Talk:Ares V

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Requested move 1.1 Survey 1.2 Discussion 2 NASA li^Wmarketing? 3 Trivia section 4 RS68 vs SSME costs 5 YouTube links 6 Interplanetary Spacecraft

[edit] Requested move

[edit] Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 21:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

I would like a source for the "Ares V" - the info seems to have been tacked on to the end of the article haphazardly. An official NASA document would be nice :) — QuantumEleven 13:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, maybe I was a bit early, I obviously misinterpreted a rumor as a fact, because the official names were announced today (and it is definatly Ares). - http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/exploration/spacecraft/ares_naming.html

--GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 21:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NASA li^Wmarketing?

"Ares V is derived from current Space Shuttle technology, but can trace its lineage to the successful American Saturn V rocket". I see nothing like Saturn V here. I see only a desire to keep Shuttle contractors in business. For one, solid rocket boosters are (1) unsafe - you cannot turn them off if you detect that they are starting to fail in ascent, (2) more costly to maintain (they are cheaper to design, so they were chosen for Shuttle due to design budget shortage), and (3) have environmentally-unfriendly exhaust. Challenger crew paid for those boosters in blood. What's the problem in making liquid boosters a-la Delta IV? Did you see any solids on Saturn V? I didn't. Yet, we see the same Shuttle boosters here AGAIN. Morton Thiokol must be a special NASA friend...

Reply to above...

Actually, both the Saturn V and the Ares V use 5 Liquid Hydrogen/LOX expendable engines in the first stage, the Shuttle uses 3 reusable engines. The Saturn V and the Ares V carry their cargo on top of the booster, the Shuttle carries it's cargo along side the booster. Minus the Launch Escape tower, the Saturn V and the Ares V are nearly the same height; the Shuttle is barely 2/3 that size. The Saturn V and the Ares V were designed to carry man-rated spaceships outside of low Earth orbit; the Shuttle has a maximum altitude of just 500 miles.

In spite of what Story Musgrave says, Solid rocket boosters are safe when used properly. It's true you can't turn them off at all or throttle them significantly, but their fuel is stable, unlike the cryrogenic fuels used by the main engines. The Challenger was done in by O-ring seals that were not designed for sub-freezing temperatures. Morton Thiokol objected to the ill-fated launch on the basis of the temperature at launch time, but NASA ignored their warning. That did not stop NASA from laying the blame at Thiokol's feet. Some friend! In any case, by putting the astronauts on top of the booster stack, the crew of the Ares I (or Ares V if they ever decide to use it for human flight) will be 10 times safer than they are on the shuttle. Failure of the solid or liquid fueled engines will not instantly kill the crew - - the proven Launch Escape System will "pop" them off the top of the booster and set them up for a parachute landing.

Also, the Saturn V's did use small solid-rockets for stage separation and ullage. In fact, the booster was fairly covered with them at every stage joint. None of these solids ever failed during the 18 launches of the Saturn V.

To your point, however, the budget for manned spaceflight is way too small. As Steven Hawkings and John Young say 'Single-planet species never survive.' The accumulated knowledge of all the robotic space-science probes will mean nothing, zip, if all humans are still confined to this rock when the "big" asteroid hits, or when nuclear war breaks out, or when s super-pandemic breaks out.

Ljgruber 18:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Luke

Slight correction to above...

The Saturn V used LOX and RP-1 (an ultra-refined kerosene) for its first stage and LOX/LH₂ for its upper stages. The Ares V, on the other hand, does not use LOX/RP-1 in any of its stages.

Rwboa22 18:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The main similarity is the J-2 engine. This was used on the second and third stages of the Saturn V. A J-2X engine, derived from the J-2, will be used on the upper (EDS) stage of the Ares V. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 19:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia section

I've reverted Cjosefy's removal of the trivia section; this refers to a famous work of hard-science fiction which considered an Apollo derived Mars programme, and gave it the name Ares. I think it's reasonable to refer to this. Mtpt 09:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

There probably doesn't need to be a trivia section in any of these articles. What's the point? Is it that amazing that someone would call a fictional mission to Mars "Ares"? And even if this was even slighlty interesting, what is the relevance in an encyclopedia? This "trivia" adds nothing to the article. Cjosefy 21:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It has exactly the same relevance as in every other article with a trivia section - it provides a broader context. By similar logic the comments about Zubin should be removed as non-encylopedic "original research" - but that would diminish the article as a whole. If you want a list of tech-spec, the NASA site is perhaps more appropriate. Mtpt 17:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right. Both have been removed. Cjosefy 18:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RS68 vs SSME costs

On the RS-68 main page it states that:

Each RS-68 for the Boeing Delta IV program costs approximately $14 million to build, compared to the SSME at $50 million

On the Ares V page it states that:

a modified RS-68 engine would cost $20 million USD as opposed to $55 million USD for a single-use SSME

Is it the modification for Ares that would cost the extra bling, then? If so, should that be made explicit here? Daen 15:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 06:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interplanetary Spacecraft

When NASA would build de Ares V rocket (CaLV), then it would has the possibility of send a manned spacecraft with Nuclear Pulse Propulsion, Medusa named, above the magnetosphere facing the Sun (70000 km up the Earth´s surface). It sounds aggressive but we know there are high level of radiations at this altitude and also the magnetosphere deflect it, avoiding reach the atmosphere. In this place a nuclear-propulsed spacecraft woudn´t affected humans or artificial satellites. One single Ares V could lift a Medusa (60 to 70 tons) to this high elliptical orbit. This spacecraft could reach the moon faster than projected Orion spacecraft. It could descend in the Moon carrying a larger payload, making feasible an intensive colonization, exploration and mining. The ship could return the Earth and landing using an aerobraking shield and small chemical engines. Medusa could carry a large payload of minerals from Moon to Earth. Also this spacecraft could achive the long dreamed manned trip to Mars in a shorter time that current probes do. The advantages of nuclear ships travel in space are huges, they can increase drastically our domain of the Solar System.User:201.220.222.140

Do you have any sources for this idea or is it your own? It shouldn't be incorporated into the article unless it has been seriously considered. Grant 18:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The idea is of my own. I suggest its consideration. User:201.220.222.140 0:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a strict policy against original research, so we wouldn't be able to incorporate it into any article here. --adavidw 00:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a misinterpretation. The proposal is based in a BIS project of a spacecraft with Nuclear Pulse Propulsion called ´Medusa´ (see this page). The principle is only mate Medusa to Ares V rocket, something realizable.User:201.220.222.140