@MrRularula From what I can gather this part of the next nasa programme called Constellation. Two vehicles are launched one is crew and the other hardware. The idea is a lunar outpost and eventually a Mars landing
The Ares I rocket is larger than the Saturn IB, but has also a larger payload capacity. They both are designed to place their respective spacecraft in LEO. Only both the Orion capsule and first stage are not discarded after each launch.
The Saturn V is WAY larger than either of these and far more expensive.
@mejw1 - Don't count it out yet. Congress ultimately has the final say about funding for NASA and whether or not a program will continue. Thankfully Constellation has bipartisan support and most Congresspersons might oppose the Obama proposal.
I agree with "jonlawsb". I just wish NASA to admit to the public "it was a big MISTAKE using solid rocket fuel." Then we can move on with liquid a fueled rocket that is safe for humans to fly in. The best "1st stage" the US ever had was the Titan II for reliable, safe, low cost transport. They are still pulling Titan II's out from being stored for 30 years and launching them successfully.
Titan was decommissioned significantly because it used hypergolic fuels. These were highly toxic and corrosive, which made them very costly over the course of their lifespan.
Using an SRB first stage with a single J2 engine for the second stage makes for the most affordable design for a booster.
Ares 1-X was scary. One of the main tests was proving separation between 1st & 2nd stages (inline solid rockets are not usually used in rockets of this scale because they continue to thrust after separation.) 1-X showed this is still a major problem as it caused the upper stage to jack-knife into an immediate tumble instead of coasting first. (as seen in this Nasa CGI ) If the upper stage on 1-X had been live it would have been destroyed either by aerodynamic forces or the range safety officer
If by the first stage you mean the solid rocket motor then yes there would be a rocket that push the first stage in the opposite direction so its trajectory doesnt interfere with the upper stage.
they would
those little thrusters on the upper stage can easily deliver 400 thousand pounds of thrust.
Who cares if 1st stage is reusable? So were the solid rocket boosters on the Shuttle and look what they did to Challenger. We need a truly reusable, one piece rocket and NASA won't, *can't*, give it to us.
Just to let you know the challenger exploded due to unsafe launch conditions that made the external fuel tank(which fuels the actual shuttle and not the boosters) unstable. The cold temperature on the morning of that launch caused the adhesive that holds the tank to get brittle and break shortly after it cleared the pad. The adhesive is designed to remain in a sticky form so that there is a little play between the joints of the tank during the launch.
Complete nonsense. Challenger did not explode and it was nothing to do with adhesive or the external fuel tank being brittle. The Shuttle broke up due to aerodynamic forces when the SRB, Tank & Orbiter stack came apart. The 'explosion' was just uncontrolled burning of propellants following the breakup. The root cause was an O-ring seal failure (due to extreme cold) between segments of the solid rocket booster. The exhaust leak broke the SRB mounting which yawed and collided with the tank.
Its a well documented 25 year old fact that the bad SRB joint design was the reason for the failure. I dont know where you got or saw that information on sticky adhesive. I also have not heard of joints on the tank. Its also well documented how their constructed.
Ares is reusable...if its not then why was a boat towing it back. They do the same thing with the solid rocket boosters on the space shuttle, they crash into the ocean, then they reuse them....your smart
Alas, the human body can only stand so much acceleration on its way into orbit. It's not how fast you get there, it's what you do after you've arrived. I am curious as to what type of progress you were hoping to see? - Mike, Somerville MA
#1, the manned space program is widely popular, so quit making sh*t up. #2, this program will actually be less wasteful than the current shuttle, which completely burns up the external fuel tank. Please get some better information before posting ridiculous comments again.
It is abundantly clear to anyone who is informed that this rocket will be able to escape LEO. This is a freakin TEST. It is asinine to infer that it means NASA is not capable of sending rockets into orbit, since we do that all the time. They wanted to recover and examine it quickly, so they didn't want to send it on distant fool's mission just to impress people like you.
"use once"...? Most of this rocket is reusable. I guess you compare this to the space shuttle, but remember that the shuttle isnt capable of anything else than LEO. It also consumes a lot of fuel per mass and is relatively unsafe. In fact, the russian soyuz is the safest manned space rocket to date, and its core prinsiples are the same as this one. Guess the ares 1 will be more economic though.
Grats to NASA. Watched the launch live, and it went smooth:)
your measurements don't even have consistent units so I am confused as to which part accounts for "little progress." but i guess we can't all be rocket scientists.
It's sad that all this money is going to uselessly send people back to the moon and mars. What's the point? Personally I think we'd be much better off putting that money towards other space research like robotic missions, space telescopes, etc.
I know nothing about lots of things in the universe - but I don't make a complete fool of myself by giving my thoughts on them! Great CGI, thanks for posting.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
why in the hell dont they just build a better one they can fly back this looks like a buncha bullshit to me i mean surely we can build a better shuttle than we did in the 70's i mean i know the ones we have now are kinda dangerous but shit design a new one today im sure it would be kick ass make it where if it did blow up like the columbia one the crew would be in like a super tuff compartement and it would float back to earth i mean i dont know the mechanics of it but not this thing it sucks
Cute notice on the splashdown in this video: they're using sound recordings from actual SRB splashdowns. YouTube search for instance "SRB STS-127", or STS-125.
