Ares 1 passes preliminary design review.

[MeteorWayne]

<p>I hadn't heard this elsewhere, so I guess this is news...</p><li>NASA approves the preliminary design review of the planned Ares I rocket <br /></li><li>The Ares would launch astronauts into space by 2015 and back to the moon by 2020<br /></li><li>It's the first early design review approval for a rocket to carry astronauts since 1973<br /></li><li>A more detailed test, a critical design review, is scheduled for March 2011<br /><br />http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/09/11/ares.rocket.ap/index.html</li> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[docm]

Given what looks like a rather large state of denial among management vs. its design and capabilities isn't this more a foregone conclusion? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Kitspace]

AMEN!&nbsp; I put Aries 1 through my Flightpath Simulator program - which the Saturn V sailed through to TLI incidentally, as did all the real LV's for which I have data - and Ares 1/Constellation came up short by 2 tons of payload to a 200n.ml * 51deg orbit. If it can't get to the ISS, what price the moon...I think we've got a Space Industry/NASA boondoggle well under way. Hence the hatchet job on DIRECT 2.0.&nbsp; Of course if they'd read the whole paper instead of selected excerpts to back up their conclusion, we might have a egg-on-the-face situation. Can't have THAT! By the way, Jupiter 120 also came up short of claims to ISS - by 2.5 tons - but it can afford to, ARES 1 can't...I see a cancellation down the road -when we've ALL forgotten...

 

[shuttle_guy]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>AMEN!&nbsp; I put Aries 1 through my Flightpath Simulator program - which the Saturn V sailed through to TLI incidentally, as did all the real LV's for which I have data - and Ares 1/Constellation came up short by 2 tons of payload to a 200n.ml * 51deg orbit. If it can't get to the ISS, what price the moon...I think we've got a Space Industry/NASA boondoggle well under way. Hence the hatchet job on DIRECT 2.0.&nbsp; Of course if they'd read the whole paper instead of selected excerpts to back up their conclusion, we might have a egg-on-the-face situation. Can't have THAT! By the way, Jupiter 120 also came up short of claims to ISS - by 2.5 tons - but it can afford to, ARES 1 can't...I see a cancellation down the road -when we've ALL forgotten... <br />Posted by Kitspace</DIV></p><p>In my opinion Ares&nbsp;I and Ares V will not be cancelled due to under performance or any design problem.&nbsp;&nbsp;The only way they will not fly is if the money is not provided for the program.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[holmec]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In my opinion Ares&nbsp;I and Ares V will not be cancelled due to under performance or any design problem.&nbsp;&nbsp;The only way they will not fly is if the money is not provided for the program.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by shuttle_guy</DIV></p><p>I concur that opinion.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>The real question for me is how much Ares I fly if SpaceX is successful and obtains more NASA servicing contracts. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[trailrider]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In my opinion Ares&nbsp;I and Ares V will not be cancelled due to under performance or any design problem.&nbsp;&nbsp;The only way they will not fly is if the money is not provided for the program.&nbsp; <br />Posted by shuttle_guy</DIV><br /><br />While I respect your opinion on the technical side, I'm not so certain that technical problems, including diminishing margins on Ares I wouldn't cause a second look at the efficacy of continuing the Ares I program. (So far as I am concerned Ares V is still mostly a concept!)&nbsp; In that case, a proposal to utilize something similar to a Jupiter 120 OR a man-rated EELV could "come to the rescue".</p><p>But it ALL depends on the budgetary conditions and the WILL of the next President and Congress...AND the will of the American people to continue to support a space program.&nbsp; Without the latter...</p>

 

[tesqua]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I concur that opinion.&nbsp;The real question for me is how much Ares I fly if SpaceX is successful and obtains more NASA servicing contracts. <br /> Posted by holmec</DIV></p><p>I agree. What situations could make the Ares I more useful than the SpaceX's Dragon? I imagine the science equipment and computers will be superior on the Ares I. The Ares I will also be designed to rendezvous with Ares 5 cargo, unlike the Dragon. But will all that that matter if flying the Dragon is significantly cheaper?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vulture4]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In my opinion Ares&nbsp;I and Ares V will not be cancelled due to under performance or any design problem.&nbsp;&nbsp;The only way they will not fly is if the money is not provided for the program.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by shuttle_guy</DIV></p><p>It seems likely that funding will be cut, probably after billions have been spent. Unfortunately many at NASA will assume that such a rejection is just a matter of political expediency or the failure of the American public to set proper priorities, when it may be a legitimate conclusion based on the cost and benefits of the program.</p><p>I have to wonder, when has a design not passed PDR? </p><p>&nbsp;</p>