Added: 5 years ago
From: d3vnull
Views: 33,142
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (99)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • It's interesting to see that this is a modern upgrade of old tested concepts. NASA is playing it safe and cheap.

  • This is stupid!!! 

  • It's not ARES but Ares.

    ARES is an abbreviation of Aerial Regional-scale Environmental Survey of Mars, a future Mars airplane.

  • @basvg1 Ares is also the God of war.

  • @rckn4ever That's right, the ancient greek war god.

  • to okaunis. i lived in America but i am not an American yet. as we all can see most of the war today is all about United States leading. But the action was base on commen sense. What if someone hurt your family do you seek on revenge by physical nor by law? i feel bad for other but the U.S gota do what they need to do. and they also Help alots of other country. and what If other Great Nation going to rise eventually, and so WHO GIVE A DAMN. are they going to do anybetter than the US? -->China?

  • Forget America. This is 2009. Eventually a great nation will rise again. Then again the dinosaurs never came back. Oh well. So continue your dream of America getting it's space program going.

  • @okaunis you mean like when we landed on the moon and stuff? yeah, good luck getting that to happen... oh wait. it already did!

    no one is perfect, the US is far from it. but tell me who invests more heavily in helping other nations? who sacrifices more of their young men and women to keep you ungrateful kids free?

    your welcome.

  • America only exists in name now. Sorry but it is not the relative greatness it was years ago and likely before you were born ( So what do you realy know?) No nation as poorly educated and in debt can possibly be what you think it is. America is like a poor man with a credit card. The US borrowed more than it gave anyone in total. Just hope the US can pay back the more than 1000 billion it owes. In fact you'd better start paying more taxes because you have a lot of debt on your head.

  • And what year do they plan to return to the moon, or maybe this is just a con? Why do''t you look up the year they plan to be on the moon.

  • Budget cuts? Definitely. But I think NASA is being extremely cautious, too. They lost two shuttles and their crews, along with various other "misadventures". And it's been a long time since there were any manned missions outside of low Earth orbit. I'm hoping NASA will get its space legs back and be adventurous again.

  • Nasa loves solid fuel boosters.

  • America has fallen too far to be able to do anything special anymore. It takes BRAINS and a highly educated public which America no longer has. Iraq was Americas final frontier. A failure with Afghanistan.

  • Comment removed

  • @britishareawesome69 hate to break it to you, but failbama is spending us all into financial slavery. more than half of America already sees it. why cant you?

  • Funny you mention "slavery" when it comes to Obama. But isn't it Bush that conned you out of hundreds of billions to "rebuild" Iraq. And just what it the debt of some states such as NY,etc. Bush could have rebuilt Iraq, won the love of the people there and paid half the debt of America...if it were not for his stealing US taxes for his buddies for "weapons, construction,etc". Anyone show you photos of where the money went to?

  • well thats a good ting because obviously americans cant be trusted with the economy in their hands cuz look what their in now. and u assholes going around calling him a socalist... hes doing a fine job!

  • What does that have to do with anything? What, is you brain made of myelenated neurons? Don't answer that; it's called a rhetorical question.

  • If you don't understand what I mean then you are a subset of what I am referring to. Sophism only fools dolts.

  • How wejump about from nothing to nothing. Which is precisely what I was saying you said.

    I was refering to almost nothing but I didn't mean anything. You refer to near everything, which means very little - whatever it is that you think you said. And I do indeed take things at face value, as you do. Only I take rightly and you rudely.

  • Rockets make sound in space?

  • I've designed more advanced aeroships in my spare time. Enough with this puny shit, let's just jump straight to the big universe sized aeroships instead of these clunky tin and aluminum cans. I bet if i had the materials and the lifespan i could create a aeroship that in one shot could erase your galaxy from existence and then instantaneously move to another.

  • pathetic human aeroships!

  • Cost effective? People worry about cost effectiveness when talking about going back to the moon, to Mars? Don't they realise these steps will help save mankind? We have to leave eartha nd colonize space, or when the asteroids hit Earth again (and they will) we're gone.

    Cost effective indeed. Now that's madness. We should stop wasting all the billions on wars and put all that to the space program instead. There, problem solved.

  • Don't fool yourself. Earth is our fundamental hope. If we screw earth, trust me, another planet won't buy us much time.

  • after 40 years, space technology didn't make much progress. 

    What happened to all that talent and innovation?

  • its called budged cuts

  • About time NASA will land a pod back to earth on the Ground and not the Ocean. Better deal. Good video. :)

  • Ahh but then you have to put them on a free return lunar throw. So you mean 4 shuttle launched. Even if you could fit either the LEM or CSM in the shuttle bay, which you probably cant.

    Yes its possible, but not a great idea.

  • Comment removed

  • True, but at least Constellation has gotten further than the Space Exploration Initiative propose in 1989 did.

