Talk:Ares I/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Updated Logo 2 Crtitics aginst Ares_I design and ESAS 3 Requested move 3.1 Survey 3.2 Discussion 3.3 Comments on poll 4 Unclear 5 needs editing 6 Orion 7 Test schedule 8 Design Problem 9 Removed a link 10 5 segment RSRM information in 'criticism' section 11 Question

Updated Logo

I don't know the best way to edit pictures in Wikipedia articles, but I wanted to let someone know that the logo for the Ares launch vehicles has been updated. I have uploaded the current logo to my own site, so if someone can take this file, scale it and host it at Wikipedia, that would be good.

http://x-realms.net/forums/uploads/post-2-1154704984.jpg

Check my IP to verify authenticity of this image.

Crtitics aginst Ares_I design and ESAS

I think that more space in this article must be given to the TONS of critics (on dozens of space-websites and space-forums!) about the Ares_I design, the use of the expensive 5-segments-SRB, the possible alternatives to launch the CEV with ready available rockets like AtlasV and Ariane5 and the high risk of FAIL due to a "sum of delays" thanks to the one-and-half launch architecture: first the Ares_V with EDS and LSAM then, within 95 days max, the Ares_I with the CEV/SM.

Stop trying to plug for EELVs or the "Direct" launcher here. This entry is about the Ares I. I would welcome comments criticizing Ares I but only if they come from QUALIFIED, PROFESSIONAL, AEROSPACE ENGINEERS, not hobbyists and malcontents.

Requested move

Comments on poll

OPPOSEThere is nothing wrong with were it is.--aceslead 18:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Why does it need to be moved?--aceslead 18:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Old poll, should have been closed months ago, done now. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 18:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Unclear

It is not particularly clear if this entry refers to a probably technology, a planned technology or a speculated technology etc

Could somebody do a quick write up to explain how hypothetical/real this vehicle is.

needs editing

The introduction to this article is extremely confusing...seems like it needs major reworking. 70.108.187.117 02:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Orion

According to forum.nasaspaceflight.com the CEV capsules will be named 'Orion'. User:Tom walker 17:59 27 July 2006

This hasn't been officially announced yet. I reverted it's insertion into the article, but it was inserted in such a way as to read that "Orion" was the preliminary name for the CEV. It wasn't. Altair was. If the name "Orion" goes into the article, the surrounding text needs to be rewritten to either do away with this preliminary name business, or make it clear that this name is not official, or do something that doesn't end up making the writing be non-factual. adavidw 08:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Test schedule

The AA tests which are listed in this article have indeed very little to do with Ares I and should be better listed in the Orion entry. Hektor 21:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Design Problem

1 This section should be merge with the critics section and the response by NASA to this critics should be included.

2 This section clearly denigrate the Ares 1 design in favor of the EELV with rumors not fact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.156.66.14 (talk • contribs) .

I've added a reference to the original source of the criticism. --StuffOfInterest 12:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a good thing. But that's a criticism, and belong in the criticism section of the article. And to be neutral you should also mention the response by the constellation project manager Jeff Hanley. You can find it here. I won't do it myself because I'm not really good to write in english and I make to much mistake to write article on wikipedia, and it wasn't me who deleted the text.--67.70.103.83 19:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I've aded a comment with a reference about the response by Jeff Hanley so this section becames more neutral.

I have remove the first part of the design section because it was mostly a cut n paste from Keith Cowing's article. --69.159.182.212 00:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed a link

I removed the following:

• Direct Launch Vehicle: Shuttle Derivative Universal Launch Solution

I removed this link because it doesn't discuss the Ares I vehicle except to generally say that they are opposed to it.

I considered moving it to the references section and using it to back up the criticism section but I couldn't find anything on the Direct Launch site that correlated to the criticisms levelled in that section. I didn't spend a lot of time looking at the Direct Launch site so if someone finds something that references a criticism of the Ares I, by all means create a reference link to the Direct Launch page that addresses the issue. (Please link to the page that addresses the issue, not just the landing page of Direct Launch).

Epolk 17:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

5 segment RSRM information in 'criticism' section

I would suggest editing this as there is comparatively detailed information about the choice of the 5-segment RSRM which does not seem to fit well in this section. Batoom 14:11, 24 November 2006

Question

What is klbm? CoolGuy 05:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)