Progress on NASA's Constellation - In Photos

[HighOnHendrix]

I was also going to point out that there's a reason why we launch from Cape Canaveral.

Because the Earth rotates towards the East, objects "standing still" on the Earth actually have an eastward velocity. This velocity is over 1,000 MPH if you're at the equator (yes, the equator is "moving" at well over Mach 1), and decreases the further North you go. (The poles, obviously, aren't moving at all.)

This means that when the Space Shuttle lifts off, it's already moving towards the East at several hundred MPH, without burning any fuel at all.

Result: It's to your great advantage to launch towards the East, and from as close to the equator as possible.

We chose Florida over locations like Nevada, because we wanted the launched to be over water, for safety.

Yeah, that way if it blows up, the debris falls into the ocean. I have never gotten around to reading Jules Verne's "From the Earth to the Moon", but I was watching a show last nite about how much got right about Apollo -- a hundred years before it happened. He took into account what you brought up about the earth's rotation and placed his launch pad in Florida fairly close to Canaveral. He also predicted the materials used in the Command Module and LEM and he got real close on the weight. A few other things were mentioned as well.

Funny how he got is right back in the 19th century, NASA got it right in the 20th century, and now here we are in the 21st century going right back to the capsules we so callously discarded as obsolete. Also funny is that my kid is watching the orange one-eyed knobby dildo on Yo Gabba Gabba launching a rocket on TV right now.

[HighOnHendrix]

There is also a spaceport on the Eastern Shore of MD/VA near Chicateague Island, but I think its strictly commercial. I saw a rocket launch from all the way over in Southern Maryland one Saturday morning. I thought we were getting nuked by the Chinese or something.

As far as Saturn V goes, I seriously doubt the military is still using those. You'd know it if they were, considering its kind of hard to hide that thing blasting off.

That is Wallops Flight Center, a NASA facility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallops_Flight_Facility

[GrapeApe]

NASA has an image problem. Everyone sees the space program and that's all they see and know about NASA. NASA has done phenomenal research in the field of aeronautics. Our understanding of fluid dynamics would be severely lacking if not for NASA's contributions over the years (understatement for lack of better words). Unfortunately only aerospace engineers (and probably only those doing research, PhDs) get to see everything that NASA has contributed to the field. It's really amazing to think about all they have contributed over the years outside the space program.

I've always come into these NASA threads and it's bugged me to see people belittle NASA when they don't understand everything NASA does. I know this is about the Ares but I thought I would just let people know NASA is more than the Saturn V and the Ares I and V.

I've done analysis on the Ares for NASA so I'm obviously a little biased on the subject so I'll stay out of the fray. I don't work for NASA though and my thoughts above have no bearing on my current work with them. I have heard that the Ares I is safe for the time being. In fact the new stimulus package earmarked some money to speed up development of the Ares I.

Just an FYI, what you are seeing in those pictures in the OP are the Ares 1X (the pieces being assembled, the first picture is the V). It's what is being put together for a test flight by the end of the year. The Ares I is similar to the Ix though it has gone though several modifications since the 1x design. As far as I know very little has been done on the V. The V is a heavy lift option that uses two SRBs instead of the single SRB design of the I.

[talk show host]

Ever watch Star Trek? In that fictional future, no one on earth goes hungry. You know why? Because of technology. Space exploration is a jump-start for developing new technologies and improving the existing ones. New materials are invented, new ways of doing things, etc. Then alternative civilian uses are found for those materials and processes.

