

[happyguy82]

@Lavenderrose73 Hi, sorry I didn't intend it as an insult in any way. I do sincerely apologise. By the way the Rocket Boosters separate before they reach orbital velocity hence they fall back to earth very quickly. Only objects that have attained orbital velocity will stay up there and contribute to the amount of space junk. Now the logical question would be, why does the External Tank fall back to earth but not the shuttle orbiter itself? I honestly don't know the true reason for this.

[Neoli2300]

@happyguy82 on separation with the fuel tank (with the shuttle) the fuel tank has 95-98% (dependent on payload) of the kinetic energy required for it to reach orbit. it falls just short of orbit so it re-enters. what a waste hey

[happyguy82]

@Neoli2300 yeah I thought so, but how does the orbiter attain the 100% kinetic energy if it's already jettisoned its ET? To me, no ET = no fuel = no further acceleration. no? Thanks.

[Neoli2300]

@happyguy82 the orbiter still carries a small amount of fuel onboard after jettisoning the ET, getting rid of the ET saves some fuel I guess for the orbiter on that last stretch to orbit. Also, if they got the ET up into the same orbit as the shuttle, you would have a VERY big, VERY fast bullet racing towards the ISS hey ;)

[Lavenderrose73]

@happyguy82 It's ok, I appreciate that you cared enough to apologize; how many would (and did) not? Anyway, my goodness, I imagine that's got to be a high risk since those things can fall anywhere, and if they fall over the ocean I sure hope no ship was ever in the way when those things came crashing down!

[happyguy82]

@Lavenderrose73 That's unlikely to happen because one of the pre-requisites for a launch is cleared air space and naval space up to a certain area size. They begin enforcing this a few days prior to the launch.

[Lavenderrose73]

@happyguy82 Gotcha! I'm glad to know they take such precautions.

[spacecowboynj]

Cancelled by the Bamster, although he just rebooted funding for the Orion Crew Capsule. After they fired 22,000 NASA employees. Three of the Old Legends (Armstrong, Cernan, and Lovell) have been getting a lot of publicity lately slamming him for cancellation of the project. Of course we have to go back to the moon. Bamster wants to do "Earth Science" (READ: turn NASA into a global warming institute). We have to go back to Luna and practice living on another world. Mars impossible now.

[ti994apc]

Falcon XX combined with Falcon9 BLOWS AWAY Ares1 and AresV. When Bush created COTS no one expected SpaceX stuff to work, unlike Lockheed's over priced pieces of junk called Ares that only exists on fancy animations.

[LonghornPhysicist]

@ti994apc ULA thinks it doesn't have to compete and will just have money thrown at them. Sadly, they are mostly right. Crony capitalism at its finest.

[vidgami46]

@ti994apc I assume you're referring to the Falcon Heavy? I never saw it referred to as the Falcon XX. Anyway, the Ares V and the Falcon Heavy are actually fairly close as far as cost per pound. Ares V would be able to carry more however, and Falcon Heavy is the cheaper of the two by far. All sadly irrelevent because Ares was canceled.

[ti994apc]

@vidgami46 What are you talking about? Ares1 (the cheapest part of the constellation program) by itself was 1.2 billion per launch. Ares V would projected to have cost "at least" 3.5 billion.  Which means you can have at least 35 Falcon heavy launches for one AresV. Thus, AresV can put 157,000 lbs to LEO, and for the same cost Falcon Heavy can put 4,095,000 lbs (117,000 lb p/launch) to LEO.

[vidgami46]

@ti994apc WHAT!?!? Ares V launch cost is more like half a billion, and the payload is well over 300,000 lbs. to low Earth orbit. No idea where you got those numbers, but contrary to popular belief, U.S. engineers aren't that incompetant. However, I will concede to the fact that SpaceX vehicles are and will continue to be for some time the best choice for our space program. But as I said before, its irrelevent because the Constellation project was canceled.

[SgtAndrewM]

hasn't obama cancelled funding for this now?

[chronius9]

It's should have been a partly reusable , man-rated rocket with carrying power even higher than Saturn V. And for the what the fuck it was canceled when it was half way complete??????

[ti994apc]

@chronius9 It was not close to half way complete. They fooled around with Ares1 and never got started on Ares V. It was more about big government contracts that actual space achivement.

