It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Introducing Ares, The next Generation in Spaceships

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 05:16 AM
link   
Sorry if this has been Posted before

Seems NASA is making Progress now

Ares

Brilliant name, i think its great the NASA have named it this early in the game.

Does anyone know when we will be seeing the First test launches??

Thanks
Jason




posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 08:31 AM
link   
so, they're basically admitting that the shuttle concept was a waste of time, right?



posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Looks pretty hardcore.
It's good that they are using parts from the shuttle, shows that they are aware that 'cost cutting' doesn't mean just firing people.

130 tonnes to LEO? That is pretty impressive. Do they tell the development and per-launch costs at all?


jra

posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
so, they're basically admitting that the shuttle concept was a waste of time, right?


No, not at all. If NASA is going to want to go back to the Moon, they are going to have to go with a capsule design, as it is the most efficient design to use at this time. The Shuttle is a great design for an orbiter, but that's it can do.



posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Another missile-looking rocket?


Looks like we haven't moved far in 40 years.

The least they could do is something like this, something that resembles a ship!



posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Deleted post

[edit on 2-7-2006 by danwild6]


jra

posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
Another missile-looking rocket?


Looks like we haven't moved far in 40 years.


How so? Why wouldn't a rocket look like missile? And why do you think we haven't moved far in 40 years? Ships, Planes and Cars all have had the same basic design for the past 40+ years and then some. What would expect to change on a Rocket?



posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Better yet





My personal favorite







posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 11:17 PM
link   
- Is Nasa running out of names...

Isn't Ares the god of war? Kind of an odd name for it.

And beyond that, They have allready used that name for the Mars rocket powered plane...but I guess since it didn't get picked for any Mars mission...they can just re-use the name to something that will get used.



posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 11:25 PM
link   
[edit on 2/7/06 by SteveR]

[edit on 2/7/06 by SteveR]



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 12:03 AM
link   
How about going nuclear



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
- Is Nasa running out of names...

Isn't Ares the god of war? Kind of an odd name for it.


Yes, Ares was the god. of war Whereas, in Ancient Rome, Mars was the god of war.

As a NASA representative said in the above links, Ares is a pseudonym for Mars. Nothing sinister in the naming, this time anyway.



edited to actually make sense


[edit on 3-7-2006 by AussieNutter]



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by Long Lance
so, they're basically admitting that the shuttle concept was a waste of time, right?


No, not at all. If NASA is going to want to go back to the Moon, they are going to have to go with a capsule design, as it is the most efficient design to use at this time. The Shuttle is a great design for an orbiter, but that's it can do.


The shuttle is a bad design and so is rockets in general to move people and heavy cargo. If you watched the first private ship to reach space, you would note that it is a much better concept than any rocket or shuttle. Current NASA philosophy is to use brute force to do a vertical launch and slowly change trajectory to an orbit. Spaceship1 uses a more conventional method of bringing the spacecraft to a high enough altitude by "flying" and then using rockets to leave the atmosphere. This means a craft can be a lot lighter and use way less fuel. Also, spaceship1 doesn't return to earth like a bat out of he$$, but uses a slower re-entry by feathering its wings. A shuttle designed like spaceship1 would be a lot less dangerous and could carry a module to the moon and back using much more conventional technologies.

Not that we need to go back there, but NASA thinks there may be a McDonalds somewhere on Mars and we need to prepare how to send men there for a Big Mac. The moon is only a logical predecessor as there are many golden arches there.


jra

posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ben91069
Spaceship1 uses a more conventional method of bringing the spacecraft to a high enough altitude by "flying" and then using rockets to leave the atmosphere. This means a craft can be a lot lighter and use way less fuel.


SpaceShipOne was cool, but it's based off an old NASA concept. Check out stuff on the X-15. It's the exact same idea and it was done back in 1960 and it flew about just as high as SpaceShipOne.

It's a good concept for getting people into orbit, but if you want to do anything bigger I think that will make it more complicated. The bigger your ship, the bigger your mothership will have to be.


Also, spaceship1 doesn't return to earth like a bat out of he$$, but uses a slower re-entry by feathering its wings. A shuttle designed like spaceship1 would be a lot less dangerous and could carry a module to the moon and back using much more conventional technologies.


SpaceShipOne also didn't fly nearly as high as the shuttle or any other space ship. It bairly got into space. It would still need some sort of heat shielding if it were to re-enter the atmosphere at the speed the shuttle does.

A capsule is a much more efficient design to go to the Moon in. Things like wings and tails and all that are extra weight you don't need or want to bring along.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra
A capsule is a much more efficient design to go to the Moon in. Things like wings and tails and all that are extra weight you don't need or want to bring along.