Also, many of the people who are starving around the world are in that position because of their governments. The are more than a few countries that routinely refuse the humanitarian aid the U.S. tries to provide and many more that pretend to accept it but actually hijack it and divert it to their military and leave their own people to starve. The only way to change this behavior is to go G.W. Bush on their asses; I'm predicting you're against that. In NO WAY is NASA, the ESA, or any other space program stopping people from eating or living a better life. On the contrary, in the long run they will enrich all our lives.

star trek is science fiction... but in that fictional universe, the majority of humanity was wiped out in WWIII and a benevolent alien race decided to contact humans before humans banded together and decided to be altruistic and cure hunger, disease, etc... so your star trek analogy is completely stupid.

it disgusts me how people still think in terms of "us" and "them" when talking about humans. the life of an american is not more sacred than the life of anyone of another race or nationality. You speak about me being against "going GW on their asses"... well, i'm a christian and i dont think Christ would support that sort of action... but thats another matter entirely.

If someone wants to argue that scientific research purposed at curing disease, creating more effective crops, etc is worthwhile, then id agree wholeheartedly... but space exploration is more novelty than anything else. im not being critical of one particular government. every single government on this planet could do much more to improve the life of the citizens of the planet... but instead theyre all caught up in competing against eachother for one thing or another. its completley futile, wasteful, and according to your star trek analogy, is what would result in killing BILLIONS of people.

[Larry]

NASA has an image problem. Everyone sees the space program and that's all they see and know about NASA. NASA has done phenomenal research in the field of aeronautics. Our understanding of fluid dynamics would be severely lacking if not for NASA's contributions over the years (understatement for lack of better words). Unfortunately only aerospace engineers (and probably only those doing research, PhDs) get to see everything that NASA has contributed to the field. It's really amazing to think about all they have contributed over the years outside the space program.

Yeah, I remember taking classes in Aerospace Engineering about 15 years ago. And the professor making the comment that the US is really a backwards nation, being the only nation in the world that isn't metric, but that in the field of Aerospace engineering, it's the other way around. That people doing aeronautical engineering in other countries, do so using feet, pounds per square inch, and temperatures in Fahrenheit. Because all of them were working from tables that were published by NASA.

[Larry]

Yeah, that way if it blows up, the debris falls into the ocean. I have never gotten around to reading Jules Verne's "From the Earth to the Moon", but I was watching a show last nite about how much got right about Apollo -- a hundred years before it happened. He took into account what you brought up about the earth's rotation and placed his launch pad in Florida fairly close to Canaveral. He also predicted the materials used in the Command Module and LEM and he got real close on the weight. A few other things were mentioned as well.

Funny how he got is right back in the 19th century, NASA got it right in the 20th century, and now here we are in the 21st century going right back to the capsules we so callously discarded as obsolete. Also funny is that my kid is watching the orange one-eyed knobby dildo on Yo Gabba Gabba launching a rocket on TV right now.

OTOH, there's a lot of things he got wrong, too.

Example: Verne is credited for "inventing the submarine" in 20,000 Leagues. But very few people remember that the mighty Nautilus was powered electrically, getting it's electricity from allowing sea water to corrode dissimilar metals.

I also remember a monologue written by Arthur Clarke, "inventor of the communications satellite" (and author of 2001). He points out that his first science fiction story dealt with an expedition that was attempting to climb Mt Everest. (At the time, several attempts had been made, but all had failed.)

In Clarke's story, one expedition is cut off by a sudden, unexpected storm. The storm traps them atop the mountain, and kept them there, far longer than their supplies could possibly have lasted. Obviously, they're all dead.

But a survivor comes down off the mountain. He says he stayed alive through the storm because he followed a light, which led him to a cave. The cave was heated, and somehow was provided with enough oxygen for him to breathe without assistance. And he explains that when he was in the cave, he was met there.

Seems that the top of Everest has been colonized by Martians. They like the cold, the wind, the thin atmosphere. They're happy there. But, they won't allow humans to climb it.

This was the first story Clarke sold. He got paid. Proudly cashed the check. Then waited for the story to be actually published.

And, while he was waiting for the story to be published, Edmund Hillary climbed Everest.