So fucking what , we pay the taxes, its our money, we own them! So basically the videos are ours, and if you see on Nasa's website, (There are no copyrights on (ANY VIDEOS) and can be used for entertainement, education etc...
Ok Chimp! So how come it is there on Nasa's website........if it was made for Nasa, well..it was made to be copied! SAme thing for LCROSS videos! If you can show me where it says that its copyrighted, i will change my name to Chump on my profile!
it seems sort of impractical to just dump half of the rocket into the sea and then come to pick it up. i hope we sea something in the near future that involves completely different technology.
An empty can, worth $450 000 000, with one purpose - to fly ca. 6 minutes. :D We all know that in NASA's history there are tons of examples when chasing dreams happened to be just chasing tail. Let's hope this is not one of these. Strange how they complain that there's a lack of subsidies and yet they launch something like this. And who knows...Maybe making this video cost them about $500 000 and more. :D:D:D
$450,000,000 in one moment of human time. We have a lot more advances in the future that requires Ares 1-X as a stepping stone. It's an investment for the future. And what, only about $1 per person in the US? That's very cheap. WE spend way more on electronics each year alone anyways. If you don't want to spend this money, feel free to go back into your caves. Others want this investment.
I don't care how you Americans spend your money as long as it doesn't envolve other countries (including mine). So feel free to spend you money as you please. :) And as I said - the whole thing might be one of the MANY projects that NASA spent tons of money on and didn't do anything but testing (some didn't even reach this phase). We will see what comes out of this. Idea's good, realization - unpredictable. ;)
If the program goes right, this will be the replacement for the shuttle, and eventually will take man back to the moon. Besides the Saturn V, this is the second largest vehicle launched to space.
If it aint broke don't fix it. Ares I combines the best aspects of the Apollo and Space Shuttle vehicles into one outstanding rocket. It can carry a larger payload than the Shuttle, research and development has been far cheaper, and it will be relatively cheap to operate. The Shuttle was a disaster, they thought they were going to get 80 launches per year out of it. They're lucky to get 8.
Hopefully the first and last Constellation craft. 400 million, and they're only launching it because it would now cost more to disassemble than to set off.
The real Ares wouldn't have been ready before the ISS is due to be ditched.
When do the grownups get to be in charge of this outfit?
RSRM is a four segment motor, ARES I is a five segment motor with changes in propellant and internal structure. ARES I-X uses a surplus RSRM with a dummy segment and loads of instrumentation (so much that all the cables don't fit inside the instrumentation tunnel).
I may sound a little spoilt by the likes of Star Trek but I was expecting something like the shuttle but much more advanced.
What happened to the X33 project? That would've been great. Instead we seem to be going backwards to older concepts. Is it a symptom of funding? I was led to believe that by now we should've been launching Stageless vehicles using arrowspike engines for high altitude and inbuilt rocket boosters to get them into orbit, but we have this instead. Disappointing
We want to go to the moon. And then on to Mars. The space shuttle can't do that for us. It doesn't have the proper "stuff" do go to the Moon and Mars. Even if it did, it would be way too heavy. It weighs like 95 tons. We can't send that to escape velocity, let alone equip it with engines and fuel of sufficient size and quantity to bring it in and out of lunar orbit.
Not to mention that the Shuttle has no LAS, so any sort of failure of the STS stack would be fatal to the crew.
We've learned that reusable vehicles are actually more expensive than expendable ones. We've also learned that carrying crew and cargo together in the same vehicle affects abort capability (the Challenger disaster demonstrated this)
So, a lighter, safer, and expendable spacecraft was necessary. That's why we have Orion and Ares I.
Actually in the long term reusable craft are cheaper and viable overall, providing that the parts last a decent time. For example, the space shuttle's tiles were always being replaced after every mission making the cost skyrocket (forgive the pun) If only a better, lighter material could be used that lasts much longer. That example was just from the top of my head so I'm sure they're many more. I'm sure that reusable, single stage craft, are possible and viable, the technology is coming on.
they gota redo the design because during a test there were serious vibrations that they said "could've shaken the structure apart" which is a fairly major design flaw lol
hey , i just watched the weather channel there about the chalenger mishap..the solid rocket boosters are the old fashioned ones from the space shuttle era ,is nasa going to refurb the srb during the ares 1-y rocket or are they "god forbid".. stick with the older versions . that too me sucks.. watching the video there , reminds me of the problems that plagued nasa from the beginning here. the puff of smoke coming from that srb really bothers me. great video though
The boosters were redesigned after Challenger and worked absolutely flawless since then. The Ares program will use the existing booster segments already flown with the shuttle.
okay ,blab.. tnx for that there. and i hope that the vibrations with those modified monroe shocks absorbers will work also. i hate to see another crash like the last two missions there..and the solid rocket booster will work also..good luck on aug30 with the test firing of ares1-x.. it will be something to see.
for the ares 1-x, ares 1 and ares v the are make new ones for each rocket so anll rockets will be new so the chance of a brocken componant from previous use is impossiple as each one will be used once which sounds like a waste but what can u do
There is nothing wrong with the soldi rockets gumpy. As Hanon said. Previous accidents is human failures. And a lot of improvements has been done for the Ares rocket.
Thanks for posting. I look forward to this day when it happens. I am excited about the new launch system very versitle for all sorts of missions and of course much cheaper
No, all other rockets before the Space Shuttle program weren't reusable, so if it didn't burn in the atmosphere in re-entry, then its left in space, mostly for the US space program.