Exactly. We should build a new shuttle that works similar to spaceship1, except larger and then design a payload capsule that can be launched while in space. Most of the fuel burned is during a launch anyway. How much fuel would it take to launch in space to get to the necessary velocity?? I don't know. I am no rocket scientist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 11:48 PM
link   
In my opinion this is more or less a step backwards. The key to making space exploration affordable is single stage craft. This is nothing but a souped up rocket from the 60's with modern gadgets.

The future of space exploration, travel and tourism will be in hand of private organizations like Virgin Galactice etc. What Nasa is doing with the Ares is nothing new. It's been done before. Nasa yet again is lacking in innovation and otherwise laughed at by it's international counterparts.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by ben91069
Exactly. We should build a new shuttle that works similar to spaceship1, except larger and then design a payload capsule that can be launched while in space. Most of the fuel burned is during a launch anyway. How much fuel would it take to launch in space to get to the necessary velocity?? I don't know. I am no rocket scientist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.


I believe jra's point was that by using your method, you would need an absolutely huge mothership to loft your craft into orbit. That would mean designing a new plane that could lift (I'll use the weight of the Shuttle and the SLWT here) at least 4.620 million pounds. On top of that the plane would need to be able to lift itself, so let's call that in at 0.750 million pounds empty, which would be rather light, considering that the An-225 weighs in at around 0.386 million pounds empty.

Anyway, the plane would only be able to lift the launch vehicle about 5 miles, again being very generous with the figure... That leaves about another 57 miles to go before reaching space, using the international definition of the boundries of space.

So, you could spend trillions of dollars to design, develop, and eventually construct your mothership/rocket combination, or stick with what works and use already proven and tested technology and spend less. Which would you choose?


Originally posted by The_Doctor
In my opinion this is more or less a step backwards. The key to making space exploration affordable is single stage craft. This is nothing but a souped up rocket from the 60's with modern gadgets.


Except that as you get higher, you're carrying unneccesary weight. That's the benefit of having the propulsion systems broken up. It lets you get some of that extraweight off the craft as a whole as it goes up, which in turn lets you take up more of a payload, which is a better payoff in the long run.

So how is a single-stage rocket more beneficial?


Nasa yet again is lacking in innovation and otherwise laughed at by it's international counterparts.


So they why are NASA's international counterparts using the same techology...?

[edit on 7/4/2006 by cmdrkeenkid]



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by The_Doctor
Nasa yet again is lacking in innovation and otherwise laughed at by it's international counterparts.

So tell me Doc, who's laughing? Is it Russia (RSA) who are struggling to ever make the Klipper space plane a reality? Or is It Europe (ESA), who has never even launched a man in Space? Or is it China (CNSA)...Who have only put a total of 3 people in space?

Griffen (Nasa Administrator) has said that its basically Apollo on steriods.
But the Big difference this time is the tech to do it is a lot better, and were going there to stay...for good.


jra

posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 12:16 AM
link   
While I agree that a single stage to orbit would be great, like the X-33. But I don't see why NASA has to do something innovative or new. I'd rather have them do something that works. Doing something totaly new and innovative means a lot more research, time and money. Something NASA doesn't have a lot of at this moment. They can work on more innovative concepts after Ares.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   


I'd rather have them do something that works.


Bingo.

The new manned launch system needs to be as simple and reliable as possible. The Shuttle is an amazing machine, but it's huge complexity makes it impractical.

The Ares/CEV system may seem like a step backward, but it's a smart step.
We need to reduce the risk and costs associated with manned spaceflight to make it truly practical. Unlike the Shuttle, the Ares/CEV system was designed with the KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) priciple in mind...


As for those saying private space concerns are ready to take over: show me the money.

While SpaceShip1 was a brilliant success given its limited aims, it was a bottle rocket compared to what is needed to get human beings into orbit. Current space tourism programs are aimed at short suborbital hops like SS1 and are nowhere near getting people to Earth orbit and back.

The fact is businesses are in business to make money for their investors, not to get the species into space. The kind of huge investment required to take the initial steps out into the Solar System is not likely to garner direct financial returns for decades it least. And private business simply isn't interested in that kind of long-term investment if there are no immediate returns.

Only governments are really well suited to the initial stages of manned space exploration, because unlike business they don't have quarterly reports and profit/loss tables to worry about. Once the infrastructure and technology are in place to make manned spaceflight routine, I am sure we'll see the private sector begin to step up to the plate. But the projects that offer the biggest rewards, for example asteroid mining, are still decades away.

If we wait for private business to get us into space, we never will. The money just isn't there.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join