[happyguy82]

@chronius9 Ask Obummer that question :)

[powwow151]

@chronius9 thank Obama for that, he canceled the moon program

[johnmae90]

am i the only whos masterbayting to this

[SexMachine69ize]

I'm pumped up. D:

[Yag44]

Constellation was a great program, this animation shows just how incredible it could have been. Sadly due to the incompetence of some politicians our return to the moon at this point is unsustainable with Constellation hardware. It was a great program to start with, but unfortunately we must now throw away 10 years of work and billions of dollars to go with the COTS program and an Orion asteroid mission.

[gyoza007]

To old geezer, like me, this looks like up-dated Apollo. I hope it happens before I'm pushing up the daisies...

[Marvin5673]

wie heissten die animation

[happyguy82]

@Marvin5673 NASA's Konstellation Projekts auf den Menschen auf den Mond bringen von Jahr 2020

[SingularlyDatarific]

If this ends up canceled, like the other NASA projects, I'm gonna be reaaaally pissed,

There's been FAR more costly expenditures than building a few rockets, most of which are not nearly as an awesome idea.

What happened to the zeal and awe that captivated space travel back when it started?

What happened to the support for these systems?

What happened to those in charge giving more thought to a space program than what should go on their sandwich?!?

[cuculain67]

what a stupid - but in a way typically american - name for a rocket. Ares. Ancient god of slaughter and bloodthirst.

What dumbs are naming these technologies?

Anyhow nice animation ;-)

[happyguy82]

@cuculain67 ohh really? I didn't know hahahah thx for pointing out.

[marioman102594]

@cuculain67 it also translates to Mars... lol... just saying

[japz0021]

@cuculain67 Ares is Greek equivalent of Mars. You get the point. 'Nuff said.

[EpiDemic117]

@cuculain67 Hmm maybe we should of just named it the rolex space craft.......

[vidgami46]

@cuculain67 You do know that Ares and Mars is the same god? Ares named by the Greeks and Mars named by the Romans. Has nothing to do with bloodthirst and slaughter.

[bircov]

@cuculain67 You dumb ass. Ares means Mars in Greek Mythology. Major poin of Constellation Program was manned mission to Mars. That why is the name Ares.

[cuculain67]

@bircov: Well, dear bircov. Superficially you are right. But Ares as a God had quite a different quality as I mentioned. I wonder why my comentary was deleted and how you could imagine I wasn´t aware of the ovious - and slightly superficial- idea behind the naming. What I said can easily be proved, with a little effort...and brains ;-) Nomen est Omen as the saying goes in latin...And Ares does not mean Mars in Greek Mythology, that´s exactly the point. Why so insultuing, anyhow?

[NittanyTiger1]

Too bad this will remain a dream.

[fairlego123]

cant wait to see it

[astralseeker]

and I leave this last comment for any little genius in here to check my real profile

since i left the 2 comments below unwillingly with another profile of mine i should never had created

may god or love or all the positive entities of this universe enlighten you all before it's too late

best vibes to all

best vibes to all

[spiseed]

safety standard my ass !!

money is used to build weapons and chemicals to destroy everything

scientists spend their time creating new devices & technologies to enslave other people through big consortium & corporations

i am so freacking tired of all those lies and the sheeps who spread them

[spiseed]

use the 1/1000000 of what our rich countrie spend in  control devices & weapons of all kind to spread real well beings for human kind instead of fear, death & pollution

use sciences & scientists for cosntructive explorations & positive research and you will be back on the moon 20 years ago & you will get to mars 30 years ago !!

our governments use all masters & matters to spread chaos & disinformation instead of love & understanding

[KittyRokher]

Well, I know what I want for Christmas 2020. To go to the mooooooooooooon! Hope it doesn't end up like Challenger.

[happyguy82]

accidents can happen at any time. but this time the safety standard is very high. that's why it's taking up to 2020 to get back to the moon. if the safety standards were as low as during the apollo program, we'd be back on the moon by now :)

[KittyRokher]

True, then again, I guess it's a good thing we're going for safety. Back during the Cold War, the Russians usually got things done first, but they overlooked safety and they lost a lot of cosmonauts in their missions.

