|
Author
|
Topic: TIME's Best Invention of 2009: NASA's Ares I
|
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 11-12-2009 09:31 AM
   
TIME magazine has named NASA's Ares I rocket its "Best Invention of the Year" for 2009: Metal has no DNA; machines have no genes. But that doesn't mean they don't have pedigrees -- ancestral lines every bit as elaborate as our own. That's surely the case with the Ares 1 rocket. The best and smartest and coolest thing built in 2009 -- a machine that can launch human beings to cosmic destinations we'd never considered before -- is the fruit of a very old family tree, one with branches grand, historic and even wicked. |
LCDR Scott Schneeweis
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 11-12-2009 10:34 AM
Ares-1 is the absolute antithesis of inventiveness ...it is surely less capable then most human rated launch systems that preceded it. American media is dead...------------------
Scott Schneeweis
http://www.SPACEAHOLIC.com/ |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 11-12-2009 11:10 AM
It was a given that Ares' detractors would dismiss this honor, but I would suggest that regardless of what you feel about Ares' merits, the fact that TIME chose to honor NASA's future space exploration efforts with the same fanfare it gave the iPod and iPhone goes a long way toward disspelling the idea that the public is bored with the space program. I think it is great to see NASA's activities described as the "best and smartest and coolest"... (Incidentally, other space projects on this year's list include: NASA's MESSENGER mission to Mercury and ESA's Herschel Space Observatory.) |
Delta7
Member Posts: 1733
From: Bluffton IN USA
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted 11-12-2009 11:14 AM
Good publicity is good publicity. Now all we need is for Mr. Spock to present the award! (Either one).  |
LCDR Scott Schneeweis
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 11-12-2009 11:28 AM
Valid point as it relates to NASA and the space program generically... my concern, particularly at this moment in "Time", when the U.S. is struggling with a course of action on HSF architecture that Ares I capabilities are being misrepresented to the American public... |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 11-12-2009 12:11 PM
I don't think that the article (written by Jeffrey Kluger, co-author of "Lost Moon" [later "Apollo 13"] and TIME's space-beat reporter) misrepresents the Ares architecture, and in fact, it acknowledges some of the issues raised by the Augustine committee. Say what you will about Ares I-X, but it is the first time in decades that NASA has reached a test flight phase for a possible shuttle replacement vehicle (the X-33 and OSP dying in the hangar or on the drawing boards). That alone is an accomplishment that should be hailed and if throwing some positive press toward NASA's current plans helps generate some public support for continuing down that path, I'm all for it... |
MrSpace86
Member Posts: 1618
From: Gardner, KS
Registered: Feb 2003
|
posted 11-12-2009 01:07 PM
Yes, it's nice to see Time Magazine honoring something belonging to the space program. I am still not sold on the whole Ares/Constellation Project as it seems NASA is going backwards. But as mentioned: - it's about time NASA took control and is developing something 'new' and exciting
- the American space program needs positive publicity!!
