Ares I-X Rocket's Test Launch

Beeker

NASA has set Oct 27 for the test launch of Ares 1-X. This test may well be a waste of time as the Ares 1 launch vehicle looks like it will be cancelled. Time will tell.
The launch will be off the old Shuttle launch pad 39-B.

slade_x

For anyone wanting additional info:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/ares/flighttests/aresIx/index.html

ynotdu

Beeker wrote: »

NASA has set Oct 27 for the test launch of Ares 1-X. This test may well be a waste of time as the Ares 1 launch vehicle looks like it will be cancelled. Time will tell.
The launch will be off the old Shuttle launch pad 39-B.

Here,s one for You Beeker,DID a Shuttle ever launch from pad 39B?
I know the STS was conceived as making spaceflight almost everyday(was,nt the idea that one could launch every two weeks?)
I thought that was never achieved,was it?
if so what flights used pads 39a and b in such a short time?
if it was commonplace in the early days just one example would be interesting to know about.
also what is so diffrient about 39A compared to B that NASA always seems to prefer A?

Beeker

ynotdu wrote: »

Here,s one for You Beeker,DID a Shuttle ever launch from pad 39B?
I know the STS was conceived as making spaceflight almost everyday(was,nt the idea that one could launch every two weeks?)
I thought that was never achieved,was it?
if so what flights used pads 39a and b in such a short time?
if it was commonplace in the early days just one example would be interesting to know about.
also what is so diffrient about 39A compared to B that NASA always seems to prefer A?

Yes in fact there have been 53 shuttle launches of pad 39B. The very first shuttle launch from B was STS 51L on Jan 28th 1986, the Challenger disaster, not a great start in its STS history.
Pad 39-B saw its first launch in May 1969 with Apollo 10, its only Apollo launch all the rest were from pad A.

You are correct that the plan was to launch every two weeks at the start, 26 launches a year. This was never going to happen with only 4 orbiters and would have taken at least 7 orbiters flying 4 times a year each. They would also have needed a much bigger work force, spare parts and simulators for training that many crews.
The best they achieved was in 1985 {year before Challenger} when they flew 9 flights all of pad A.
The shortest between flights on two different pads I think was STS 56 Discovery from pad B on April 8 1993 and STS 55 Columbia from pad A on April 26 1993 {18 days between them}.
However STS 51D Discovery launched April 12 1985 and STS 51B Challenger launched April 29 1985 {17 days} amd both of pad A.
There are no major differences between pad A and B as far as I know. That is before they changed pad B to take the Ares launch vehicle.
Why NASA seems to favours A over B, I don't know? Good question.

lord lucan

I think A is nearer the VAB i think than B,that's the only explanation i can offer. I was expecting them to push the ares flight back rather than bring it forward as Atlantis will be on 39A at the same time. I know they were talking about the possibility of something going disasterously wrong the Ares launch and it's implications for Atlantis across the way from it. I assume they're happy enough with it.

Beeker

lord lucan wrote: »

I think A is nearer the VAB i think than B,that's the only explanation i can offer. I was expecting them to push the ares flight back rather than bring it forward as Atlantis will be on 39A at the same time. I know they were talking about the possibility of something going disasterously wrong the Ares launch and it's implications for Atlantis across the way from it. I assume they're happy enough with it.

Pad A is closer to the VAB by about half a mile or so but can't see that as a reason but I dont know.
They are still looking at the threat to Atlantis from Ares but last I heard they were happy to proceed.

ynotdu

Hi Beeker,Thanks a million for your reply.
SO much of the facts You gave amazed Me!
I wrote a long, thought out reply to You(honest!:))
when i tried to post it i got the message:please use the back button and refresh the page,I tried that but my message is lost somewhere in cyber-SPACE!:mad::mad::mad:

lord lucan

Ares 1-x leaves the VAB this morning:

dbran

Hi

So whats he story re the whole programe being cancelled?

Dbran

lord lucan

It's still up in the air at the moment,the US government is still to make a decision on funding for future manned space flight so the Ares test could all be in vain.

Beeker

Launch due Oct 27 between 08:00 and 12:00 EST that will be between 12:00 and 16:00 here. 4 hour difference instead of normal 5 hours, since we will be back on UTC but the USA will still be on daylight saving time until Nov 8.

jumpguy

That's great, I should be able to see it launch. Even though it may be pointless.