Clarke felt an ethical conflict. His science fiction story contained a premise - that Everest was inhabited by Martians - that had now been proven false. He wrote the publisher, offering to give their money back. The publisher, however, figured that his Everest story would be a perfect tie-in to the Big News of the Day, and published the story in the next issue.

Therefore, Clarke liked to say that when people were giving science fiction writers credit for "inventing" things like submarines and satellites, he likes to point out that he also predicted, in writing, that Everest would never be climbed, three weeks after it was climbed.

And, Marvin the Martian was cooler:

[HighOnHendrix]

star trek is science fiction... but in that fictional universe, the majority of humanity was wiped out in WWIII and a benevolent alien race decided to contact humans before humans banded together and decided to be altruistic and cure hunger, disease, etc... so your star trek analogy is completely stupid.

It's really not, because since we didn't blow the hell out of ourselves during the Cold War we are ahead of the curve in a way. Don't know about you, but I'm pretty damn impressed with humanity not having a nuclear exchange during 50 years or so of hair triggers on both sides. And the "benevolent alien" thing didn't get invented until a few years ago. The Trek I grew up with had us doing it on our own. Moving into space can and will lead to better technologies. Later on we will be able to exploit the resources of the moon, the asteroids, etc. There may even be point at which we could harness the energy of a star. And if there really are benevolent aliens out there to help us along the way, all the better. Regardless, exploring space is the direction we should pursue. I feel confident that humanity will do it, do it well, and that we will prosper because of it. Anything else is shortsighted.

[HighOnHendrix]

NASA has an image problem. Everyone sees the space program and that's all they see and know about NASA. NASA has done phenomenal research in the field of aeronautics. Our understanding of fluid dynamics would be severely lacking if not for NASA's contributions over the years (understatement for lack of better words). Unfortunately only aerospace engineers (and probably only those doing research, PhDs) get to see everything that NASA has contributed to the field. It's really amazing to think about all they have contributed over the years outside the space program.

My father-in-law is retired from NASA on that side, the aeronautical stuff. He reminds me of this all the time. It is really easy to only focus on the space side of NASA because it's the part that's famous and glamorous. You're right, they are responsible for a lot of good research that often goes unnoticed. That doesn't make it any less important.

Larry, thanks for that little bit about Clarke. He is one of my favorite writers, I'd have loved to have met him. Another facet of what you were saying (and perhaps this was your point, even) is how often do the "predictions" in science fiction become self-fulfilling prophesies? Once something gets put out there in the public imagination, it can take on a life of it's own and become the inspiration for a device that otherwise would not have come about or would have at the very least looked different. For example, flip-phones.

[mjah]

My basis for the claim the military has re-developed a Saturn IV capability is from a Washington post article I read a while back. Hard Copy. I couldn't find it online, maybe I'm misremembering.

You're definitely misremembering. The Saturn V (not Saturn IV, by the way) has not been redeveloped nor reused. The last launch of a Saturn V was in the 1970s for Skylab, and that was the end of it.

Saturn IV, largest most capable rocket ever deployed. could lift a payload of 41,000 kg into lunar orbit (90, 389 lbs ). or 260,000 lbs to low earth orbit.

Again, that's Saturn V. Saturn IV was a proposed rocket stage that never actually got built.

Assuming Ares V gets built, it will be able to launch significantly more payload weight than Saturn V.

And Helium-3 is a pipe dream for now. Actually using it is a science-fiction fantasy for the foreseeable future, as it's a substantially more complicated version of simple sustained fusion. And we have yet to even approach the ability to get that much working, even in a tiny-scale lab setting. It's great to have an idea about He-3 and to keep up with the Joneses on space technology, but some folks are believing in it as the "fuel of the future" when nobody knows whether or not it will ever prove practical. It's way too early to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on something so unproven.

If we return to the Moon we should do it for practical, realistic reasons.

[techboy]

If we return to the Moon we should do it for practical, realistic reasons.

Like getting there and planting some evidence before the Chinese can prove the first one was faked.

