so the lunar lander is jettisoned; why wouldnt it be used as extra space for the astronauts. that wouldnt be a concern for a few day trip to the moon, but to Mars!!! Define Claustrophobia!! Id say fuel is the main concern, but jeez!
they can easy hire the china people to make them fireworks we use on 4 july to send people into space you know those rocket shits used for 4 july are you serios
Use Shuttle parts and you get Shuttle prices. Ares1 is a complete waste. Falcon9 is much safer, does more, and cost a less. This has to do with big Lockheed keeping big government contracts and less about progress. We can assemble a beyond earth system in several low cost launches. We did not need a giant rocket to make another skylab when we made ISS. We don't need a multi-billion dollar all in one system. We can assemble everything with Falcon9, Falcon9 heavy, and Delta, and AresV.
The capsule design is the way of the future. Boeing, Space X, and Bigelow are already designing their own crew capsules. They will be able to dock onto private space stations and their shape is optimum for space travel and entry into planets and orbital bodies like moons. A shape like the Shuttle design is inefficient. Future space craft will not look anything like the current Space Shuttle - they are being retired and are vastly outdated.
So NASA is now making their own flying saucers? Now when people see UFOs, we will know it's NASA or a private space company. The latest space craft designs are mostly capsule shaped flying saucer looking things.
why dont you just update the shuttle , instead of going back 40 years and giving us sumthing that look's like crap and is not very world inspiring ! shame on you nasa you disgust me after 31 years i would have thought you would have created a real ship worth the hopes and dreams of the people you represent , god knows you have had enough time and money . Its going to be a sad day ineed when the last shuttle launches . it makes me feel sick to my stomach .. Your new tin can looks like crap !
The space shuttle can't go into geosynchronous orbit, it would burn up on re-entry to the atmosphere. There's a reason capsules have their shape, although you wouldn't know it, and I don't feel like teaching you.
.
Incidentally, the original space shuttle design was published, and I had to read it, in my senior year of electrical engineering. What was built and what was originally designed are entirely different things.
@cheuler but as a solar system ship 5 percent of c is very very good for mining the asteroid belt...or pushing incomming asteroid-killer-meteors away from hitting the fragile earth...the moon has thorium that can also be used for fission bombs...we have no choice...chemical rockets are not for interplanetary manned missions and every is in denial of that fact!
@cheuler excellent comment on general atomic project orion space ship...(giant hybernation or generation sleeper ships with robot crews could gain 5 to 10 percent of c light speed...uranium-235 is very very abundant on earth and asteroid belt...(its even in granite rocks!)
This is stupid! I think they got it right in the 60's, ONE rocket! I mean whats stopping them from adding a capsule to the top of the cargo rocket?! I personally think this is very impractical .
How utterly disappointing. What a wasteful step backwards. If this is the best we can do, then we should throw in the towel and give the tax dollars to something else. It's embarrassing.
Face it. You can't afford it now you've bailed your banking system out. Believe me, NASA will be a major target for cost cutting in the wake of recent events in US finance. Read my lips - A return to the moon isn't going to happen unless you're Chinese. :)
Can someone explain something to me - if you enter space at a certain speed, will you continue at that speed once in space, because there is nothing to slow you down ??
Ok (cheers for that), so if in space you are at the speed you entered space at, and whilst travelling you have small bursts of speed (thrusters) then you get faster and faster. Thus it shouldnt be too hard to reach near light speed with enough fuel, the problem comes slowing down.
This Moon stuff has been done. Way not have a bunch of DotCom billionaires get togeather and offer a ten billion dollar prize for the first "private group" to get a three man crew to the moon and back alive/safe.
Make the prize a hundred billion for the Earth/Mars trip.
NOTE TO SELF....buzz words for NASA "safe, reliable, cost effective"
dcb1138 7 months ago
so the lunar lander is jettisoned; why wouldnt it be used as extra space for the astronauts. that wouldnt be a concern for a few day trip to the moon, but to Mars!!! Define Claustrophobia!! Id say fuel is the main concern, but jeez!
KinaNafasi 7 months ago
they can easy hire the china people to make them fireworks we use on 4 july to send people into space you know those rocket shits used for 4 july are you serios
you suck
wonderhappyness 7 months ago
they already have evrything they need to make better ship but something is happeing that is keeping nasa for more than 30 years in blackness
bosqii 10 months ago
Use Shuttle parts and you get Shuttle prices. Ares1 is a complete waste. Falcon9 is much safer, does more, and cost a less. This has to do with big Lockheed keeping big government contracts and less about progress. We can assemble a beyond earth system in several low cost launches. We did not need a giant rocket to make another skylab when we made ISS. We don't need a multi-billion dollar all in one system. We can assemble everything with Falcon9, Falcon9 heavy, and Delta, and AresV.
ti994apc 10 months ago
Correction : OUR NEW CGI spacecraft
dcb1138 11 months ago
The capsule design is the way of the future. Boeing, Space X, and Bigelow are already designing their own crew capsules. They will be able to dock onto private space stations and their shape is optimum for space travel and entry into planets and orbital bodies like moons. A shape like the Shuttle design is inefficient. Future space craft will not look anything like the current Space Shuttle - they are being retired and are vastly outdated.