Just wondering why people are saying it'll never match the heavy-lifting ability of the shuttle. According to the BBC, they both have a payload of 25,000 KG. Or is it designed to only carry crew into orbit, or to carry crew to the ISS?

ynotdu

jumpguy wrote: »

That's great, I should be able to see it launch. Even though it may be pointless.

Just wondering why people are saying it'll never match the heavy-lifting ability of the shuttle. According to the BBC, they both have a payload of 25,000 KG. Or is it designed to only carry crew into orbit, or to carry crew to the ISS?

Hi Jumpguy just while i see your online and having not researched Ares that much{Stiil hate the bitch for trying to replace Mother STS:D}

Ares was conceived to be a flexible launch vehicle.
the Ares 1 for crew into near earth orbit,the Ares iv(downgraded from v)for heaviour payloads and return to the Moon to build a moonbase as a stepping stone to Mars,In Bush's dreams!:)) A lot of 'experts'are saying it's design is 'flawed' and will cause too much vibration on lift-off damaging crew/payload.
What Obama/NASA will do next is ANYBODIES guess,and thats reading the 'respectable' websites.

Ares may be able to deliver a crew or a payload or both,but it will never have the capacity of the Shuttles payload bay:(

Beeker

jumpguy wrote: »

That's great, I should be able to see it launch. Even though it may be pointless.

Just wondering why people are saying it'll never match the heavy-lifting ability of the shuttle. According to the BBC, they both have a payload of 25,000 KG. Or is it designed to only carry crew into orbit, or to carry crew to the ISS?

Yeah Ares 1 is designed only to carry crew vehicle "Orion" into orbit and latter on to the Moon and Mars. Heavy lift would be achieved for payloads with the Ares V if it ever sees the light of day. The beast would be bigger and more powerfull than the Saturn V.

jumpguy

What about their reusability then?

Is it just more of does the shuttle seem the coolest-looking out the 5 of them?

ynotdu

jumpguy wrote: »

What about their reusability then?

Is it just more of does the shuttle seem the coolest-looking out the 5 of them?

in my humble but passionate opinion reusability is too dangerous for manned spaceflight,too much stress on the metal.
it kinda astounded me that Solid Rocket Boosters were even considered after Challenger,they are reusable but once lit cannot be switched off:(,at least Ares 1 does not have SRB,s,whatever about the proposed other versions of Ares.At least Orion/Ares will have an escape tower though so Astronauts can Abort unlike Challenger:mad:
and just for fun:The Saturn V for anybody who has ever seen Liberty hall in Dublin......... well they are approx the same height:)

Beeker

jumpguy wrote: »

What about their reusability then?

Is it just more of does the shuttle seem the coolest-looking out the 5 of them?

The Shuttle is by far the coolest of the lot:). But just being cool is not enough:(
Reusability is only of benefit if it can be reliable and cheaper than the alternatives. Each Shuttle flight costs about $500,000,000. Thats 500 million or half a billion dollars! Not cheap by any measure. The Shuttle never was cheap and in fact its very reusability has made it unreliable and tempermental. But I still love it!!:D

slade_x

Beeker wrote: »

But I still love it!!:D

Who wouldnt, from nostolgia alone. It broadened our horizons. It is directly responsible for the construction of the ISS the beloved Hubble not to mention the amount of satellites, probes and experiments conducted

Unfortunately its also claimed invaluable lives.

lord lucan

Here's the NASA press kit for the ARES TEST LAUNCH:
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/ares1x/presskit.pdf

jumpguy

slade_x wrote: »

Who wouldnt, from nostolgia alone. It broadened our horizons. It is directly responsible for the construction of the ISS the beloved Hubble not to mention the amount of satellites, probes and experiments conducted

Unfortunately its also claimed invaluable lives.

Yes, it has claimed invaluable lives. But it is the FIRST reusable spacecraft. It was bound to have flaws. The first trains had, the first cars had, the first ships had, the first planes had. Sadly, most of the time it takes a serious accident before mistakes are rectified.

Why can't NASA go back to the drawing board, invent a more modern, better, perhaps bigger shuttle. Instead of tiles use more modern, non-tile heat shields. They've perfected the launch with sound-suppression, etc. All they have to watch is weather. Now they can learn the lessons of the launcher from Challenger, the lessons of re-entry from Columbia.

TBH, going to a non-reusable spacecraft sounds like a step backward to me tbh. In 20 years time, NASA are gonna say "if only we had a reusable craft..."

Bodan

Ares I: What's the point?

