NASA has successfully launched a test version of the Ares I rocket it is developing to replace the space shuttle.
Ares I is designed to loft a crew capsule called Orion to low-Earth orbit. Initially it would travel to the International Space Station, but later it would act as the first leg of missions to the moon, taking a crew capsule to low-Earth orbit, where the capsule would dock with other spacecraft that would get the rest of the way there.
The Ares I-X test vehicle lifted off at 1130 EDT (1530 GMT) from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, on Wednesday. The launch had been postponed a day due to bad weather.
A solid-fuel first stage, like those used on the space shuttle, boosted a dummy second stage and crew capsule high into the atmosphere – the planned altitude was 45 kilometres. The flight was designed to test Ares I's flight-control software and to determine how prone the rocket is to forces that could cause unwanted spin during flight.
As planned, the spent first stage separated from the second stage and capsule. It is expected to use parachutes to land in the Atlantic Ocean, where NASA will retrieve it for analysis.
Despite the successful test, the future of Ares I is far from secure. The project has been plagued with budget and schedule problems as well as technical hurdles, including a tendency to vibrate excessively.
A panel appointed by the White House to review NASA's human space flight plans recently raised the possibility of cancelling Ares I and using commercial launch vehicles to access the International Space Station instead.
If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.
Have your say
Fantastic, with a bit of luck in a few years NASA will be back to where they were in 1969.
It would seem like such a shame if the project were to be shut down. All that time and effort, I can't imagine how disappointed the people working on the project would feel.
Hopefully the project will push ahead
NASA? shutdown? no never people in there field wouldn't allow such things
Seems like it'd be a worse idea to waste billions on a project just to save the feelings of the people designing it than to say "OK, this really isn't working out, lets take what we've learned and come up with something that isn't just a rehashing of the Saturn V, and is say, I don't know... original."
What else is there?
A stack like STS with the cargo vehicle on the side or a vertical stack like this... strap on boosters or no strap on boosters. It all looks about the same. Nothing revolutionary is going to happen this generation.
The capsule is the most efficient way of getting people up to space and back down, but it provides minimal cargo space and practically no downmass capability.
I don't know what they will choose to do, but they need to stick with their decision from here on out.
If the Ares design wasn't chosen using good engineering principals (as is the accusation) then it needs to be reevaluated. If there is a better design, we aren't so far into the program that scrapping it would be such a big deal.
I don't believe any hardware has been built for an actual ares launch vehicle (the SRB in this launch was a 4 segment shuttle SRB as opposed to the 5 segment that would be required for a real launch) so now would be the time to make a switch if it needs to be made.
exactly, it is a shame, that the shuttle program is slated for much too early retirement
ares provides no better or extra functionality or even anywhere close to the same functionality of the shuttle
They either completely rework it or shut it down and save millions of $. Second choice looks more interesting IMHO
I don't really care HOW we get into space. 1960's-era tech is fine by me. Saying a rocket design is passe because a crew capsul sits on top, is a bit like my daughters wanting a (another) new pair of shoes just because they look different.
I'm more interested in what we do and where we go in space. Mars/martian moon/crash an asteroid into the moon and mine it is way more interesting than getting to LEO or going to the space station. We can just pay a commercial operator or another country for that.
The FAA doesn't comission/build and operate aircraft, so why does NASA have to comission/build and operate space craft?
Agree. We are too concerned about the launch vehicles, perhaps because of this being public money and launch is what everyone sees in the news. Aries has shown that even an SRB can be turned into a proper multi stage rocket. (credit still goes to the NASA engineers) But we just seem to go there for the point of going there.
I have heard that the vibration problems they think they'll run into don't happen with the 4 section srb (which this test had) but begin with the 5 section.
There are still the problems with the abort system possibly not having enough power to pull the capsule away from an exploding SRBs during portions of the launch. SRBs can't be throttled, or turned off and in this configuration, they can't be jettisoned while firing.
NASA launches solid fuel rocket.
Big deal.
Next week the UK will be launching thousands.
Come on folks lets move ahead into the 21 century and stop playing these stupid games with the big fireworks. Lockheed and others have been flying the real deal anti-grav spaceships since the 70's right out of Edwards and Groom Lake Duuuuuuhhhh ! !
De-nial is not a river in Egypt. Wake up people, you have been lied to your entire lives. This isn't even funny anymore. Stop this nonsense!
All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.
If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.
PRINT
SEND