Mars is not always God of War for the Roman it's also their ancestral God of their origin and it's also their agricultural or feudal God if i not wrong to remember. Now because Mars is openly our first planet to be Colonize its manner make the name "Mars" align with Aerospace exploration.
The heart breaking thing about it is, ares V is essentially the shuttle launch system without the dead weight of the shuttle on it's back. If we had done this after the first challenger disaster, think about how different space would be. The international space station probably could have been done in three or four trips.
What ticks me off is Ares V is set to fly in 2018, which is set to take longer to develop than the entire 1960s lunar program, and that's with all the modern design tools people didn't have back in the 1960s.
Sure, stuff are bigger this time, but you'd think 50 years of experience and all the modern technology and they'd at least be able match Apollo in development time.
Budget cuts, as petieng said, along with the fact that all the people who worked on Apollo are retired/dead and the younger engineers who are used to working with the Shuttle have to re-invent the wheel in a lot of ways. The engineering experience from Apollo is pretty much gone.
I think this project is great, althought it would be better if everything is a bit larger. Larger rockets, more capacity and so on. The next good step would be to establish a full time operated station on the moon. After that we should colonize mars and maybe some of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. In 5-10 years america is going to cancel payments for such a programm and everything is going to stay small and unimportant. Sad but true.
I feel the need to point out that the Ares V to enter service later will be the largest rocket ever built, even exceeding the size and power of the Saturn V used in Apollo. It will have the capacity to place something like 300,000 tons in orbit, which will include a booster rocket to blast astronauts away from earth orbit, and equipment for their mission, such as a lunar lander. The Ares I shown here is only for getting the people into space in the first place, so it doesn't need to be as big.
Rockets will get more efficient if they are mass produced, and made larger. Larger rockets can get better mass fractions without exotic materials.
These rockets should be based on a 260 inch maraging steel, monolithic solid motors. These could have been clustered for larger rockets, use used singly for our little ares 1 here.Using large rockets, we can launch conventional optical telescopes to 10 meters, and mars missions. But having said that, I am pretty happy with these rockets.
This isn't a new idea. This is the same Solid Rocket Booster used for shuttle. And that is exactly how we recover it now. Yes it does bob in the water. You can actually find video of the boosters here that show from takeoff to splashdown. The first flight is only to test the first stage. The second stage is non-functional and will only gather vibration and other data.
uhhh i think it is gonna land on the land, that way they can re use 100% of the capsule. As for the chutes, with so many mercury/ gemini/ apollo capsules safely landed with a perfect track record, there is no need to worry, or make fun of it for that matter....
They were originally planning to use airbags and oarachutes for a land recovery, but the addition of vibration dampening systems forced them to cut weight from the recovery system by doing a water landing. The capsule still can still be re-used. The booster aft skirt is made of aluminum and they are still re-using some from the beginning of the program even though they land in saltwater.
wow your really funny man.....I'm really do work for NASA AMES Research Center... I'm not an engineer but i still work for them. It think you need to grow up.
Well what an interesting coincidence, my brother is an engineer at nasa in the ames research too, hes said he was working on some sort of bio satellite..
this video you reviewed the the rocket and ontop of it is the load. once the load is released, the rocket will fall back to earth inorder to be reused again. This is what they do right now as well with the space shuttle. If you watched a launch, you would notice that those white booster fall detach themselves and fall back to earth , again to be reused. There is a video on it on youtube. its pretty much the same thing as what you just seen but with sound all the way!
um no, its actually the same thing as the booster rockets on the space shuttle. If you watched the videos before you would know that its the same from the point the load is released to the soft landing in the ocean to which they would reuse the rocket over again.
Fucking awesome. I love NASA.
hardstyle905 1 month ago
Perfect weather, perfect descent, perfect everything. HOLLYWOOD
JunkComa 4 months ago
We really love using mp3bat (try googling it) for s00ngs. They have everything I could ever want.
AlishiaiHatley 7 months ago
NASA is getting better than ever with CGI. Now all you need is to draw in a few astronaut figurines and we're all set for manned space exploration.
klin1klinom 8 months ago
Comment removed
hardstyle905 8 months ago
Comment removed
Armigo91 9 months ago
Well now we know of another reason on why our waters are polluted.
yoyoyoyoshua 11 months ago
What's the objective of this?
MrRularula 1 year ago
@MrRularula From what I can gather this part of the next nasa programme called Constellation. Two vehicles are launched one is crew and the other hardware. The idea is a lunar outpost and eventually a Mars landing
alfiesgirluk 11 months ago
@alfiesgirluk Oh :D thank you!
MrRularula 11 months ago
I think parts of this video is fake. It also looks animated.
jcskid777 1 year ago
@jcskid777
No shit, Sherlock :-D
Winner8501 11 months ago
amazing cgi!
kikbuttproductions 1 year ago
tan con madres..very cool
Makkek218 1 year ago
A rocket the size of Apollo (and almost the cost) that does nothing but take only take 5 people to LEO. What a bad idea and waste of money.
ti994apc 1 year ago
You need to get your facts straight.
The Ares I rocket is larger than the Saturn IB, but has also a larger payload capacity. They both are designed to place their respective spacecraft in LEO. Only both the Orion capsule and first stage are not discarded after each launch.
The Saturn V is WAY larger than either of these and far more expensive.