Waste of cash, says spaceflight review chairman

By Lester Haines

Posted in Space, 23rd October 2009 15:23 GMT

Free whitepaper – Achieving the lowest server virtualization TCO

The chairman of the committee tasked by president Barack Obama with reviewing the future of the US's human spaceflight programme has questioned the value of NASA's Ares I (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/ares/aresl/index.html) rocket, just days before its first test flight.

The committee yesterday released its final report (pdf) (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/396093main_HSF_Cmte_FinalReport.pdf), offering pretty much the same options it suggested in its preliminary findings, which concluded (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/08/us_human_space_flight_plans_committee_report_summary/) that without a substantial injection of extra cash, even the planned return to the Moon was pretty well a non-starter.

NASA is keen to press ahead with its Constellation programme (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/main/index.html), with the Ares I theoretically supplying the International Space Station following the planned retirement of the space shuttle fleet.

However, as New Scientist reports (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18031-white-house-panel-sees-little-point-to-new-nasa-rocket.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=space), former Lockheed Martin CEO Norman Augustine yesterday told reporters: "The issue that comes up under Ares I is whether the programme is useful."

Indeed, it's unlikely that under the current budget Ares I will be operational until after the slated deorbit of the ISS, pencilled for 2016.

Instead, Augustine suggested NASA should press ahead with commercial alternatives to supply the ISS, such as SpaceX's Falcon 9 (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/02/falcon_9/). He said: "We think NASA would be better served to spend its money and its ability, which is immense, focusing on going beyond low-Earth orbit rather than running a trucking service to low-Earth orbit."

Whether the White House will agree with Augustine and his colleagues remains to be seen, and it's a matter of speculation whether "beyond low-Earth orbit" will eventually mean a return to the Moon's surface or, as many insist (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/28/aldrin_space_vision/), heading straight for Mars.

The Ares I-X, meanwhile, is sitting on the launchpad at Kennedy Space Centre ahead of a slated 27 October test launch. NASA is doubtless hoping it doesn't do its critics a favour on the day by shaking itself to pieces on the pad, as some engineers have suggested it might. ®

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/23/ares_i_doubts/

+1

for some reason I find ARES uninspiring and a throw back to 1960's spacecraft.

Beeker

Ares 1-X sits on Launch pad 39B at KSC waiting its launch Tuesday at midday Irish time.
{This is the same launch pad that saw the launch of Apollo 10 in 1969 and the ill fated Challenger 51-L flight in 1986}

ynotdu

Just watched the 'flight readiness'news conference on NASA tv.
Honestly such a demoralised bunch of NASA 'managers'I have never seen.
These people have been working day in/out since 2005 on the Constelation programme which is the term to cover Ares 1.iv,V and orion.
They said it was 'interesting' to go back on much of the Apollo hardware as a learning curve for them.
If even Ares 1 was given the go ahead it will take 2&half minutes to get into orbit compared to a Shuttles 8&half.

What really surprised Me is that Ares were it to get the go ahead would actually have MORE Weather constraints than the STS ever had.They said higher up clouds and winds will have to be taken into consideration than the Shuttle had to

They looked and sounded as if they were a 'beaten' bunch though TBH.
When Constellation was conceived there was no indication what lay ahead for the Economy.
I felt sorry for them even though i am not a big Ares fan.

Mr Benevolent

Ares 1X ain't going into orbit, this is a first stage test, there's only a dummy upper stage. It'll get to 28 miles and splash down.

lord lucan

Can't get excited about this at all tbh.

Sleipnir

Watch it live at http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html

Ghost Train

So just tuning in. Is this still on schedule for 13:00 launch

Not saying much on nasatv

edit: from nasatv, currently waiting on weather data, concerns about upper level winds(?), might be launching at 13:24 or could extend launch window to a bit later

edit: seems to be set for a 13:24 launch at this stage

Ghost Train

still a bit of delay

having problem with rope snagged on top of vehicle

Sleipnir

Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:15:18 PM GMT

Out at the launch pad, technicians are going to pull the five-hole probe cover after the "go" for that action was given by the launch team. All other personnel have retreated to a fallback area a safe distance away.

Although liftoff is targeted for 9:24 a.m. EDT, Launch Director Ed Mango has indicted that a little more time may be required. Today’s launch window extends until noon.

Turtwig

90 minute delay???
I'm going to miss it now.:mad:

Sleipnir

There's a ship in the no-go zone!