[popqvn]

Back to the 1970s!!!

[happyguy82]

there's nothing wrong with reverting to old tech if the new tech proves to be the wrong thing to do. re-usable vehicles aren't suitable for lunar travel.

[nakazatoGTR]

@happyguy82

this is fact especially for the IT computer world, not all new is better.

[rommel2350]

to bad obama wants to cancel the program, but put it bluntly, I hope he fails...

[KittyRokher]

@rommel2350- lol all the scientists get mad and use their technology to use him to see if humans can survive without a suit in a vacuum.

Hypothesis- no he won't XD

[DoubleDutchBust]

6:53am Wednesday (CST) - Time in Houston, Texas

Five Niner

Fourteen 1:14

[OettingerCroat]

i think using Falcon 9 for heavy lift is ridiculous, 30,000 kg to LEO vs. 190,000 kg with Ares V.

however, Falcon 9, Delta IV Heavy and Atlas V all are, in my opinion, launch systems that with minimal improvements could be man-ready and theoretically could have served as NASA's future manned launchers (i.e. instead of Ares I).

I understand that they want to develop NEW technologies, as well, however. Delta and Atlas are like 50 years old...

[happyguy82]

yeap. agreed. very good comment.

[AuburnLaserLab]

I'd like to make a comment to those saying that the Falcon 9 should be used for heavy lift, rather than the Ares V. The current plans for the Falcon 9 Heavy allow it to carry 65,000 lbs to LEO. The Ares V will be capable of lifting over 410,000 lbs to LEO, a factor of over 6 higher. Another major reason for the Ares V is the maximum payload diameter - much larger than the Falcon 9. People are thinking of using it as a launcher for the next space telescope, allowing it to be much, much larger.

[happyguy82]

well mentioned :)

What about using Delta 4 Heavy as the unmanned launcher?

[MrAmerica1995]

Best animation EVAR?!

[ti994apc]

We can do the same thing much cheaper using 3 launches. 1st launch the LEM/LSAM in a Falcon9. 2nd launch the Earth Departure Stage launched by a Falcon9 HEAVY. 3rd a crew up to 7 astronauts in a Falcon9/Dragon. However, NASA does not want a Honda, they want a Deluxe Rolls Royce.

[happyguy82]

Falcon and Dragon are private rockets. In order to beat Russia and China to the moon by 2020, NASA has to start developing its own program. They can't rely solely on other private companies.

[happyguy82]

Anyway you're suggesting using Falcon9 for every component. Is Falcon9 a man rated vehicle or not? If it is, it shouldn't be used to launch the LEM/LSAM and EDS as it would be a waste of money. If it isn't then it shouldn't be used to launch the crew.

[Webboarder]

Not yet, but with the proper funding, another version of Falcon-9 can be created, one that is human rated. SpaceX already has the plans to do so.

So the "old" version isn't human rated and cheaper, the new version is human rated, but more expensive.

[happyguy82]

well yeah no doubt one day there would be private companies that can launch human rated vehicles but until that market is matured, NASA can't take the risk of not having a human rated vehicle for constellation.

[Webboarder]

Ok, but why can't that vehicle be a Dragon spacecraft on a human-rated Falcon-9 rocket. It's still all American, just what the American government wants. NASA just has to participate in it.

[happyguy82]

Because if that happened then the Dragon or Falcon projects would be called NASA's constellation. Orion is developed by Lockheed Martin because they won the contract from NASA to build it. Because Dragon and Falcon didn't get contracts to build rockets for NASA, they have to fund themselves. Anyway Dragon for a prize money of several million from NASA last year in order to accelerate their development if I recall correctly.

[Webboarder]

Don't get me wrong, I know what you're saying. I was just replying to you're question whether or not Falcon-9 is human rated.

It was just about why NASA isn't using SpaceX's Falcon-9 rocket to launch the LSAM, EDS and crew (in 3 seperate launches).

SpaceX is developing there hardware for commercial purposes, with NASA as a big costumer, with the COTS program.

[happyguy82]

Ohh ok cool :)

[sirjamesbond]

This video rocks, is there somewhere I can get a higher quality version of it?

[happyguy82]

yeah try nasatelevision <--- the youtube channel

[nikhil760]

If I die tomorrow, I will have no regrets (have seen it).