  • well first off they aren't going to just do flag and footsteps missions and infact the whole reson there going back to the moon is to see were a convinyent place to put a moon base. you know to find were the moons limited resources are and such. plus the aries will be used to haul heavy loads of stuff not regular transportion. they are developing an engine that uses oxygen which is cheaper and the oxygen can be extracted from rocks on the moon. so that they dont need big shipments of fuel.

  • Comment removed

  • Comment removed

  • damn it i hate when u tubers make sense, it breaks my frame of mind... no offense but when i think youtube comment i ussualy think berpete's comment "other space program with the anti gravity technology which would make everybody ask questions launches from the Antarctic" sigh nice idea josh

  • wat hapined to orion

  • Orion is the spacecraft, which is launched by Ares.

  • How old are these simulations? Listen, NASA all ready have the anti gravity space craft. There are two space programs, one is the out of date shuttle which launches from the usual place. The other space program with the anti gravity technology which would make everybody ask questions launches from the Antarctic. There already going back and forth retrieving artifacts.

  • wot artifacts??

  • your fucking stupid

  • Yes the Ares rocket are not cost effective.

    In theory Ares I could be replaced with a scaled up SASSTO or Falcon-9-H both reusable then Orion would be very affordable to operate since it's SM is really not much more then a simple pressure fed engine and fuel tanks which is cheap enough to throw away.

    Also the EELV Orion would cost about 270 million a mission.

    200 million for a heavy EELV 20 for a new SM and heat shield and 50 million on ware and tare on the capsule assuming ten reuses.

  • IMHO, private enterprise will show NASA up, big time. I reckon we'll see cheap (possibly air-launched) flights to orbit on fully reusable spaceplanes, which carry crew, not payload (of course non-crewed flights could also be used as reusable satellite launchers). Then take smaller spacecraft to the Moon.

  • Oh, and it'll be safe.

  • Servicing the ISS was really just a proposed use of Orion. That will more likely be handled by the SpaceX Dragon -- contracted by NASA under the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services Program. I'm sure lunar trips will be much better value. Frankly, unless you're going to go to LEO cheaply, you might as well not go at all. The 'value' of the past 30 years (almost) of the Shuttle programme has proved that. I'm not against LEO stations or scientific research there, but $1/flight is a waste.

  • It's better than spending a billion dollars a launch on taking seven people to LEO.

  • this time take some good ufo pics and tell the public !

  • What I am concerned about is all of the space junk that we leave behind. These rockets get pushed off of the Orion capsule that heads towards the Moon. All this junk could drift back towards our planet and enter our orbit and crash land on our houses while we are asleep at night.

  • NASA has the calculations taken care of, they always fall into the sea. You should be more worried about a Chinese nuke then Ares mission parts...

  • If China uses nukes on the USA then we only have ourselves to blame. China nukes the USA then we'll nuke them back to the Stone Age. The next President of the United States needs and must take a more hard line with China and it's leaders. I am all for the USA along with the UN and WTO implimenting economic, trade, and diplomatic sanctions on the country of China due to their terrible human rights record, their spying and espionage, their unfair trade practices, and the undervaluing of the Yuan.

  • It would have to de-orbit and survive re-entry, and then there's only a 3/10 chance it'll touchdown on land. But it won't enter Earth orbit in the first stage, as it'll be travelling at Earth escape velocity; 11.2 km/s. If it happened to be on the correct heading to encounter Earth, it would enter the atmosphere without entering orbit. And it will then enter the atmosphere at escape velocity, not orbital velocity as de-orbited satellites (e.g. old space stations), and thus will get hotter.

  • If NASA had even SUGGESTED faking the Moon landings, the kind of atta boy , go get 'em , gotta be the best alpha males they had as astronauts would have gone ape sh-- crazy and gotten ON CAMERA and exposed it all. Only dope smoking, Gen X types who still live at home with Momma believe that conspiracy sh--.

  • They'll build on the same techs but improved. B/c the crafts look similar on the outside means nothing.

  • 1969 all over again? I wouldn't have expected a modern moomn landing would be done the same way as they did in the 60's and 70's especially having the orbiter and lem having to dock and then re dock and the crew returning in an ocean splashdown. Strange...

  • Watching Sci-Fi movies will lead you to think we have better ways of doing this...

    In the real world, money, materials, limit to what we can achieve. Ares is estimated to be 10-12 times higher tech then what was used in the Apollo missions (and that's all they'll tell us). More efficient fuel and rockets plus our huge wireless advancement, not to mention our silicon limits can lead you to deduce Ares is far superior to the Saturn V - Apollo setup.

  • People who think we never went to the Moon

    must be drinking far too much Robotussin

    before they go to bed at night.

    Robotrippin' is making them see conspiracies

    everywhere!

  • congratulations!

    i just saw the official nasa video and yours owned theres

  • Spot on Kathleen!

  • i think ares is faster than saturn V

  • nice animation... there is no sound in space so why you use it!! nice animation!!!

  • more interesting a guess...

  • Wholelotofshakingoin, you're a wanker.

    No Telescope is capable of picking up an object so small from so far away.