Of course I can't speak for that Ares IV design.
BattleshipAgincourt 1 year ago
we destroying this planet.. :/
w1k 1 year ago
well looks like they are killing the constellation program :(
mejw1 2 years ago
NASA already informed Russian Space Agency that Constellation program is finished. So officially Ares-I is dead.
woodielist 2 years ago
@mejw1 - Don't count it out yet. Congress ultimately has the final say about funding for NASA and whether or not a program will continue. Thankfully Constellation has bipartisan support and most Congresspersons might oppose the Obama proposal.
A86 1 year ago 2
@A86 lets hope soo, or atleast redesign the space shuttle :)
mejw1 1 year ago
Constellation program might be dead, but no reason to kill the rocket. Just call it something else. Leave the rocket alone.
Abanamat85 1 year ago
the animation was REALLY COOL!!!
TheCarolStreamKid 2 years ago 10
I agree with "jonlawsb". I just wish NASA to admit to the public "it was a big MISTAKE using solid rocket fuel." Then we can move on with liquid a fueled rocket that is safe for humans to fly in. The best "1st stage" the US ever had was the Titan II for reliable, safe, low cost transport. They are still pulling Titan II's out from being stored for 30 years and launching them successfully.
ti994apc 2 years ago
Titan was decommissioned significantly because it used hypergolic fuels. These were highly toxic and corrosive, which made them very costly over the course of their lifespan.
Using an SRB first stage with a single J2 engine for the second stage makes for the most affordable design for a booster.
BattleshipAgincourt 1 year ago
@BattleshipAgincourt
Tell obama that.
ytpfsx 1 year ago
Ares 1-X was scary. One of the main tests was proving separation between 1st & 2nd stages (inline solid rockets are not usually used in rockets of this scale because they continue to thrust after separation.) 1-X showed this is still a major problem as it caused the upper stage to jack-knife into an immediate tumble instead of coasting first. (as seen in this Nasa CGI ) If the upper stage on 1-X had been live it would have been destroyed either by aerodynamic forces or the range safety officer
jonlawsb 2 years ago
well the upper stage was a dummy so i think thats why it jackknifed
monimstarfox 2 years ago
The upper stage was weighted the same as if it was real. It should have behaved similarly to the real deal.
Bluenoser613 2 years ago
@Bluenoser613
it was weighted the same but it didnt have ant thrusters to keep it on course
it cant behave like the real deal if it doesn't have stabilizing thrusters like the real deal
monimstarfox 2 years ago
Good point. Would thrusters on the upper stage have the required force needed to counter the level of the pitch force shown?
Would the first stage also have thrusters in the opposite direction to push it away?
Bluenoser613 2 years ago
@Bluenoser613
If by the first stage you mean the solid rocket motor then yes there would be a rocket that push the first stage in the opposite direction so its trajectory doesnt interfere with the upper stage.
they would
those little thrusters on the upper stage can easily deliver 400 thousand pounds of thrust.
monimstarfox 2 years ago
Ha! I may not have the terminology right. Thanks for the info.
Bluenoser613 2 years ago
It's just another NASA artillery piece.
Who cares if 1st stage is reusable? So were the solid rocket boosters on the Shuttle and look what they did to Challenger. We need a truly reusable, one piece rocket and NASA won't, *can't*, give it to us.
somercet1 2 years ago
Just to let you know the challenger exploded due to unsafe launch conditions that made the external fuel tank(which fuels the actual shuttle and not the boosters) unstable. The cold temperature on the morning of that launch caused the adhesive that holds the tank to get brittle and break shortly after it cleared the pad. The adhesive is designed to remain in a sticky form so that there is a little play between the joints of the tank during the launch.
datboi448 2 years ago
Complete nonsense. Challenger did not explode and it was nothing to do with adhesive or the external fuel tank being brittle. The Shuttle broke up due to aerodynamic forces when the SRB, Tank & Orbiter stack came apart. The 'explosion' was just uncontrolled burning of propellants following the breakup. The root cause was an O-ring seal failure (due to extreme cold) between segments of the solid rocket booster. The exhaust leak broke the SRB mounting which yawed and collided with the tank.
jonlawsb 2 years ago 2
Its a well documented 25 year old fact that the bad SRB joint design was the reason for the failure. I dont know where you got or saw that information on sticky adhesive. I also have not heard of joints on the tank. Its also well documented how their constructed.
mach25man 2 years ago
This is a cool video an all, but i like Jontheking100 's ares video better
ThisKidIsADickHaHa 2 years ago
Why does that ring drop off the bottom of the booster just before splashdown?
Bluenoser613 2 years ago
The extention ring drops off to prevent excessive damage to the nozzle area when it hits the water.
mach25man 2 years ago
That makes sense. Thanks for the info. I guess it didn't matter in this test then. I read it was pretty extensively damaged.
Bluenoser613 2 years ago
In this case the excessive damage was from the parachute failures which multiplies the speed at which the hit the water by 3 fold.
mach25man 2 years ago
who uses correct grammer on the internet?