[DSialpha]

cost of human return to the moon is NOTHING compared with costs of some military activities around the middle east for example...and exploring space is way cooler than war ;)

[happyguy82]

agreed!! and it gets mankind to places we've never been to before.

[EUROSUN1]

Yes but the US doesn`t have the money to go to the moon. They can only do so by borrowing even more money on top of their already ridiculously large deficit. They are destroying their nation from within with their spending habits. Sad really their children will be being debt all their lives.

[nothatso]

EUROSUN1 what are you talking about, you don't even know do you? The U.S. spends 0.4% of its budget on NASA and still conducts more research and rocket launches than any other space agency. When NASA landed on the moon the U.S. was spending 4% on them which isn't necessary. Do they need a funding increase? Yes, but not so much as to make a dramatic impact on the economy.

[EUROSUN1]

Yes it`s small compared but looking at the European Union for example the GDP of the EU is 18,387,785Trillion dollars Compared to only 14,441,425Trillion dollars for the US. The European Space Agency spends about 5 billion dollars. Hence a much smaller amount and much smaller percentage. Sure I would like the ESA to invest as much as Nasa. And i would like ESA., NASA and all the other agencies to join together and explore the moon and other places. But it`s just to expensive at current times.

[TONYMENACE]

LOL I think that you will find there letters and only 3

[kingofmonkeyfolk]

There is a good chance this is all going to be shut down this month. The Augstine commission is reviewing options for space flight right now and non-ares/non moon ideas seem to be in the lead. (aka no money for it).

[Piccinels]

I think youu should spend your money better. What about healthcare? ;)

[Jontheking100]

I think that social health care is not going to be as good a people say...

you will have to qualify to get a surgery

- if they think your going to die soon, they wont give you the surgery :(

so your insurance wont help

[happyguy82]

healthcare relies heavily on space exploration. a lot of the medical imaging technologies have been developed as a result of space tech. Drugs are developed on board the space station in protein crystalisation experiments.

[happyguy82]

wikipedia. most space experiments are either the study of fluids or protein crystalisation because they need to be performed in micro gravity.

[a4ol]

is that a SKULL in the sad at the end? :/

[sedna69a]

cool music.

[TRENZ2]

people will be excited when the ship first leaves the earth, then as usually by the second or third flight, no one will care...sad but true.

[adjutant]

Just like Apollo moon landings became routine.

[TonyFirelli]

Finaly america doesnt lie about moon landing!

[phongbong]

am I gettint this right? this is the same mission? The crew is contained in the second launch, and the moon lander is the first thing that comes up?

[happyguy82]

yes it's the same mission. the hardware is launched on a separate 'heavy lift' Ares V vehicle that's not 'human rated'

[rprince418]

Why are they sending up a hevy lift vehicle and a crew modual. On our first trip to the moon, we sent one rocket that held both astronauts and the lunar modual. Does this way save fuel or something?

[happyguy82]

It's much cheaper to do it this way because the huge cargo lifting Ares V Rocket doesn't need to be 'man-rated' At present the space shuttle needs to be man-rated in it's entirety, external tank, wings, landing gear, carbo bay, etc. etc. which makes it very expensive to run.

[rprince418]

Makes sense. That way on this, the only thing needed to be 'man rated' would be the command modual and the lunar modual.

[rprince418]

One last thing. Would they send these both up on the same day? It would be a hassel getting the pad ready for another rocket, wouldn't it?

[happyguy82]

hmm not sure if that's been decided but I personally think they'll be sent up a few days or even weeks apart. no point launching the astronauts up until they can verify the lunar lander and all those heavy cargo is in 'good health' in orbit by running remote tests and diagnostic checks while they are in orbit.

[rprince418]

thanks.

[HAL11000]

The design of the smaller rocket, Ares I, is focused on crew safety. It also doubles as a pathfinder for the larger heavy-lifting Ares V. Like the Saturn IB came before the Saturn V.

By building a cargo exclusive Ares V, you avoid all the hassles and safety measures to make it 'manned rated'. It is easier to do that on a smaller rocket with less components.

[GammyGoose]

Finally... one step closer to destroying the moon once and for all.

[funnyman1143]

pwnage

^-^

('.')