Ares I-X: NASA Launching Brand New Rocket, First Step In Effort To Return Astronatuts To Moon

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. — NASA tried for hours Tuesday to launch its newest rocket for a shakedown flight, but clouds and high wind kept it stuck on the pad.

Liftoff of the Ares I-X rocket – the first step in the space agency's tentative back-to-the-moon program – was reset for Wednesday.

Besides poor weather, launch controllers had to deal with an odd assortment of technical trouble, everything from a snagged cover for the rocket's tiptop probe to a cargo ship that strayed into an ocean danger zone under the flight path.

Launch director Ed Mango and his team came within two minutes and 39 seconds of sending the rocket on its short test flight. But a big cloud moved over the pad, and the flip-flopping weather was just too much to overcome for the remainder of the four-hour launch window.

Mango finally halted the countdown for good and ordered everyone back Wednesday morning for another try. The weather was expected to be a little better.

"We're not going to be 'go' today," Mango announced, thanking everyone for their hard effort.

The experimental flight is meant to last just two minutes. Parachutes will drop the first-stage booster into the Atlantic for recovery. The upper portion of the rocket – all fake parts – will fall uncontrolled into the ocean.

There's no payload on board, just hundreds of sensors to measure pressure, strain and acceleration.

NASA expects to learn a lot, even if it's for another type of rocket. The White House is re-evaluating the human spaceflight program.

Cloudy conditions pose extra concern for the Ares I-X. Rain clouds could cause static electricity to surround the soaring rocket, which lacks proper protection. The result would be disrupted communications, undesirable for a test flight.

___

On the Net:

NASA: http://www.nasa.gov/aresIX

Comments

[byla]

Heh, it finally launched today at 11:30. Sorry, I won't apologize, it's always a beautiful sight to see. It wasn't as loud as the Delta rocket, but I did rattle my windows a bit. I live in this area, and anytime NASA shoots something into the sky, it means thousands of people, many of my friends included, get to keep their jobs.

[lff]

Certainly seems to me their are more productive jobs than poking holes in the air just to give ex-fighter jocks a thrill.. We should be putting our money into more earthbound projects and letting the robots fly for now.

lff

[ancientmarinader]

Damned tanker had to be chased off and that cost them a few minutes. ALmost made it.

[AlDavidson]

Why is the U.S so concerned about returning to the moon ahead of the Chinese, what are they afraid the Chinese will find? or are they afraid of what the Chinese won't find?

[FerrisValyn]

*eye roll*

This has nothing to do with the claim Apollo didn't go to the moon. For that matter, it really has nothing to do with the Chinese, since they aren't yet considering going to the moon (and given the glacial pace of their human spaceflight program, it won't happen until the 2020s either)

This is largely about trying to find something useful to do with the human spaceflight program.

Of course, given that they are operating it in the most absurd way possible, its no suprise they are having trouble

[AlDavidson]

Did you read about the moon rock given to the Prime Minister of Holland, turns out that after 40 years in a museum they decided to test the rock given by the Astronauts of Apolo 11, it turns out that the rock that was passed off as real was only petrified wood.

[AlDavidson]

Quote from NASA, if we could ever find a way to safely send a Astronaut through the Van Allen Belt, we will one day be able to travel to the moon. This quote was made only a few years ago. Buzz Aldrin didn't even know that he passed through it in order to get to the moon, why would NASA withhold this info from its Astronauts?

[ancientmarinader]

We, and the Indians, have already imaged the lunar landers on the surface. Any space agency can see them if they want.

[AlDavidson]

Give me a link please, I'm having some difficulty understanding why they just don't send the tin can that was sent up 40 years ago, without the aid of today s computer technology.

[ScienceFTW]

Sounds like someone outsourced their education to the Chinese.

[heybobbymac]

What a minute! One of the beliefs about the moon hoax is that humans could not survive passing through the Van Allen Belts. Why would the Chinese be able to do that anymore then the Americans??? hehe

[KIVPossum]

It's amazing to me we have to do research to repeat what was done 40 years ago.

Didn't NASA keep notes or something?

[FerrisValyn]

To be far, NASA has lost a serious amount of budget between when it did Apollo, and now. THAT SAID, NASA is in serious need of reforms. Desperate need

[Lochmon]

Every new model of automobile is also tested.

This is a good thing.

[FerrisValyn]

Except this isn't a test of a new model - its flashy show, made to look like a test of a test.