BWCVideos 2 years ago
Nope... Successful business. No handouts here. Sorry... Try again.
xray606 2 years ago
Ares is reusable...if its not then why was a boat towing it back. They do the same thing with the solid rocket boosters on the space shuttle, they crash into the ocean, then they reuse them....your smart
BWCVideos 2 years ago
Yeah, because large corporations have done such a great job with everything else in America.
xray606 2 years ago
like KKK and war on Iraq? : )
WPGBored 2 years ago
it's too bad those parachutes didn't go off as expected, oh well, the rockets going to get canceled anyway
kalashnikova06 2 years ago
Alas, the human body can only stand so much acceleration on its way into orbit. It's not how fast you get there, it's what you do after you've arrived. I am curious as to what type of progress you were hoping to see? - Mike, Somerville MA
msullivan1 2 years ago
Dude what is mission of Ares? supplies or finding earth like planet?
mazda1024 2 years ago
Ares [1] is for launching the Orion Spacecraft to Orbit, where it will take Cargo and/or People to either the ISS or to Lunar and Martian missions
kalashnikova06 2 years ago
when will it be used first?
bwillwall 2 years ago
парашюты раскрашенны так, что определленный момент (2:05) напоминают Российский флаг, Бело-сине-красный )
MrAllergeN 2 years ago
НАСА - самое пророссийское из всех правительственных агентств США, это давно не секрет. ;)
eraserstp 2 years ago
#1, the manned space program is widely popular, so quit making sh*t up. #2, this program will actually be less wasteful than the current shuttle, which completely burns up the external fuel tank. Please get some better information before posting ridiculous comments again.
tekno2600 2 years ago
It is abundantly clear to anyone who is informed that this rocket will be able to escape LEO. This is a freakin TEST. It is asinine to infer that it means NASA is not capable of sending rockets into orbit, since we do that all the time. They wanted to recover and examine it quickly, so they didn't want to send it on distant fool's mission just to impress people like you.
tekno2600 2 years ago
"use once"...? Most of this rocket is reusable. I guess you compare this to the space shuttle, but remember that the shuttle isnt capable of anything else than LEO. It also consumes a lot of fuel per mass and is relatively unsafe. In fact, the russian soyuz is the safest manned space rocket to date, and its core prinsiples are the same as this one. Guess the ares 1 will be more economic though.
Grats to NASA. Watched the launch live, and it went smooth:)
libbern 2 years ago
your measurements don't even have consistent units so I am confused as to which part accounts for "little progress." but i guess we can't all be rocket scientists.
descendents1 2 years ago
very beautiful simulation ! ...
But there is a small error : normally the sky is black at this altitude ( see the real video)
why doing so good emulation, but forget basic atmospheric parameters ?
cslevine 2 years ago
no the simulation isnt wrong. real life had the glitchy sky problem. the simulation didnt. :P
threadysparrow 2 years ago
Poetic Licence I am thinking...
msullivan1 2 years ago
It's sad that all this money is going to uselessly send people back to the moon and mars. What's the point? Personally I think we'd be much better off putting that money towards other space research like robotic missions, space telescopes, etc.
arloj 2 years ago
yeah trying to go to mars is dumb compared to all of the research that can be done in zero g that can help improve human life.
threadysparrow 2 years ago
I know nothing about lots of things in the universe - but I don't make a complete fool of myself by giving my thoughts on them! Great CGI, thanks for posting.
IvanMorgan1966 2 years ago
I love it when someone who can't spell and can't string words together to form a simple sentence tells NASA that "they ain't doin' it right..."
What a sack of hammers.
splortz 2 years ago 19
This comment has received too many negative votes show
why in the hell dont they just build a better one they can fly back this looks like a buncha bullshit to me i mean surely we can build a better shuttle than we did in the 70's i mean i know the ones we have now are kinda dangerous but shit design a new one today im sure it would be kick ass make it where if it did blow up like the columbia one the crew would be in like a super tuff compartement and it would float back to earth i mean i dont know the mechanics of it but not this thing it sucks
bighead29058 2 years ago
Nice GFX!
Mueiwark 2 years ago
Cute notice on the splashdown in this video: they're using sound recordings from actual SRB splashdowns. YouTube search for instance "SRB STS-127", or STS-125.
mkarnerfors 2 years ago
Orginal video taken from nasaspaceflight website. miklops is a leecher.
Tim733733 2 years ago
So fucking what , we pay the taxes, its our money, we own them! So basically the videos are ours, and if you see on Nasa's website, (There are no copyrights on (ANY VIDEOS) and can be used for entertainement, education etc...
So noone is a leecher! :o), with respect!
Take care!
propaghandi2 2 years ago
It's NOT a NASA video, chump. It's by Fransico Associates for ATK who provided the first stage.
Tim733733 2 years ago
Ok Chimp! So how come it is there on Nasa's website........if it was made for Nasa, well..it was made to be copied! SAme thing for LCROSS videos! If you can show me where it says that its copyrighted, i will change my name to Chump on my profile!
propaghandi2 2 years ago
this videogame looks boring.
KutsuGyoushi 2 years ago
it seems sort of impractical to just dump half of the rocket into the sea and then come to pick it up. i hope we sea something in the near future that involves completely different technology.
