Talk:Ares I-X

Template:WPSpace Template:HSF Project  This article incorporates public domain material from websites or documents of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This article seems to be an aspect of the Ares I article and the info here should be merged with that article.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Agree. It is far too early in the process to be breaking each launch into a separate article. Once the program is closer to an actual launch it may be warranted, but for now this content could be merged into the parent article or perhaps broken into a subarticle titled something like List of Ares 1 missions. --StuffOfInterest 18:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. The Ares I-1 flight is not a flight of an Ares I vehicle. The Ares I-X vehicle is quite different. This article should focus on the Ares I-X vehicle and the Ares I-1 flight, and the Ares I article should defer descriptions of these to this article. (sdsds - talk) 04:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I've pulled the tags. The 1-X article seems to be far enough along to stand, and there appears to be general agreement that it deserves a separate page. --StuffOfInterest 15:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ares I-X

I agree. This page should be merged with the Ares I listing, however, it's name should be changed to Ares I-X. Spectreman75 18:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The name change is another good example of why it is too early to break out each flight into a separate article. --StuffOfInterest 18:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it really a name change? Or is Ares I-X the vehicle (with an upper stage simulator) that will be used for the Ares I-1 test flight? (sdsds - talk) 02:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

After listening to a briefing broadcast on NASA-TV today, I have updated the article to reflect this nomenclature, which seems consistent with that used by the presenters. (sdsds - talk) 04:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

We are now only 20 months away from this mission, therefore I think it justifies its own article. Hektor 19:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Hektor. With all the other Ares missions it is still too far off, but this one is getting pretty close now. Besides, I've seen mission pages with less info than this one, and the program is only going to get more important from here on in (presuming they don't cancel it). Plus STS-130 isn't happening for a little while yet, and that's got an article. Tom walker 07:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Hektor. It is a mission, not a article about the rocket. Keep both articles separate.--Abebenjoe 17:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Logo

Is incorrect. Please improve. The T should be aligned with the rocket body on the patch. 193.56.37.1 (talk) 14:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Images

I was just wondering if anyone fancies updating some of the images on this page, as a) the launch pad image is wrong as the three Constellation programme lightning towers are already in place, so they don;t need the extension to the tower on 39B, and also because the images are tiny! Colds7ream (talk) 09:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Weight or mass

I noticed that this edit changed the text to switch from weight to mass. NASA's own press flyer says the "liftoff weight" is 1.8 Mlb. The reference in the article also refers to weight, and not mass. Obviously a mass given in kg (as it is now) is the most appropriate approach for this, but the references do not (technically) support the text as written. Any ideas? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The article referenced says, "1.8 million pounds (816,466 kg)". The word "weight" is ambiguous and can properly be taken to mean either force or mass. The fact that the mass is given in parentheses strongly implies that it was used here as a unit of mass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.86.92.198 (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Launch

I am posting this on the day of launch, October 27, 2009, and I was wondering if anyone was going to post information about the launch. So far they have had several delays, including a cargo ship that was within the danger zone. I think that it is important information to have for such a new breakthrough in space flight. --Drew2794 (talk) 14:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Well yesterday's attempt to lauch was scrubbed. Because the ship entered their danger zone they had to delay it a little longer, and then there was a storm moving in and it was to close so they aborted for that day. However they are back at it today and so far so good. --Drew2794 (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This talk page is used for discussing how to improve the Ares I-X article. I know you find this interesting, but please don't use article talk pages for general conversation. Thank you. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Some of the info related to the delays yesterday has been added to the article. What will probably happen is that when the vehicle does launch, the delays on that day will get more focus in the article. If you are following along the launch and learn new information, you can add it to the article by clicking the "edit this page" button above the "Ares I-X" heading - an account is not required. --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 15:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Well The launch was succesful, and the data is starting to come in. Now who is in charge of putting it together on the page. I mean this a major moment in space history. A milestone in human space flight. It shouldn't be left out. --Drew2794 (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You are, and so am I, and so is everyone else. :-) Colds7ream (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL, what is the milestone? Which brings up my real point. I came to this article hoping to learn how this is "advanced" in any way compared to older rockets from the 60s. I get nothing from the article as it stands now. Is it because there is not much difference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.142.237.151 (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The milestone is that this is the first flight test of a future human-rated launch vehicle since STS-1 in 1981. The rocket used to get to the Moon in the 1960s and 70s was the Saturn V - Ares I, the crew launch component of the Constellation program is slimmer and shorter than the Saturn V, and its first stage runs on solid fuel (APCP) rather than liquid fuel as the S-IC (first stage of the Saturn V) did (it ran on rocket-grade kerosene). --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 18:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Used to work for what was then Thiokol Chemical Corporation (stayed through Morton Thiokol and Thiokol Corps. as well) and spent not a little time analyzing pressure oscillations in the Shuttle SRB back in the early 80s. Haven't been involved in solid rockets for twenty years, but did sit through an AIAA lunchtime briefing last year at Marshall by the project director (or deputy director) for the 1-X test. What was flown today was basically a four-segment Shuttle SRB with its own guidance and control package. The first stage of the final launch vehicle will be a five segment SRB (today's test article had a dummy fifth segment shell, but it was just sitting atop the SRB - it wasn't part of the flowpath inside the working part of the rocket motor). Above the booster was basically a boilerplate shell of the upper stage and atop that a boilerplate shell of the Orion crew vehicle with it's escape tower rocket (don't know if the latter was also just a mockup - but hopefully it was, as they missed a great opportunity to test it if it were functional at booster sep otherwise - such a test might have also avoided the rather disconcerting sight of the dummy upper stage beginning to tumble when the SRB fell away). The 1-X bird was equipped with a roll control system from a Peacekeeper (MX) with the intent of using it to calibrate the roll performance of the stack. Basically except for a few moments back in '86 when a couple SRBs got loose during an unfortunate incident, there hasn't been much experience in free powered flight of the SRB and certainly nothing like the long skinny pencil of a launch vehicle like Ares, so this was an interesting flight dynamics experiment. Other than that, one could argue that this test really didn't accomplish too much - certainly not for the high profile that it has received. There's really going to be a long gap between this test and any future testing of flight hardware as it has yet to be designed in detail and fabricated - the impression that this gives to me at least as that this was more for publicity than anything. If they waited a couple of years, they could have flown a real five segment booster (think there's been one ground test of one of these so far) which truly would have been something new. Sadly, after nearly 30 years of watching a MD80-sized shuttle majestically returning to orbit time and time again, seeing an SRB loft an overgrown Apollo capsule is probably likely to be somewhat anti-climatic to the general public and may lead to a swift rundown of the manned space program like what happened after the novelty of the Apollo landings quickly faded. Perhaps the Chinese will stir-up a little space race back to the Moon or on to Mars, but it's not the same World as back in the 60s. Jmdeur (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The escape tower -- Launch Abort System (LAS) -- was not real. I believe the next test will be the Pad Abort 1 (PA-1) test out at WSMR in March. HyperCapitalist (talk) 01:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Mission Name

Is the X in the name of the mission a letter or Roman Numeral? In other words, is it Ares 1-ecks or Ares 1-ten? 71.193.180.188 (talk) 05:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)