Talk:Ares I-X/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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)

• It is a letter X as in eXperimental. 193.56.37.1 (talk) 08:46, 29 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)

Hum this is not a forum, you know, this is a wikipedia talk page. Hektor (talk) 06:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

There you go. Have fun in your little sandbox. Jmdeur (talk) 11:41, 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)

dubious statement

"The USS and the CM/LAS mass simulators launched by the Ares I-X were not recovered because they fell into the Atlantic Ocean. The first stage, including the fifth segment mass simulator, was recovered to retrieve flight data recorders and reusable equipment."

If the fact that they fell in the ocean is indeed the causative reason why the USS and CM/LAS were not recovered ( which is what the conjunction "because" means.... ), then how was the first stage , which also fell in the Atlantic Ocean, recovered ? Eregli bob (talk) 15:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Another very dubious statement

"The rocket was split into independent parts that separated at different times in the launch."

The separation of the first stage from the dummy second stage happened once. It was a one-time event. The two components of the rocket cannot separate at different times.Eregli bob (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree, see my comment at #Description above --Redrose64 (talk) 15:36, 29 October 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)

I've changed the figures to those used in the cited article - 1.8 million pounds (816,466 kg) Markb (talk) 06:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• The fact remains that kilograms and pounds are not units of mass weight. I would question the credibility of any source, no matter how official, that states otherwise. --GW… 22:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • On what basis do you make such a radical statement? I suggest that you read Kilogram and Pound (mass), and if you find these articless to be wrong, please amend, but remember to give references. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, typo. I meant weight --GW… 23:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Pretty useless image

The image captioned "A diagram of the inside of the first stage" is pretty useless because the size of the original image is too small to discern any information from it at all. 71.112.38.38 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC).

Yes, clicking on it won't enlarge better than 216 x 279. Original came from NASA. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I commented out that image. If someone finds a larger version please upload a replacement and restore what I commented out of the article. --Itsfullofstars (talk) 21:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep deleted. I already spent some time looking for the larger version and couldn't find it. I suspect it exists on the backend NASA site, which is subscription only. Viriditas (talk) 00:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Description

Image caption reads "The rocket was split into independent parts that separated at different times in the launch." - this is badly written: there was only one separation, into two parts. See broad pale blue arrows. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done No comment, so I've amended. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Can't parse this sentence...

Divers ... noted apparent buckling of the lower portion of the first stage, which was found floating upright, as is typical of expended Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster. What is typical? Is it typical that the stage was found floating upright, or is it typical that the stage was buckled? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The upright orientation is typical, the buckling is not. Reworded the sentence a bit.--RadioFan (talk) 16:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

pronunciation

Could some one clarify how this is generally said? is this rocket called Ares One dash Ten or Ares One or Ares One to Ten? 115.128.28.167 (talk) 09:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Neither. Please see #Mission Name above --Redrose64 (talk) 10:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It's "Ares One X" (the letter, not the Roman numeral for "ten"). 70.153.110.77 (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

"Success"

I reverted an earlier edit that claimed the launch was a success, but the word "success" has reappeared. NASA clearly has an interest in claiming success in the same way that, for example, North Korea claims to be a successful country. Given the damage to the first stage and the tumble of the dummy upper stage following first stage separation, which was different from the pre-launch NASA animation, is the word "success" WP:POV or WP:OR? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidelit (talk • contribs) 17:49, 30 October 2009

Were the mission objectives achieved? If those objectives included recovery of an undamaged first stage, and a stable trajectory for the upper stage, then no, so unsuccessful. However if the objectives did not require these, it could well be a NASA "success" although not to the layman. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Damage to the first stage (in fact the whole vehicle) was a predeclared possibility, so to me it wouldn't indicate a test failure. Plus, the NASA Mission Manager said it was a "100% success" -- so as long as it is an attributed statement, it is factual. Feel free to add "it was a test failure" as an attributed statement from some other source. HyperCapitalist (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

i think that is ridiculous, if just anyone is willing to say it is a succes? to stay with the example, states usually don't admit to the faults others find. what also lacks suggestively, is any description or estimate of the costs (500m?) or much more? many billions (50 or more), for a program that only achieved a testlaunch. I think that is interesting fact, and also that space fligth will not be feasible when it's done by ppl who keep the costs out of the (historical..) records.24.132.171.225 (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I think what you are saying is that the Ares Project and/or the Constellation Program is not a succes -- which is a different thing than saying that the Ares I-X test flight wasn't a success. HyperCapitalist (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I was going to go off on a rant about this one, but then I remembered WP:DFTT. So I won't. rdfox 76 (talk) 00:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The mission itself was a success. This was an engineering test, and failures of specific systems within the design represent a success in that this is what a test of concept is intended to reveal. Discovering these failures is consistent with the goals of the test. This is akin to developing new software and running it through a basic smoke test. If the system fails, that is not a failure of the smoke test which is successful by virtue of discovering a failure before a product is rolled out to market. One could argue, for example, that the design tests for the Space Shuttle should be viewed a failure since they did not test the result of external tank shedding during launch and impacting the flight surface leading edges. Same goes for O ring design on the original SSRBs as they were not tested for all possible weather conditions that a Shuttle could encounter on the launch pad. Succesful testing yields failures in a fail safe environment. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Upper Stage Simulator flat spin

I'm noticing that there is a nearly total lack of information on what findings, if any, will be drawn from the flat spin which the Upper Stage Simulator began immediately after first stage separation. I realize this was an unpowered steel mockup of the real upper stage, and I also realize that first stage separation occured at a lower altitude and speed than it would in a real Ares I launch, but it seems that an Upper Stage Simulator which instantly goes into a flat spin is no small matter. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

You'll just have to wait for "what findings, if any" to be published by a reliable source. This is not a forum for speculation or original reseach. Roger (talk) 06:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know that... hence the reason for my comment. Phrased more clearly, I am asking for sources, not saying we should speculate in the article. Hiberniantears (talk) 10:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Pad damage

It should be clarified somewhere that since no further launch is foreseen from this pad in its present incarnation (the whole Rotating Service Structure will be demolished soon and 39B reverted to some kind of "clean pad" state), these damages have no operational consequence whatsoever. Hektor (talk) 09:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point. Is there information available on what pad configuration a real Ares I will launch from? Hiberniantears (talk) 10:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Great photo

I wish we could use this photo but it seems to be copyrighted by someone other than NASA. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 01:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

"Upper Stage Simulator" or "upper stage simulator"?

Is it a formal Proper noun or is it simply an "ordinary" noun phrase? There is quite a bit of to-and-fro editing of the capitalisation of the phrase. Roger (talk) 14:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)