0871356005 2 years ago
An empty can, worth $450 000 000, with one purpose - to fly ca. 6 minutes. :D We all know that in NASA's history there are tons of examples when chasing dreams happened to be just chasing tail. Let's hope this is not one of these. Strange how they complain that there's a lack of subsidies and yet they launch something like this. And who knows...Maybe making this video cost them about $500 000 and more. :D:D:D
rbaleksandar 2 years ago
$450,000,000 in one moment of human time. We have a lot more advances in the future that requires Ares 1-X as a stepping stone. It's an investment for the future. And what, only about $1 per person in the US? That's very cheap. WE spend way more on electronics each year alone anyways. If you don't want to spend this money, feel free to go back into your caves. Others want this investment.
buybygb 2 years ago 2
I don't care how you Americans spend your money as long as it doesn't envolve other countries (including mine). So feel free to spend you money as you please. :) And as I said - the whole thing might be one of the MANY projects that NASA spent tons of money on and didn't do anything but testing (some didn't even reach this phase). We will see what comes out of this. Idea's good, realization - unpredictable. ;)
rbaleksandar 2 years ago
If the program goes right, this will be the replacement for the shuttle, and eventually will take man back to the moon. Besides the Saturn V, this is the second largest vehicle launched to space.
an147 2 years ago
I here news casters calling it the future of man spaced flight...more like the past of man space flight. Did I just wake up in 1969? This is garbage.
wannabeinher 2 years ago
If it aint broke don't fix it. Ares I combines the best aspects of the Apollo and Space Shuttle vehicles into one outstanding rocket. It can carry a larger payload than the Shuttle, research and development has been far cheaper, and it will be relatively cheap to operate. The Shuttle was a disaster, they thought they were going to get 80 launches per year out of it. They're lucky to get 8.
SomebodyE 2 years ago
Because...? Do you have any idea of what you are talking about? This is the most effective way to do it.
libbern 2 years ago
they are launching it now !!!!!
techdeck321 2 years ago
The VIDEO is awesome... NASA's concept is crap though....
satortenet 2 years ago
Hopefully the first and last Constellation craft. 400 million, and they're only launching it because it would now cost more to disassemble than to set off.
The real Ares wouldn't have been ready before the ISS is due to be ditched.
When do the grownups get to be in charge of this outfit?
s851867 2 years ago
Worlds largest lawn dart
dcb1138 2 years ago
Wow!!! Keep eyes WATCH on China
louielamson2000 2 years ago
Come on this is childs play
ArtisanTony 2 years ago
Holy shit nice video, really good effects
qup5 2 years ago 2
ALL THIS IS THE NEW 40YEARS old saturn 5
varku1 2 years ago
Aren't they going to use the shuttle solid rocket booster for the fist stage of the ares 1 and the boosters for the ares V?
KingDoy100 2 years ago
RSRM is a four segment motor, ARES I is a five segment motor with changes in propellant and internal structure. ARES I-X uses a surplus RSRM with a dummy segment and loads of instrumentation (so much that all the cables don't fit inside the instrumentation tunnel).
GB13Z 2 years ago
yes, but for ares it will be a 5 segment srb
itsaidhi 2 years ago
One idea is put the rocket in to a maglev in a vertical line with one or two kilometers.
doormagic 2 years ago
snakeboy , you are a clever guy....
Bonzenpunk 2 years ago 8
lol
itsaidhi 2 years ago
fake video
snakeboy100 2 years ago
35 days left guys! Getting close!
EndeavourLaunch 2 years ago 4
Man! I'm so gonna miss the Space Shuttle
ussjealousy 2 years ago
Is this going to be manned or unmanned?
Brianshvrs 2 years ago
the test is unmanned but the rocket is designed to carry the crew into space
423lemon423 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Oh, okay thanks for the clarification.
Brianshvrs 2 years ago
why not use space plan ?
amalpurnomo 2 years ago
55 days left until this beauty goes. Godspeed Ares I-X!
EndeavourLaunch 2 years ago 5
so many people just need to do some READING before they comment or speculate on this new rocket system.
jasong19711 2 years ago
I may sound a little spoilt by the likes of Star Trek but I was expecting something like the shuttle but much more advanced.
What happened to the X33 project? That would've been great. Instead we seem to be going backwards to older concepts. Is it a symptom of funding? I was led to believe that by now we should've been launching Stageless vehicles using arrowspike engines for high altitude and inbuilt rocket boosters to get them into orbit, but we have this instead. Disappointing
wilkoman3 2 years ago
Not really.
We want to go to the moon. And then on to Mars. The space shuttle can't do that for us. It doesn't have the proper "stuff" do go to the Moon and Mars. Even if it did, it would be way too heavy. It weighs like 95 tons. We can't send that to escape velocity, let alone equip it with engines and fuel of sufficient size and quantity to bring it in and out of lunar orbit.
Not to mention that the Shuttle has no LAS, so any sort of failure of the STS stack would be fatal to the crew.
ZaneKaminski 2 years ago
All of this applies to the X-33, too...
So we have to compromise.
We've learned that reusable vehicles are actually more expensive than expendable ones. We've also learned that carrying crew and cargo together in the same vehicle affects abort capability (the Challenger disaster demonstrated this)
So, a lighter, safer, and expendable spacecraft was necessary. That's why we have Orion and Ares I.
ZaneKaminski 2 years ago 2
Actually in the long term reusable craft are cheaper and viable overall, providing that the parts last a decent time. For example, the space shuttle's tiles were always being replaced after every mission making the cost skyrocket (forgive the pun) If only a better, lighter material could be used that lasts much longer. That example was just from the top of my head so I'm sure they're many more. I'm sure that reusable, single stage craft, are possible and viable, the technology is coming on.
wilkoman3 2 years ago
they gota redo the design because during a test there were serious vibrations that they said "could've shaken the structure apart" which is a fairly major design flaw lol
OblibProductions 2 years ago
The design for the SRB works. Any previous failures were 100% human error.
