Ares I-X test launch

Associate
Joined
9 Dec 2008
Posts
387
Tomorrow 27th, NASA performs first test launch of new Ares vehicle. Only first stage SRB will be fired launching to altitude of 25 miles as I recall. Then simulated second stage and simulated crew capsule separate as SRB first stage parachutes down to ocean.

Pic of Ares on pad:
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/389937main_2009-5728.jpg

Cheers

ed:
Thanks simulatorman for getting the launch time details. I should have put those in the original post to begin with:
Launch is scheduled for 12:00 GMT and there is a four hour launch window available.

Here is the standard NASA TV link.

Here is a better stream: 1200kbps
 
Last edited:
What are in those spherical objects? Gas? Water?
My guess would be hydrogen and oxygen for topping off purposes. During shuttle launches, the H and O2 tanks vent continuously requiring constant topping off. You can faintly see the plumbing leading from them to the pad in the back ground. Makes sense that the H and O2 tanks are set far away from each other.
 
Forgive my ignorance, but which one is the Ares, the typical Shuttle launch rocket in the background (The orange thing) or the one in the foreground?
 
The Ares is in the foreground.

Some would say a massive backwards step in our space travel developments....

Am I right in saying that this Ares vehicle is a "stopgap" until the shuttles real replacement is ready?
 
Ares is the tall narrow one in the fore ground. The shuttle in the back ground is in preparation for launch later. Don't remember the launch date of that one.

Ares uses an adaptation of the shuttle solid rocket boosters (SRB) as it's first stage. That's the element of it being tested tomorrow.
 
My guess would be hydrogen and oxygen for topping off purposes. During shuttle launches, the H and O2 tanks vent continuously requiring constant topping off. You can faintly see the plumbing leading from them to the pad in the back ground. Makes sense that the H and O2 tanks are set far away from each other.

Yup, they are the liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen storage tanks.
 
Nice, but they should have gone with the shuttle replacement. Cancelled over a fuel tank as they didn't want aluminium, or something like that anyway.
Can't wait to see a live broadcast of us landing on the moon again.
 
The Ares is in the foreground.

Some would say a massive backwards step in our space travel developments....

Am I right in saying that this Ares vehicle is a "stopgap" until the shuttles real replacement is ready?

I think it's being done because it's cheaper than the space shuttle, they're outsourcing to private companies like SpaceX now too.
 
....
Am I right in saying that this Ares vehicle is a "stopgap" until the shuttles real replacement is ready?
From my understanding, there is no plan for a new shuttle. Though NASA used the Shuttle for other things as well (for example Hubble), Shuttle's primary design purpose was for space station assembly. With that nearing completion, shuttle can retire. The retirement of it I think is coming sooner than previously envisioned.

In past years there was talk of a Shuttle replacement, but I think it's been determined that it would be over doing it. The traditional crew capsule, for now, is a far more practical way of getting people in space.

And then there is the factor that all possible resources are going to make the next moon landings happen.
 
Ares is the tall narrow one in the fore ground. The shuttle in the back ground is in preparation for launch later. Don't remember the launch date of that one.

Ares uses an adaptation of the shuttle solid rocket boosters (SRB) as it's first stage. That's the element of it being tested tomorrow.

The shuttle is Atlantis preparing for mission STS-129 to the International Space Station. It should go on the 16th of November. NASA will announce an official launch date on October 29th.
 
Nice, but they should have gone with the shuttle replacement.

I would also have liked to seen a new reusable vehicle designed and built, but as far as I know, the Aries rocket (1 and 5) are not only being designed for orbital flight, but also being able to take us to the moon, and then eventually Mars, which is something that the shuttle could never do. A reusable vehicle capable of going to Mars and back would be great, but I suspect it would also be a lot lot more expensive and complex.
 
I would also have liked to seen a new reusable vehicle designed and built, but as far as I know, the Aries rocket (1 and 5) are not only being designed for orbital flight, but also being able to take us to the moon, and then eventually Mars, which is something that the shuttle could never do. A reusable vehicle capable of going to Mars and back would be great, but I suspect it would also be a lot lot more expensive and complex.

The reusable one, was already designed and the prototype something like 90% complete.

The "problem" was they wanted a fuel tank at x-weight out of composite materials. They couldn't achieve that but they did have one at that spec out of aluminium. But they where hell bent on composite. Or something like that anyway.*trundles of to google*
 
x-33

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_X-33
Cancellation

Construction of the prototype was some 85% assembled with 96% of the parts and the launch facility 100% complete when the program was canceled by NASA in 2001, after a long series of technical difficulties including flight instability and excess weight.

In particular, the composite liquid hydrogen fuel tank failed during testing in November 1999. The tank was constructed of honeycomb composite walls and internal structures to lower its weight. A lighter tank was needed for the craft to demonstrate necessary technologies for single-stage-to-orbit operations. A hydrogen fueled SSTO craft's mass fraction requires that the weight of the vehicle without fuel be 10% of the fully-fueled weight. This would allow for a vehicle to fly to low earth orbit without the need for the sort of external boosters and fuel tanks used by the Space Shuttle. But, after the composite tank failed on the test stand during fueling and pressure tests, NASA came to the conclusion that the technology of the time was simply not advanced enough for such a design. This conclusion is heavily disputed in the alt.space community, who blame the program's failure on NASA's preference for researching new materials and technologies rather than using older more reliable ones—for example, use of composite hydrogen tanks instead of aluminium-lithium. While the composite tank walls themselves were lighter, the odd hydrogen tank shape resulted in complex joints increasing the total mass of the composite tank to above that of an aluminum-based tank.[5]

NASA had invested $912 million in the project before cancellation and Lockheed Martin a further $357 million. Due to changes in the space launch business—including the challenges faced by companies such as Globalstar, Teledesic, and Iridium and the resulting drop in the number of anticipated commercial satellite launches per year—Lockheed Martin deemed that continuing development of the X-33 privately without government support would not be profitable.

After the cancellation, engineers were able to make a working liquid oxygen tank out of carbon fiber composite.[6]

Recently Lockheed Martin has been testing a new 1/5 scale rocket described to be similar in capabilities and design, known now simply as a "Space Reusable Launch Vehicle". Two tests have been conducted secretly at the Spaceport America in New Mexico. The first on December 19, 2007 was billed as a complete success, while the August 12, 2008 launch ended in an irreparable crash after 12.5 seconds of flight.[7][8] A third test on October 10, 2009, was another success.[citation needed]

All that money, resource and time and now they have a working fuel tank.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom