Updates Ares Updates and Discussion

[eveningsky339]

I'm not even sure if I want it to fly. I currently don't have a favourite alternative to Ares - there are just too many alternatives to choose from.

DIRECT is pretty efficient, no flaming pencils and vibration problems. Plus the same launcher could be used for crew and cargo launches.

You could also have a man-rated EELV being considered, as well as continuation of the shuttle.

Not to mention the countless other CEV proposals, which will probably not see the light of day because NASA submitted their own design. :dry: I'm actually working on creating several of the alternate CEVs for Orbiter.

In other news, Kliper appears to be coming along slowly but surely...

Stuff to be excited about. Just trying to lift the mood.

 

[Urwumpe]

In other news, Kliper appears to be coming along slowly but surely...

Kliper is effectivly dead, in favor of a new capsule design, the ACTS, which will be done together with Europe.

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/acts.html

 

[Moonwalker]

You could also have a man-rated EELV being considered, as well as continuation of the shuttle.

A continuation of the Shuttle for an indefinite period would end Constellation and any other proposals of going beyond LEO manned. The Shuttle has no future anymore. The only rescue parachute after STS-107 was the existence of the ISS and the obligation of its assembling.

 

[eveningsky339]

Kliper is effectivly dead, in favor of a new capsule design, the ACTS, which will be done together with Europe.

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/acts.html

Great. Now I have to bump it to the front of the addons to make list.

EDIT: Oh, I just now noticed that the launch vehicle will be Zenit-derived. Maybe it won't be so bad after all. Too bad it's a capsule.

---------- Post added at 09:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:57 PM ----------

A continuation of the Shuttle for an indefinite period would end Constellation and any other proposals of going beyond LEO manned. The Shuttle has no future anymore. The only rescue parachute after STS-107 was the existence of the ISS and the obligation of its assembling.

And we all know how wonderfully the ISS worked out compared to the original plans. :dry:

Modularity? What's that mean?

 

[T.Neo]

T.Neo trolling the "Orion/Ares Updates and Discussion" thread

Er, yes, actually, you did:

No. That comment was in reply to Urwumpe's post. I have claimed many things, but nowhere have I claimed to be a better space program manager.

In order to claim that someone is an idiot, you must believe that you know more about what they are doing than they do, because if you knew less than they did you would not be in a position to call them idiots.

No. I am not saying how NASA should do things, I'm expressing disappointment on how they're doing things so far.

And remember: While a layman might not understand how to build an airplane, he sure knows that it crashes, when he sees it crashing.

You justified your statement by saying that you've done "web research" to qualify you to make that statement.

I find your comments bordering on insulting... nowhere did I explicitly
say "web research".

My personal qualifications do not matter on the subject; nor do yours. Neither of us are managing NASA.

Automatically assuming that if a person has a piece of paper to their name they will do their job properly, is a flawed and dangerous assumption. For all the degrees, qualifications and experience, flawed decisions are and will be made. In the end, it comes down to personal preference and opinion, areas in which NASA officials are no better then you or I.

Anyway, let's stop this off topic nonsense, and get back to moaning about the constellation program itself.

 

[Urwumpe]

And remember: While a layman might not understand how to build an airplane, he sure knows that it crashes, when he sees it crashing.

But you claim to know that it is crashing already before you see it crash. Now, if you would be known to have superior knowledge beyond us mere mortals about engineering (For example, be known to be S.P. Korolov), we would have to accept such a destructive argumentation, but since you are not, we have the full right to demand clarification from you. Which you only use then for repeating your destructive criticism, without backing your opinion up with reason.

Not that I want to defend the program (nothing would be further away), but you are following a very lazy approach to the discussion. No reasoning, no logic, no facts...only opinion and that a lot of it. And a hypocritical position as well. Nobody should be allowed to discuss things here about NASA, because nobody is managing NASA here. Short: If you are the most unqualified person in the thread, you apply for declaring all better qualified people unqualified as well by demanding nearly impossible minimal requirements to take part (There are only about one dozen NASA administrators around and alive, but I am not sure if one of them is visiting the forum in his free time) and have the discussion ended.

And stop writing all the time, that you didn't write something, that you wrote before. We are not that stupid here.

 

[T.Neo]

And stop writing all the time, that you didn't write something, that you wrote before. We are not that stupid here.

Nor am I. Stop trying to cause trouble.

But you claim to know that it is crashing already before you see it crash.

No, I am not. NASA has made a good deal of mistakes in the past. They are undoubtedly making bad mistakes in the present, and will make bad mistakes in the future. Everyone does.

Nobody should be allowed to discuss things here about NASA, because nobody is managing NASA here.

Indeed. But that's taking an oddly philosophical and useless view of the subject, IMO.

Always remember that the Internet Is Serious Business.

 

[Moonwalker]

While a layman might not understand how to build an airplane, he sure knows that it crashes, when he sees it crashing.

Just being an eyewitness does not enable to assume the causes and become a part of a professional investigation team or make an opinion on the crash, the pilots and the aircraft manufacturer. You need lots of knowledge and degrees here as well.

That's a good example because it's laymen in forums and on youtube who start crying Boeing is crap or Airbus is crap whenever one of those airplanes crashes. No offense but it equals the people who manage NASA are idiots.

---------- Post added at 04:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:54 PM ----------

NASA has made a good deal of mistakes in the past. They are undoubtedly making bad mistakes in the present, and will make bad mistakes in the future. Everyone does.

So following your opinion and logic, not only the people who manage NASA are idiots but anybody is an idiot?

 

[T.Neo]

Just being an eyewitness does not enable to assume the causes and become a part of a professional investigation team or make an opinion on the crash, the pilots and the aircraft manufacturer. You need lots of knowledge and degrees here as well.

That is what the qualified and educated Ares critics have done.

I knew that argument would be brought up at some point. It's more of a "seeing something but not knowing how to fix it" then a perfect comparison between the two.

No offense but it equals the people who manage NASA are idiots.

None taken.

So following your opinion and logic, not only the people who manage NASA are idiots but anybody is an idiot?

To a greater or lesser degree, yes.

 

[Moonwalker]

That is what the qualified and educated Ares critics have done.

They did not investigate a crash. They look at the development progress and do speculate.

I did not hear a qualified and educated Ares critics telling the NASA management idiots. Not even the Augustine Commission has made such a suggestive conclusion.

To a greater or lesser degree, yes.

So I have to agree to Ghostrider

 

[T.Neo]

They did not investigate a crash. They look at the development progress and do speculate.

Yes. It is a metaphorical, not a literal comparison.

I did not hear a qualified and educated Ares critics telling the NASA management idiots. Not even the Augustine Commission has made such a suggestive conclusion.

Of course not. And why is it the purpose of the Augustine Commission to create controversial conclusions? It was not created to do anything of the sort.

 

[dbeachy1]

O-F staff note:
Per user complaints, off-topic posts moved off the board. To reiterate what Brad posted yesterday, let's drop the "NASA managers" argument and stay on topic here.

The staff is reviewing the moved posts, and they may be restored to a new thread along with additional related posts in this thread.

Thank you,
O-F Staff

 

[Brad]

Topics discussing the Orion Spacecraft have been moved to their own thread and this thread renamed to discuss the ARES I launch vehicle.

The majority of the moved posts have been restored to this thread. This is a final warning to everyone. Stay on topic. Think before you post. The staff is watching this thread very closely.

 

[mjessick]

http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/cev/index_noaccess.html

 

[Art]

I think Aries will get canned, or be reduced to a paltry shadow that is ineffective and go away. I have no hope anymore of seeing real manned spaceflight (to somewhere) in my lifetime anymore, unless the Chinese do it.

I really have not seen any clear mission-goal timetable for Aries I.
I just don't see how they can pull this off at 16 billion a year. I do feel (strongly) that merely doubling a budget for Nasa would result in a much quicker recoup in taxes and fiscal security than the 700 billion bailout package could hope to get. I think Nasa's total expendatures since 1958 have been about 400 billion in todays dollars, right? By next year, Iraq will have cost 800 billion, right? Someone please explain priorities to me?

I'm 40 years old. Manned exploration of space (leo is exploration of Earth which we have done quite a lot already) happened just after i was born, and ended before I started talking. 40 years of fandom, and never been to a concert!
What would it be LIKE? How would it feel to watch a live, full-color broadcast of folks visiting and colonizing the moon, much less actually operating on Mars. What effect would it have on people? The media world of 1969 and today is so radically different. I can't imagine that it would not have a net benefit for the species as a whole. Such an act would have to inspire both sober and crackpot interest and development. That means jobs, hope, outlet, and entertainment that actually MEANS something.
Face it: "Science" and "History" cable channels in the US are mostly interested in religion, ghosts, UFO's and gang violence. "Science fiction" is now a synonym for vampire serials. We could use something inspiring and real. Why do we need that? Because without interest, you have no involvement. Right now, you have students interested in vampires, not reality.

 

[Ghostrider]

Right now, you have students interested in vampires, not reality.

Well, vampires do get laid. Sort of. Which is exactly what students try to achieve, even if they have to break their bank for body glitter.

 

[Urwumpe]

When I was young, we tried to impress the girls by risking our life doing stupid things with the whole world (if possible) watching, not turn emo and risk our life doing stupid things to us without somebody watching...

 

[Ghostrider]

When I was young, we tried to impress the girls by risking our life doing stupid things with the whole world (if possible) watching, not turn emo and risk our life doing stupid things to us without somebody watching...

Try walking down a vertical wall heads down without breaking your neck, dude. Can't get much more risky than that.

But the thing I hated the most was turning myself into a bat and spend the day sleeping upside down in a dank cave full of guano.

 

[Urwumpe]

Sounds like a more useful endeavor than learning skateboarding. :lol:

 

[Art]

I have a question for the crowd:
anyone heard what sort of shapecharge setup Aries I is going to use on it's first stage? Is it going to split the side, or just blow the nozzle? Anyone seen anything on this?