HarrisonsChannel 2 years ago
Fly m too the moon, Ares!
Hanomag1996 2 years ago
hey , i just watched the weather channel there about the chalenger mishap..the solid rocket boosters are the old fashioned ones from the space shuttle era ,is nasa going to refurb the srb during the ares 1-y rocket or are they "god forbid".. stick with the older versions . that too me sucks.. watching the video there , reminds me of the problems that plagued nasa from the beginning here. the puff of smoke coming from that srb really bothers me. great video though
gumpy900 2 years ago
The boosters were redesigned after Challenger and worked absolutely flawless since then. The Ares program will use the existing booster segments already flown with the shuttle.
blablubb12345 2 years ago
okay ,blab.. tnx for that there. and i hope that the vibrations with those modified monroe shocks absorbers will work also. i hate to see another crash like the last two missions there..and the solid rocket booster will work also..good luck on aug30 with the test firing of ares1-x.. it will be something to see.
gumpy900 2 years ago
for the ares 1-x, ares 1 and ares v the are make new ones for each rocket so anll rockets will be new so the chance of a brocken componant from previous use is impossiple as each one will be used once which sounds like a waste but what can u do
mangasasuke1 2 years ago
There is nothing wrong with the soldi rockets gumpy. As Hanon said. Previous accidents is human failures. And a lot of improvements has been done for the Ares rocket.
joachim2464 2 years ago
The Ares I-X launch will reach an apogee of 45km. Separation of the solid booster will happen at 39.6km..
quantumG 2 years ago
Thanks for posting. I look forward to this day when it happens. I am excited about the new launch system very versitle for all sorts of missions and of course much cheaper
NAVC130VET 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
hopefully there are other astronauts who died during the first launch of the Orion spacecraft and Ares rocket ..
C4ille4n 2 years ago
whats the music?
1ThunderBird2 2 years ago
because they were never out of the atmosphere
pjgdog123 2 years ago
why didnt the rocket burn away? didnt look to me like a controlled reentry.
armatus99 2 years ago
ares 1-x will only last two minutes. The upper parts are mass simulator and they fall down in the ocean and is not recovered.
joachim2464 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
Anybody know if the stages from the Saturn V parachuted into the ocean like this after they were used?
slovely08 3 years ago
No, stages from the Saturn V either fell to the ocean or burn on reentry, they were never reused.
miklops 3 years ago
No, all other rockets before the Space Shuttle program weren't reusable, so if it didn't burn in the atmosphere in re-entry, then its left in space, mostly for the US space program.
TheAmericanPageant 2 years ago
Mars is not always God of War for the Roman it's also their ancestral God of their origin and it's also their agricultural or feudal God if i not wrong to remember. Now because Mars is openly our first planet to be Colonize its manner make the name "Mars" align with Aerospace exploration.
Wongtsunqui 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This is all very well but it's 1960s tech which will never happen as the US government will cancel it to save cash.
Alembic25 3 years ago
The heart breaking thing about it is, ares V is essentially the shuttle launch system without the dead weight of the shuttle on it's back. If we had done this after the first challenger disaster, think about how different space would be. The international space station probably could have been done in three or four trips.
darkchashy 3 years ago 5
yeah dark, good point
MightySaturn5 3 years ago 3
Strange how they named it after the Olympian God of war and slaughtering, whats that about?
frankton98 3 years ago
Mars is a possible to be habitable and its petty close to earth and Jupiter is to far and to hazardous but it's Moon maybe habitable.
Wongtsunqui 3 years ago
I'm mad that the american public largely doesn't care about NASA and that NASA has such a small budget.
Don't americans realize that if people 500 years ago said "We don't care about exploration", then there would be no USA?
zeroyon2501 3 years ago 6
I like your boint bro, very nice
frankton98 3 years ago
how did they manage to screw up this 'supposed-to-be' simple to build rocket?
Instead of concentrating on the big stuff (Ares V), NASA might again end up with the LEO rocket.
Ahh...I'm just hoping that they'll eventually have enough resources for the Ares V
slafkec 3 years ago
Nice video, though the music reminds me of Fast Animals, Slow Children.
Frapazoid 3 years ago
as long as this works as adverstised. its gonna be sick and worth the wait !
just dont delay it any more 2020 is long enough to wait!
masterj345 3 years ago
What ticks me off is Ares V is set to fly in 2018, which is set to take longer to develop than the entire 1960s lunar program, and that's with all the modern design tools people didn't have back in the 1960s.
Sure, stuff are bigger this time, but you'd think 50 years of experience and all the modern technology and they'd at least be able match Apollo in development time.
dagnemrth 3 years ago 2
That's budget cuts for you :(
petieng 3 years ago 5
Budget cuts, as petieng said, along with the fact that all the people who worked on Apollo are retired/dead and the younger engineers who are used to working with the Shuttle have to re-invent the wheel in a lot of ways. The engineering experience from Apollo is pretty much gone.
Nidhogg13 3 years ago
Comment removed
natewebb 2 years ago
Comment removed
natewebb 2 years ago
I think this project is great, althought it would be better if everything is a bit larger. Larger rockets, more capacity and so on. The next good step would be to establish a full time operated station on the moon. After that we should colonize mars and maybe some of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. In 5-10 years america is going to cancel payments for such a programm and everything is going to stay small and unimportant. Sad but true.
