Posted on 10/29/2009 7:41:47 AM PDT by Reaganesque
Edited on 10/29/2009 7:44:43 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Wonder at the impressive technological prowess of the genius engineers at NASA, as brave Ares launches. Be amazed at the sheer beauty of the mighty rocket as it it breaks the sound barrier, thundering the skies of this glorious nation.
OK, so it looks like a flying condom.
(Excerpt) Read more at gizmodo.com ...
I saw a smaller version of this pic earlier. Thnx for posting a larger image.
I watched it liftoff yesterday—on TV—and it was impressive. However, it looked odd at liftoff. Something appeared odd, and I can say exactly what. Slow, cumbersome, at an odd angle immediately after ignition...
I must be missing how “great” this is suppose to be - I don’t see any difference between this launch and any other except the shuttle was not attached.
The video notes total “new rocket concepts” but it looks like launches from the 1960’s
I saw that too, I thought for a fraction of a second it leaned south, ( or to the right per my video angle)then corrected itself.
“at an odd angle immediately after ignition...”
Yeah, I noticed that also. It seemed like it tipped slightly to the right. Maybe that’s what it was supposed to do. I put it down to its prototype status. Sometimes things are done on the test beds that would never be done with a “production” launch. Booster shut down at a little over 100k’. Interesting separation. :-)
This was the small Ares I-X. The Ares V will be colossal, slightly larger than the Saturn V moon rocket.
As for the design of the thig, what self respecting Space Voyager would want to ride a super sized condom? Maybe it appealed to Obams?
The rocket can carry almost twice the weight of previosu rockets.. Almost 72 tons to be exact.
D-
...or just for satellite launches?
Sweet, now lets put a nuke on the cone and point it toward Iran.
I read somewhere that it was a programmed maneuver to avoid damage to the launch pad.
See #13....Your reply makes total sense.
While the rocket probably was supersonic, the effect is caused by the compression of humid air. I’ve seen the same thing from fighter jets flying well under the speed of sound.
It will send a manned capsule into Earth orbit.
I wonder if the Nobel Peace Prize winner approved that name.
Leni
I believe its for sattelites and the new command module/lunar lander missions.
“The Ares V will be colossal, slightly larger than the Saturn V moon rocket.”
Will it lift more than the Saturn? It would be nice to have a heavy lift vehicle in the inventory again.
The record holder remains the Saturn V — for now. Its record is 141 metric tons into LEO. As NASA became more familiar with it, and its reliability was 100 per cent, they continued to push up performance. Even with that, Von Braun figured that 12 Saturn V launches would be required for a mission to Mars.
It sez here:
“Ares can take 410,000 pounds into low earth orbit; the Saturn V carried 260,000 pounds. And, the Saturn V could send a payload of 100,000 pounds to the moon; Ares will carry 157,000 pounds.”
http://www.thespacebuff.com/current/moon-rockets-saturn-v-vs-ares-v/
I found a goofy forum page where s vs a was sort of discussed, and someone said the Soviet (Sergei Korolev’s) N-1 booster was number one — it was not. It was a monstrosity with over 30 engines in the first stage; it would have required two more or less simultaneous launches to accomplish one manned lunar mission; would only have put one cosmonaut on the Moon and (hopefully) brought him back; and the first launch attempt destroyed one of the two needed launchpads. I think there were eventually two more test flights, each of which ended prematurely, in failure. Korolev died during heart surgery in 1966. In the massive “Korolev” biography, it’s mentioned that when he read of Von Braun’s plan to use a 100% cryofueled upper stage in the Apollo vehicle, he just shook his head and said, they’ll never solve all the problems with that approach. A couple of years later the engines were rockin’ it on the test stand, and Korolev knew the race was lost.
To put things into perspective, it would take somewhat more than three of the solid rocket boosters strapped together to produce something equivalent to the Saturn V. The three liquid-fuel main shuttle engines are among the most powerful liquid-fueled rocket engines ever built, but the three together don’t quite equal *one* of the F1 engines, of which the Saturn V had five. :’D
Here’s a picture (appeared I think in an FR topic last year) showing a height comparison of various historical rocket systems. The unlabelled one is the N1.
http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2008/11/rockets-compared.jpg
[snip] The F-1 after Apollo — There was an uprating redevelopment of the F-1 undertaken by Rocketdyne during the 1960s which resulted in a new engine specification known as the F-1A. While outwardly very similar to the F-1, the F-1A was actually lighter yet 33% more powerful (2 million lbf compared to F-1’s 1.5 million) and would have been used on future Saturn V vehicles in the post-Apollo era. However, the Saturn V production line was closed prior to the end of Project Apollo and no F-1A engine ever flew on a launch vehicle. [end]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-1_(rocket_engine)#The_F-1_after_Apollo
Very cool, indeed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
