Talk:Ares I
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Space. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| Related projects: | ||
 |
WikiProject Spaceflight | Importance to Spaceflight: High |
|
This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
||
|
| Archive 1 8 Jan 2007 |
Contents |
[edit] Article rewrite
A number of people have commented that this article needs to be cleaned up, so I'm starting to rewrite it. Here is the outline I have come up with, but I would like to hear people's input on it.
- Ares I’s role in Project Constellation
- Design
- Design History
- Design Problems
- Development Schedule
- Criticisms
- See also
- References
One comment that was the sections on Design Problems and Criticisms should be combined, however, I think it would be better to keep them separate. Not all, or even most, of the criticisms are design problems with Ares I. For example, the use of a five segment SRB isn't a design problem, as it is not an engineering problem which needs to be overcome, it is a design criticism. There are design problems, such as the lack of sufficient power to launch the current Orion crew capsule, most of those will be worked out as the rocket is further developed. Generally, these need to just be kept separate and distinct, so there is no confusion between design problems and criticisms of the Ares I rocket.
Please let me know if you have any thoughts. Grant 23:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- I rewrote the page as I discussed above. I kept large parts of the article intact, and just reorganized them. However, more than half of the article was completely rewritten. Grant 06:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- The article reads very nicely; good effort. I think there is a (very minor) error on reference 4, where it's stated "On 4 January 2007, NASA announced that the Ares I had completed its system requirements review, the first such review completed for any manned spacecraft design since the Space Shuttle."
- This, I believe is incorrect. The source restricts it to the first for any US design, which no doubt takes into account the Soviet (and later Russian Federation) Buran space shuttle program, which must have also undergone a similar review, as it had entered a fairly advanced stage of testing (including an unmanned launch and orbit) before it was finally axed outright in 2003.
[edit] 2nd Stage Architecture
Changed "interstage" to "intertank". An interstage is the cylindrical section that is located at a separation joint and houses the engine bell prior to separation. The intertank is the cylindrical section that is located between the fuel tank and oxidizer tank. The intertank is the part that was removed and replaced by the common dome bulkhead, the interstage is still on the bottom of the 2nd stage. Jacksjb
[edit] Ares I Alternative
I feel that Ares IV should be removed from the size comparison image. Ares IV was an unofficial study by NASA, and is no longer being considered, and never was considered as an Ares I replacement. It has no place in that image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.123.81.176 (talk) 22:14, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
The last section (the one with the Ares I in a sort-of modified STS configuration), needs to be made into a separate article. This was a rocket proposed by a group of independents was placed on the NASA Spaceflight webpage. Unless it has to do with the Ares I directly (such as a hypothetical Atlas V Heavy zero + first stage assembly (al a Titan IV style) with the Shuttle-derived J-2X powered second stage, the anything that deviates from the Ares I article should be made separate. Rwboa22 19:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Help on Shuttle ET as baseline for Ares I second stage
Can any contributors to this article help clear up the confusion at Space Shuttle external tank#Future use about the ET being the "baseline" for the Ares I second stage? Thanks! Sdsds 21:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Unattributed "reports"
I follow this article and noticed that this line has popped up.
"Reports of growing political pressure from Congress to cancel the Shuttle-derived system and instead use existing Atlas/Delta vehicles began circulating in mid-2007."
Is there a reference for this? Have we got any more detail? If true this could be very important. Plaasjaapie 18:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, is it just me, or does anybody else feel a bias in the criticism section? --72.77.141.163 (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Deeply ironic name
Does the name of the Ares I and V rockets strike anyone else as deeply ironic?
From the Ares article (emphasis added):
Though often referred to as the Olympian god of war, he is more accurately the god of savage war, or bloodlust, or slaughter personified. (Footnote: Rather than being a brave soldier, he is often depicted as somewhat cowardly. (...))
Among the Hellenes, Ares was always distrusted. (Footnote: "You are the most hateful to me of the gods who hold Olympus," Zeus tells him in the Iliad ( 5.890); "forever strife is dear to you and wars and slaughter".)
(...)
Ares' [stance] tended to be the unpredictable violence of war. His birthplace and true home was placed (...) among the barbarous and warlike (...).
Lets consider the US' current stature and esteem in the world...
And lets also consider the nature and state of the US space program...
Hm...
Maybe the name is fitting, after all. :rollseyes: ;-P
86.56.34.47 22:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Could be from the ICBM and other things (see Ares (disambiguation)). Does not really matter. It is all speculation without a reference saying that's what NASA named it after. -Fnlayson 12:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- If the name is disturbing (Ares is the Greek name of the Roman god Mars), than NASA should consider renaming the rocket "Nova." After all, the Ares I and Ares V are more powerful than the Saturn IB and Saturn V rockets and Wherner von Braun wanted to build the huge superbooster (with 13 million lbs. of thrust) for his Man-On-Mars program back in the 1960's and 1970's. Rwboa22 08:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Stage 1 reusable ??
It says the stage 1 booster is similar to the shuttle, but without the parachute and recovery hardware. Yet it is also stated to be re-usable. Is this consistent ? Eregli bob (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ares 1 Criticisms
I am very unhappy with the facts of criticisms. There are not enough facts included in this section.
I suggest we create a new article called Ares 1 Opposition and Criticisms.
Facts missing are that the SRB rockets are far more dangerous than Liquid fueled rockets.
No astronaut has ever died on liftoff during a liquid fueled only rocket. The Shuttle does not count as it uses SRB's and it's SRB's were the direct cause of the Challenger accident.
This article segment also does not include or address the immense pollution and environmental damage caused by continued SRB's use. They found Perchlorate rocket fuel in all the air, water, soil and food and this is not mentioned. The SRB's we use on the Shuttle have helped Global Warming to melt the Arctic Ocean. There should be 9 feet of ice at the North Pole. It is open liquid ocean nowadays.
This article also does not mention the all the Antitrust laws broken by NASA and ATK regarding the SRB's and the Launch Escape tower on top. It completely ignores the blatant Republican organized corruption that is going on at ATK in Utah and Members of the US Congress and NASA.
I too am becoming a Deletionist! I want to delete Ares 1 rocket because it is bad for Global Warming.
You know, NASA's Michael Griffin looks like a dunce who is stupid enough to be corrupt.
Supercool Dude (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Your contention that SRB's are more dangerous than liquid fuel rockets was true up till the time of the Challenger disaster. The changes implemented since then has negated that argument as they have performed nearly faultlessly on just under 100 launches since 1988. This was the basis on which NASA made its decision to go with solids on the next generation Ares. It was only by good luck that disasters were averted during the launches of Gemini 6 and Soyuz T-10-1 both liquid fueled rockets [User: mstanaway 7 June 2008] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstanaway (talk • contribs) 06:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- The contribution of SRBs to alleged global warming is negligable. It would be fair to say that SRBs are less safe than liquid fuelled rockets, as they cannot be shut down once lit. This has not changed. Can I remind you that this is not a forum, and should only be used for discussing the article, not criticising the rocket yourself. If you want to do that, I suggest you go to a website like this one. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 09:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