1310slapmaster 3 years ago
I feel the need to point out that the Ares V to enter service later will be the largest rocket ever built, even exceeding the size and power of the Saturn V used in Apollo. It will have the capacity to place something like 300,000 tons in orbit, which will include a booster rocket to blast astronauts away from earth orbit, and equipment for their mission, such as a lunar lander. The Ares I shown here is only for getting the people into space in the first place, so it doesn't need to be as big.
Nidhogg13 3 years ago
Rockets will get more efficient if they are mass produced, and made larger. Larger rockets can get better mass fractions without exotic materials.
These rockets should be based on a 260 inch maraging steel, monolithic solid motors. These could have been clustered for larger rockets, use used singly for our little ares 1 here.Using large rockets, we can launch conventional optical telescopes to 10 meters, and mars missions. But having said that, I am pretty happy with these rockets.
r0ck3tsm0k3 3 years ago
This isn't a new idea. This is the same Solid Rocket Booster used for shuttle. And that is exactly how we recover it now. Yes it does bob in the water. You can actually find video of the boosters here that show from takeoff to splashdown. The first flight is only to test the first stage. The second stage is non-functional and will only gather vibration and other data.
mdb4360 3 years ago
I'm just happy that America is BACK in Business!! This is what we are best at - something that no one can do as well/safe as we can!
mackjsm 3 years ago
what did you use to make this out of curiousity?
Del1720 3 years ago
We used Lightwave 9 to make the video.
bschwghrt 2 years ago
excellent job!
Frye666 2 years ago 2
uhhh i think it is gonna land on the land, that way they can re use 100% of the capsule. As for the chutes, with so many mercury/ gemini/ apollo capsules safely landed with a perfect track record, there is no need to worry, or make fun of it for that matter....
hooless 3 years ago
They were originally planning to use airbags and oarachutes for a land recovery, but the addition of vibration dampening systems forced them to cut weight from the recovery system by doing a water landing. The capsule still can still be re-used. The booster aft skirt is made of aluminum and they are still re-using some from the beginning of the program even though they land in saltwater.
mdb4360 3 years ago
i like the battlestar galactica music....
d8300 3 years ago
Download Orbiter and you can do all that on your own. Water effects aren't as nice but basically the same thing.
stevehamn 3 years ago
their nasa engineers, I'm sure they can design a cylinder to float up right in the water lol
Gunchy17 3 years ago
wow your really funny man.....I'm really do work for NASA AMES Research Center... I'm not an engineer but i still work for them. It think you need to grow up.
spartin86 3 years ago
Well what an interesting coincidence, my brother is an engineer at nasa in the ames research too, hes said he was working on some sort of bio satellite..
Gunchy17 3 years ago
that would be interesting. I wonder when they will set a launch date? There has been some activity on base this past month too.
spartin86 3 years ago
dude thats cool...its even cooler cuz i work for nasa...now i know all these people do here...LOL!
spartin86 3 years ago
Comment removed
gittenlucky 3 years ago
Easy now, it's probably some 10 year old. Let the kiddo dream.
parallelworlds 3 years ago 4
"Your [grammar], punctuation, and general understanding of the [E]nglish language [are] top notch. Go back to school[,] you failure."
There, I fixed it for you.
jpb7484 3 years ago 2
Geez, between this and When We Left Earth, NASA is working really hard to rekindle public fascination with space exploration...and well they should.
hallstripes2 3 years ago
nice simulation :-)
MRCAB 3 years ago 2
yeah. i dont know anything on this rocket so, ill go look into it before saying its a waste of money, and importance.
mac11attack 3 years ago
this video you reviewed the the rocket and ontop of it is the load. once the load is released, the rocket will fall back to earth inorder to be reused again. This is what they do right now as well with the space shuttle. If you watched a launch, you would notice that those white booster fall detach themselves and fall back to earth , again to be reused. There is a video on it on youtube. its pretty much the same thing as what you just seen but with sound all the way!
Avatarrokuu 3 years ago
Welcome to the 1960's... We hope you enjoy your stay.
spyd4r 3 years ago
rofl
blueshiftX 3 years ago
NASA reveals their revolutionary new way to get rockets into the ocean.
kamui22XX 3 years ago 8
um no, its actually the same thing as the booster rockets on the space shuttle. If you watched the videos before you would know that its the same from the point the load is released to the soft landing in the ocean to which they would reuse the rocket over again.
Avatarrokuu 3 years ago
Man, NASA has gotten to leading edge on simulation videos. Pity.
oscarmas 3 years ago 5
they should use all that talent to make video games to supplement their diminishing funds.
mypetridish 3 years ago
haha was just thinking the same thing. I guess we know where their budget is going.
completelybonkers 3 years ago
Prepwork for first human mars landing. :-p
stonerroaster 3 years ago
Wait, can anyone inform me as to what the purpose of this rocket is?
It's definitely not a new shuttle, and it seems like it just goes into low-space and comes back down.
Are they testing new materials or just the engine for future propulsion systems?
JurakaF 3 years ago
It's a reusable rocket. The payload came off the top and went into orbit whist the main body and thrusters came back down ready to be used again.
fooflyz 3 years ago 9
im curious? i thought the thrusters has always been reusable? so what's new with this new rocket system?
mypetridish 3 years ago