Its bullshit

[jsarets]

Nobody has ever launched a massive solid rocket as a first stage main engine. I think this is a stupid design, but it's also unprecedented and must be sanity-checked outside of the world of computer simulations.

[FerrisValyn]

The great irony - this isn't actually testing the system - the first stage is different, there is no second stage, there is no capsule, and the guidance is different.

Sanity is not found at NASA, right now

[Notawingnut]

Oh Noes! We're spending tapayer money to explore the universe!

Some of you taxpayers need to reorganize your priorities. We're talking about trading $2 out of your pocket this year to discover if we can colonize the moon. I think that's worth it. I'd even go so far as to say that's worth it more than the box of girlscout cookies you bought this year, or that donation you made to breast cancer, or that day you volunteered with Habitat for Humanity. Oh wait, you probably didn't do any of those things because you're a grade A scrouge.

[FerrisValyn]

The probelm is that this rocket doesn't actually do anything good for the space program. Ares I doesn't actually get us closer to the moon, and the Ares I-X is even worse - its a test to test whether our models are validated.

We'd be much better investing in rockets like the Falcon 9, the Atlas V, the Delta IV, and the Taurus 2.

[ancientmarinader]

None of those have heavy lift capability and the argument from NASA was that Ares I development dovetails with Ares V development. The problem isnt the concept, even the Augustine Commission called it a good program, it's that the schedule slip has left ares-I with less of a mission.

Also, Atlas V and DIV are air force babies and theyve made it clear they dont want NASA changing them. So NASA would need a second production line set up to make modified ones. That's what is really killing EELV for NASA. Maybe when the new NASA group looks at the options again, theyll have better cooperation or numbers. Who knows..

[vesaversa1]

NASA is launching new rockets at what cost to the tax payer and why are we still going to the d@m moon when there is nothing there that we haven't already discover already.Where is the conservative outrage over this NASA program that i am sure will waste billions of tax payer dollars .Shouldn't we be using that money to either put men on Mars or some other far off Planet or even better yet we should use that money to cover the uninsured American in this country .

[byla]

My area has already been hit hard by the scaling back of the shuttle program. To discontinue the space program all together would mean even more folks unemployed. I'd much rather invest in space exploration to save not only civilian jobs, but air force jobs as well, than to invest in two useless wars.

[Lochmon]

We cannot go to Mars until we're confident we can keep people alive there for an extended period. The moon offers the best chance to test ideas.

I'm glad to see you're not completely opposed to the space program. If we really want to help the poor we need to remain a wealthy nation, and that does mean continuing to push our technological limits.

[rsaillant1]

NASA's long range plans are based on Moon-launched Mars missions,
reduced gravity requiring less less fuel load, less weight, lower initial
escape velocity, etc., all permitting greater human capacity and life
sustaining equipment required for a trip of this length, both distance and
duration.

That said, I would strongly suggest that very first human passengers be
the Blue Dog Dem's., and some of the more self-righteous right wing
politicans. From the moon they'll witness, first hand, the melting ice caps,
the rising seas, and the distant perspective afforded by a view from
space just may alter their narrow minded view of the world and the
universe.

[ancientmarinader]

Mars is too hard and too expensive. Better to work on our long range ships first, as Flexible Path suggests.

[liberalNmoderation]

And the anti-science t/r0//s will be arriving in 3....2....

[Agent420]

It is way too cheap to use an off the shelf launcher like Atlas or Delta. We want the US to try another Vanguard boondoggle.

[Downix]

Atlas and Delta are not cheap, nor do they do the full gambit of jobs. In addition, they are all booked solid for years to come. 30 month lead-time just for a single Atlas, vs 6 month for a Shuttle Derived launch vehicle.

You want to trade away a potential 80-90% of your lifting capacity *and* trade away the ability for quicker turn around in the same move?

[FerrisValyn]

Bullshit - Atlas & Delta are much cheaper than any shuttle derived systems, particularly the Ares I and Ares V. Augustine has settled this.

As for lead time on the vehicles - there is no shuttle derived actually developed yet, since the Ares I-X can't put anything into orbit, and Ares I is expecting its first flight in 2019 (and you can forget Ares V)

Finally, you can put just as much stuff in orbit if you are willing to accept multi-launch systems, something we should embrace by now

[Downix]

Gah, still holding.