[mjah]

Like getting there and planting some evidence before the Chinese can prove the first one was faked.

They'll fake proving that the first one was faked.

[HighOnHendrix]

Like getting there and planting some evidence before the Chinese can prove the first one was faked.

LOL x a billion Even if it had been faked, why would anyone believe the Chinese??????

[Larry]

If we return to the Moon we should do it for practical, realistic reasons.

Funny, I just happen to know of a practical, realistic reason.

(I can see a lot of ES regulars cringing, already.)

Link to the ES thread where I went into detail on the subject. I mentioned it in post #10, went into more detail in post #19.

Silly me, but I would think that "Complete energy independence for the US in 20 years", "Initial investment is repaid, including a profit, in 17 years", and "Zero pollution" are goals that are a lot more important that "going to Mars, just so we can say we got there first".

[JMS]

Most of them, they launch from Cape Canaveral.

I don't think NASA and the military share launch capacity any longer. I think the military has their own. Vandenberg AFB in California, for example is one military launch site.

I do seem to recall that they also have some launch capabilities at Edwards.

We've got military bases in this country larger than some states. White Sands for example is 2.2 million acres and was built to test fire missiles and rockets. Rhode Island is only 776,957 acres. I wouldn't be surprised if Edwards had launching pads too. Although I haven't heard of any military launch sites other than Vandenberg.

But a Saturn can't be delivered by anything smaller than a barge.

That's not true. The Saturn was specifically designed so it could all be broken down into components transportable by air. That's one of the features that won the Saturn V the job of taking us to the moon. The Germans who designed it knew what they were doing.

And there's a reason why the VAB was built. It's because they needed a building that big so they could assemble the Saturns.

Yeah but you don't have to transport it assembled and the VAB isn't all that big, I mean we have a lot of military bases large enough to house the VAB.

The tractor they use is the largest land vehicle ever built. It's the only vehicle ever build that's capable of moving a Saturn stack, from the only building in the world that (used to be) capable of building them, to the only launch pad that (used to be) capable of launching them. It travels on the only road in the world that it can drive on.

Yeah I've taken the NASA tour too.

Do you really want to try to claim that the military was duplicated all of the completely unique infrastructure that's required to support Saturn rockets, at a secret location (which also has the ability to build said Saturns, on-site)?

It's a documented published fact that the military has Delta's, Titans, and Atlas rockets. They would need a VAB and a transport vehicle to launch all of those dependable. It's also a documented fact that they have at least one launch site in Vandenburg. So we know your major points are not true.

The question is does the military have the Saturn V rocket capacity. If Obama is talking about discontinuing the Ares, as they are; they would pretty much need a Saturn as I've already shown the updated delta's titans and atlas's aren't up to the task.

Anyway, I can't find anything on the net which verify's my memory. So I'm problable misremembering. Wouldn't be the first time. But I still don't understand how they are going to float the lunar orbitor / lander with less than a Saturn V.

[JMS]

I was also going to point out that there's a reason why we launch from Cape Canaveral.

The last time the military launched from the Cape was Challenger in 83.

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/launch/sts_list.htm

The military was developing a lift vehicle called The Advanced Launch System (ALS) to give them the capacity to launch hundreds of thousands of Kgs into low orbit to support Star Wars. The ALS was canceled in the late 1980's as too expensive as the cold war ended. When it was decided that we likely weren't going to go through with Star wars. Well then Bush Jr. came to office and Star Wars was re-started but not to take out the soviet union's missiles but to take out a smaller threat like Korea's.

The Military definitely had/has the need for a Saturn V type lift capacity.

We chose Florida over locations like Nevada, because we wanted the launched to be over water, for safety.

Yeah but we know even NASA has more launch sites than the Cape. We have four published space launch sites in the US, including the cape.

Shuttles launch from both Edward's and from the Cape.

http://www.spacetoday.org/Rockets/Spaceports/LaunchSites.html