PlatinumX098 1 year ago
So NASA is now making their own flying saucers? Now when people see UFOs, we will know it's NASA or a private space company. The latest space craft designs are mostly capsule shaped flying saucer looking things.
PlatinumX098 1 year ago
why dont you just update the shuttle , instead of going back 40 years and giving us sumthing that look's like crap and is not very world inspiring ! shame on you nasa you disgust me after 31 years i would have thought you would have created a real ship worth the hopes and dreams of the people you represent , god knows you have had enough time and money . Its going to be a sad day ineed when the last shuttle launches . it makes me feel sick to my stomach .. Your new tin can looks like crap !
ripcurlcns 1 year ago
@ripcurlcns "why dont you just update the shuttle, instead of going back 40 years"
.
Interestingly enough, the space shuttle was a step backwards, not forwards.
fuzzywzhe 1 year ago
@fuzzywzhe try selling that to the next gen of kids , cause your not foolin me fool.
ripcurlcns 1 year ago
@ripcurlcns haha - talk sense to a fool.
.
The space shuttle can't go into geosynchronous orbit, it would burn up on re-entry to the atmosphere. There's a reason capsules have their shape, although you wouldn't know it, and I don't feel like teaching you.
.
Incidentally, the original space shuttle design was published, and I had to read it, in my senior year of electrical engineering. What was built and what was originally designed are entirely different things.
fuzzywzhe 1 year ago
@cheuler but as a solar system ship 5 percent of c is very very good for mining the asteroid belt...or pushing incomming asteroid-killer-meteors away from hitting the fragile earth...the moon has thorium that can also be used for fission bombs...we have no choice...chemical rockets are not for interplanetary manned missions and every is in denial of that fact!
rocketshipstud6 1 year ago
@cheuler excellent comment on general atomic project orion space ship...(giant hybernation or generation sleeper ships with robot crews could gain 5 to 10 percent of c light speed...uranium-235 is very very abundant on earth and asteroid belt...(its even in granite rocks!)
rocketshipstud6 1 year ago
This is stupid! I think they got it right in the 60's, ONE rocket! I mean whats stopping them from adding a capsule to the top of the cargo rocket?! I personally think this is very impractical .
LILMIZZEMO666 2 years ago
Good thing you aren't employed by NASA you fucking idiot.
Gatedialer 2 years ago
I know the world is fucked with safety
ducatiforever09 2 years ago
duh the srb's are reusable the saturn 5 was not :-P
voorheez420 1 year ago
How utterly disappointing. What a wasteful step backwards. If this is the best we can do, then we should throw in the towel and give the tax dollars to something else. It's embarrassing.
kpdoheny 2 years ago
they alwase had escape systems its not realy improving safety
hiks88 2 years ago
These guys look like they are more into fantasy football than engineering.
Hodson2000 2 years ago
nasa need another seven astronauts
1lilcatbob 2 years ago
Shame. After all this time you would think they could create something less wastefull?
mahboodesign 3 years ago
If only they could make them less phallic.
bossudude420 3 years ago
Face it. You can't afford it now you've bailed your banking system out. Believe me, NASA will be a major target for cost cutting in the wake of recent events in US finance. Read my lips - A return to the moon isn't going to happen unless you're Chinese. :)
Arcmate 3 years ago
I'll challenge you on that.
pacificguitarist 2 years ago
Its just building something that can withstand that sort of speed, and slow down.
Do you agree, are you just saying yes :)
jimbob150555 4 years ago
Can someone explain something to me - if you enter space at a certain speed, will you continue at that speed once in space, because there is nothing to slow you down ??
jimbob150555 4 years ago
ur right
petik96 4 years ago
Ok (cheers for that), so if in space you are at the speed you entered space at, and whilst travelling you have small bursts of speed (thrusters) then you get faster and faster. Thus it shouldnt be too hard to reach near light speed with enough fuel, the problem comes slowing down.
jimbob150555 4 years ago
yep
petik96 4 years ago
Comment removed
cheuler 2 years ago
generally yes, but no one has gone on long enough to find out (as in as far as you can go)
alanochanman 3 years ago
Ares5 = Ariane 5 (european) copy
cuco1271 4 years ago
Nice...
ipanemablues 4 years ago
arent they also working on new vehicles to replace todays shuttles?
mejw1 4 years ago
Yes,this is it...
newenglander2007 4 years ago
This is the vehicle who will replace todays space shuttles.
debrazzz 4 years ago
This Moon stuff has been done. Way not have a bunch of DotCom billionaires get togeather and offer a ten billion dollar prize for the first "private group" to get a three man crew to the moon and back alive/safe.
Make the prize a hundred billion for the Earth/Mars trip.
ufoengines 4 years ago
good idea, would save time
AlexFictionFriction 3 years ago
Happy days will be here again....
thirdclass2006 5 years ago
Apollo on Steroids...
njmike38 5 years ago