While I don't agree with the current program (the Ares I and Ares V to be exact) I do agree with the goals, that we need to get people exploring again. We learned more in the handful of manned missions than in the many times more robotic, simply because people are not limited by design. A robotic probe can only measure what it is given sensors to measure. A person can change, say, "Ok, I was out here to find rock, but instead I found this icicle, I'd better study this instead it looks more important."

I fear Ares I to me feels like a design that they continue to push despite not meeting the demands of the job. Ares V looks to also fail, being overboard for the mission demands as well as overly costly. I think the ESAS LV-24/25 proposal, evolved into the DIRECT proposed Jupiter rocket is the right path, after all if re-uses the existing Shuttle main tank, engines, and boosters, just re-arranged for an in-line, rather than in a side-mount, which would increase the lifting ability over the shuttle, from 20 Tonnes, to in some configurations to 120 Tonnes. And it scales, unlike Ares, to fit whatever mission you need. Need 40 Tonnes, build a Jupiter to lift just 40 Tonnes. Need 120, build to that. Like what the Department of Defence does with it's Delta and Atlas rockets, it builds each one to-spec.

[lff]

Been there. Done that! Why try and recapture past glories with this hopeless rerun?

How about spending the savings from not needing human life support and safety on a wholly robotic mission? Better yet team up with Japan and make it a joint mission.

Think of the spinoffs! The high tech job creation.

Lets see some real imagination from NASA - and the Obama administration - for a change!

lff

[DJlaysitup]

Agreed 100%! Manned space flight is glamorous for Nasa...but robotics is what we should be working on. With distances what they are - the moon is about as far as humans can expect to go. I would like to see more long distance "multi-gen­erational" projects.

[vesaversa1]

I agree NASA should go to the d@m moon on a much tighter budget , this country have been there done that to already .

[FerrisValyn]

NASA has had its budget significantly cut, many times. In the 1960s, NASA budget was around 30 B - today its around 17 B. And mind you, those are non-constant dollars - if you consider constant dollars, its dropped much greater (I believe its close to $100 Billion)

To go on a cheaper budget, NASA needs serious reforms. Of course, I'd take the reforms over a budget increase, any day.

[FerrisValyn]

Because a pure robotic system can't develop space. It can do great science - no disagreement - but it can never tap the resources, can never develop the economies, and can never expand society into space.

Now, that said, NASA is doing human spaceflight in the most ass-backwards way, but there is a very good reason for human spaceflight.

[lff]

Robotics can't do it!! That is what I mean by use your imagination. In the 60's and even 70's no one had even dreamed of the computer revolution that took place just a decade later. Do you honestly think we have any idea what robots, computers, bio-engineering and who knows what will revolutionize everything in 20 more years. Dream on.

A robotic mission could support future manned mission's at greatly reduced costs. For instance a robotic mission to Mars could create a rocket fuel factory to supply return fuel for a manned mission that could then make the trip much more cheaply needing only half the fuel load to get there.

lff

[Lochmon]

Naysayers need to keep something important in mind: putting people in space, where every gram of life support is expensive, has taught us a great deal about doing more than less. Recycling, solar power, advanced battery tech, lighter stronger alloys... these techs have all been pushed much further because of a human presence in space than would otherwise have been the case. This, not the much-ballyhooed development of Teflon and Tang, is the true accomplishment of our space program to date.

If you want any chance of improving the standard of living of the world's poor, you must not oppose advancing technology. We are far past the point where the Earth can sustain even our present population unless we continue to innovate and reach beyond our present boundaries.

[rsaillant1]

...add Velcro, advanced computer technologies, super optics, plus
many, many medical advances.

[Rxman]

Teflon was invented in 1938.

We have been brainwashed about the great things that have come from the space program.

[pfc1369]

A return to the moon will be the costliest absurdity in history.

[FerrisValyn]

Compared to Iraq? Veitnam? Really?

Admitadly, Constellation, as is, is probably the most absurd NASA program ever done, but I can think of more than a few things that pass the level of absurdity in human history than going back to the moon. And, done properly, it would be a very good thing to do.

[pfc1369]

No matter how it is done, properly or improperly (whatever that is ) it would no more be a very good thing to do than those wars you mention.

[byla]

I'm waiting for it to launch now. I can see the launches from my balcony. The helicopter is buzzing round the airspace to make sure it's clear. I see a weird circular smoke trail, but I haven't heard any noise yet. It's a bit cloudy today so I'm not sure how much we'll see.