I just hope that there is not a large gap of USA in space between the end of STS and the beginning of Ares. Congrats to all the people involved in the program.  |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 11-12-2009 01:31 PM
I will also mention that while Ares seems to have more internal detractors, part of that I believe is due to the advent of instantaneous communication via the web and wireless hookups. As such, there tends to be more of a paper trail then there was during Apollo when one needed to type notes or have assistants do them. So in years past, the grumbling might have been vocal at personal meetings, today it tends to manifest itself as email traffic and text messages. And it goes further and has wider coverage as people leak things when they aren't satisfied with the pace or the direction.Apollo certainly had its fair share of problems. I can remember the unstable combustion problem with the F-1 engines. One General openly criticized the problem in public. Another was the internal tiger team memo about North American's problems that Mondale tried to hover over NASA's head during the Apollo 1 fire congressional hearing. There were plenty of other back and fourth discussions, but we never heard about them. Getting back to Ares 1, it may have problems, but it is elegant in its simplicity as the first stage has almost no moving parts. There are no turbopumps, valves or the like. It fires, steers and goes. And on the 5 segment DM-1 booster, ATK has made some improvements over the shuttle units. You now have O-rings that can withstand colder temperatures, so there is no need for joint heaters to be mounted. Of course, the SRM field joints were redesigned after Challenger and they are much better now. There are still lots of challenges to overcome, but if Ares 1 works, it has some great potential to have a long life as a manned booster. I saw Ares 1-X fly and in several aspects it performed better then expected. If the data collected matched the initial estimates, I think it has the potential to show that many of the perceived "problems" with Ares 1 were simply blown way out of proportion. |
bobzz
Member Posts: 100
From: Batavia, Illinois
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 11-13-2009 11:50 AM
Time is even more clueless than I ever thought! |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 11-13-2009 02:12 PM
So because you disagree with TIME's opinion, it necessitates that they are clueless? The Constellation launch vehicle architecture may not be everyone's cup of tea, but it does have its valid set of supporters. To write them off as clueless is really without merit. |
tegwilym
Member Posts: 2339
From: Sturgeon Bay, WI
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 11-13-2009 03:59 PM
Agree or disagree on the program, at least this gives NASA some good publicity. I'll just say I have some hot water here with a teabag, still watching and wondering about this new program with great interest. |
Apollo Redux
Member Posts: 346
From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Registered: Sep 2006
|
posted 11-27-2009 04:30 PM
I applaud 'Time' for reminding the American population that space flight is exciting.But they couldn't be more mistaken about this launcher. |
capoetc
Member Posts: 2337
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 11-28-2009 07:16 AM
It is interesting to note that the poll at Time's web site shows that the public (well, at least the readers of Time's web site) do not agree. They have the Ares rockets ranked #24 out of 50 (not #1 as Time's editors do). Not a bad ranking, but far from #1 in the eyes of Time's readers. ------------------
John Capobianco
Camden DE |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 11-28-2009 07:55 AM
TIME is really confusing its readers here. I think the designers of Atlas 4 and Delta 5 must be shaking their heads. Several years ago I watched a documentary on Discovery UK which speculated that a Shuttle-replacement vehicle may ride atop Atlas. Both launchers have proven track records, albeit with satellites. Now we have the truly unproven Ares 1 consuming hundreds of millions of precious dollars and no hope of launching Orion until 2015, at best! |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 12-15-2009 10:28 PM
There's more to lofting people into orbit then just strapping a capsule on to a Delta or Atlas. Reason being is while those boosters are great for sticking stuff into medium parking orbits for transfer to geosync, going to LEO flies a much flatter trajectory by comparison. The main concern as I understand it has to do with the abort mode if you have stage 2 failure and the capsule has to come off. Since an Atlas V or a Delta tends to fly more vertical on its typical flight profile, if an abort does occur then the occupants of the craft are going to be subjected to some VERY high gee loads as they come plowing back into the atmosphere at a very steep angle. Flying a flatter parabolic trajectory means the craft isn't going to hit the atmosphere head on, it will go at an angle and slow down a little more gradually, making the gee loads more tolerable (still higher then a controlled reentry at an even flatter angle though).As for Ares 1 consuming funds, yes it is but so is Orion. If anything, development of elements of Ares 1 are ahead of those on Orion as the craft hasn't had its critical design review yet (typically where the design is frozen and production of flight hardware can begin). ATK has fired the first 5 segment Development Motor, Ares 1-X was a successful test of many of the systems needed to prove the concept and work is rather far along on the first mobile launcher. One thing Apollo showed was no matter how far along the booster is though, the spacecraft is what is going to drive the timeline. North American and NASA knew this when they froze the design for the Block 1 spacecraft in late 1963 while continuing to work on the Block 2 lunar flight configuration until late 1965-early 1966. Reason being is NAA knew it was going to take at least three years to build each capsule even with all the funding they were getting back then. Something as complex as one of the Apollo CSMs can't be rushed (look at what happened to Apollo 1 when things did get rushed). Even if it wasn't for the Apollo 1 fire, Grumman still wasn't ready to do a manned flight of a Lunar Module until early 1969. I don't see Orion going any faster, not with all the complexity that a manned spacecraft demands and the tight budget forcing a long lead time to procure parts to build the craft. An increased budget will help a bit, but likely it will still take at least four years before an Orion is ready to fly and by then Ares 1 should be ready to go. |
advertisement