    Next year, NASA will send up the Luna Reconnaissance Orbiter, which WILL be able to take pictures of the rovers, and prove idiots like you wrong.

  • no need to prove him wrong.

    let him be stupid for the whole world

    to read on the WEB.

    hahahahahahahahahahaha

  • Back to the moon you say you so funny dont you mean when we go to the moon for the first time, if someone wants to prove the moon landing why not take pics of the moon rover and such with the telescopes.

  • everyone knows that the landing on the moon was filmed in studio i think we have never been to space until now

  • you are so stupid it is actually

    amusing

  • juggalo56 Between what you are saying now

    and the way Iraq is going makes me ashamed

    to be American.

  • People like you makes me laugh and sad at the same time... folks like like you can't come up with a single counterargument which proofs they weren't on the moon, so sad.

  • So you think Mercury, Gemini, and Russia's Soyuz, Vostok, and Voskhod programs were faked too? You did say "never been to space until now". You're not clear as to when "now" is.

  • They did go to the moon back in the 60s they still use the laser reflectors that were placed there by Apollo. Though as badly as this second attempt has been going they might have to fake it this time around.

    I guess it's the GWB curse on how everything GWB does ends up an epic failure.

  • They won't fake it. GWB will be out of office months before even the first uncrewed sub-orbital test flight of the Ares I (I think it's the first stage).

  • Well Orion can be fixed just scrap Ares I and replace it with Direct launcher just google for it.

    Also all early testing can be done on an EELV,Falcon 9-h or similar.

    VSE can be made to work just by replacing the ESAS mess with direct launcher and make use of ISRU,reusable LEO to lunar orbit ION tugs for non time critical cargo.

    The last and most important thing restart the advance research projects and get as much private involvement as possible more COTS type competitions for things.

  • I think it can all be done with plastic bags and pogo-sticks.

  • just a minutos before i was watching here in youtube "the inner life of a cell" and it's kinda an interesting analogy how a cell can be compared to universe systems and patterns.

    everything we see, hear, touch, feel and taste is just energy condensed at slow vibrations, we are all one big consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. there's no such thing as death, just evolution, life is only a dream and we're the imagination of ourselves.

  • TooL 8-)

  • Bill Hicks, actually. :-)

  • this is what we should have been doing in the 80's instead of the stupid shuttle.

  • Or a better Shuttle (by that I mean (a hell of a lot) cheaper, safer, and more frequently launched) which could have carried lunar spacecraft to LEO and set them on their way.

  • So we don't land in the ocean anymore, that's good, but we still burn too much fuel to go back and forth. What about solar winds ?

  • Apart from the solid first stage, the Ares stages are LH2/LOX, meaning the only output is very fine water vapour with traces of ozone and hydrogen peroxide. It's the same propellant used in the Space Shuttle External Tank/Main Engines. I'm not sure, but as rockets are reaction engines the propellant may rush back to the ground, if not (as may be the case; the Shuttle seems to have left exhaust in the upper atmosphere), then water will act as a *very* (> CO2) effective greenhouse gas.

  • SRBs have no place on a crewed vehicle thats why the shuttle has so many problems.

  • Yeah. I think NASA should investigate air-launches for human orbital spaceflight - AFAIK the only air-launched crewed flights they've done are the X-15, which was sub-orbital.

  • theyre doing it wrong

  • Space isn't here or there at all. Space is just an illusion fabricated by our minds. It takes the place of knowing the "ness" of Earthly"ness" the "real" here and now. To "know" space it is to "un"know what we think we know, and we don't know shit! Our minds think we see space, only to be "letdown" by our assumptions. I'm going for the easy joke here and saying that i put the "ass" in assumption, and you will never know me. Space, like the ocean, is a mystery.

  • You're damn right, and that diversion ass-ist the ass-umption we have to be prepared for terrorists from outter space

  • Well, it is necessary u know or else we would have to make a very large spacecraft to carry both, which would need way more fuel. I really don't know what im talking about not an expert or anything but I cant wait till we have a tower that goes into space and we can just lift stuff up using tht like a roller coaster sling shot ride haha sounds badass to me :P

  • I'm not too keen on the idea of launching two rockets, but the reusable capsule that can land on solid ground is cool.

  • At last a green idea for our blue planet mothership !

  • It's a far better idea that sticking crew and payload on a single vehicle.

  • That part of the CAIB report is one of the most poorly worded documents in history.

    There is no danger at in in having cargo and crew on the same LV so long as the crew can escape the LV with out ever having to exceed 10gs acceleration.

    In the case of direct launcher the larger vehicle actually is much safer since the mass margins are not as tight forcing stupid decisions such as cutting redundant systems.

  • I was meaning from a logistical point of view really - I don't see the point in using a crewed spacecraft to launch satellites (the Shuttle) when commercial (currently expendable, although I'm sure this will change) launch vehicles get the job done better. It's an over-complication - NASA should focus on getting crews up and down, and deal with payloads separately.

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more