Talk:Ares V

Requested move - 2006

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

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 21:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

I would like a source for the "Ares V" - the info seems to have been tacked on to the end of the article haphazardly. An official NASA document would be nice :) — QuantumEleven 13:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, maybe I was a bit early, I obviously misinterpreted a rumor as a fact, because the official names were announced today (and it is definatly Ares). - http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/exploration/spacecraft/ares_naming.html

--GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 21:06, 30 June 2006 (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.

NASA li^Wmarketing?

"Ares V is derived from current Space Shuttle technology, but can trace its lineage to the successful American Saturn V rocket". I see nothing like Saturn V here. I see only a desire to keep Shuttle contractors in business. For one, solid rocket boosters are (1) unsafe - you cannot turn them off if you detect that they are starting to fail in ascent, (2) more costly to maintain (they are cheaper to design, so they were chosen for Shuttle due to design budget shortage), and (3) have environmentally-unfriendly exhaust. Challenger crew paid for those boosters in blood. What's the problem in making liquid boosters a-la Delta IV? Did you see any solids on Saturn V? I didn't. Yet, we see the same Shuttle boosters here AGAIN. Morton Thiokol must be a special NASA friend... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.212.29.187 (talk • contribs) 11 August 2006

Reply to above...

Actually, both the Saturn V and the Ares V use 5 Liquid Hydrogen/LOX expendable engines in the first stage, the Shuttle uses 3 reusable engines. The Saturn V and the Ares V carry their cargo on top of the booster, the Shuttle carries it's cargo along side the booster. Minus the Launch Escape tower, the Saturn V and the Ares V are nearly the same height; the Shuttle is barely 2/3 that size. The Saturn V and the Ares V were designed to carry man-rated spaceships outside of low Earth orbit; the Shuttle has a maximum altitude of just 500 miles.

In spite of what Story Musgrave says, Solid rocket boosters are safe when used properly. It's true you can't turn them off at all or throttle them significantly, but their fuel is stable, unlike the cryrogenic fuels used by the main engines. The Challenger was done in by O-ring seals that were not designed for sub-freezing temperatures. Morton Thiokol objected to the ill-fated launch on the basis of the temperature at launch time, but NASA ignored their warning. That did not stop NASA from laying the blame at Thiokol's feet. Some friend! In any case, by putting the astronauts on top of the booster stack, the crew of the Ares I (or Ares V if they ever decide to use it for human flight) will be 10 times safer than they are on the shuttle. Failure of the solid or liquid fueled engines will not instantly kill the crew - - the proven Launch Escape System will "pop" them off the top of the booster and set them up for a parachute landing.

Also, the Saturn V's did use small solid-rockets for stage separation and ullage. In fact, the booster was fairly covered with them at every stage joint. None of these solids ever failed during the 18 launches of the Saturn V.

To your point, however, the budget for manned spaceflight is way too small. As Steven Hawkings and John Young say 'Single-planet species never survive.' The accumulated knowledge of all the robotic space-science probes will mean nothing, zip, if all humans are still confined to this rock when the "big" asteroid hits, or when nuclear war breaks out, or when s super-pandemic breaks out. Ljgruber 18:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Luke

Slight correction to above...

The Saturn V used LOX and RP-1 (an ultra-refined kerosene) for its first stage and LOX/LH₂ for its upper stages. The Ares V, on the other hand, does not use LOX/RP-1 in any of its stages. Rwboa22 18:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The main similarity is the J-2 engine. This was used on the second and third stages of the Saturn V. A J-2X engine, derived from the J-2, will be used on the upper (EDS) stage of the Ares V. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 19:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Trivia section

I've reverted Cjosefy's removal of the trivia section; this refers to a famous work of hard-science fiction which considered an Apollo derived Mars programme, and gave it the name Ares. I think it's reasonable to refer to this. Mtpt 09:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

There probably doesn't need to be a trivia section in any of these articles. What's the point? Is it that amazing that someone would call a fictional mission to Mars "Ares"? And even if this was even slighlty interesting, what is the relevance in an encyclopedia? This "trivia" adds nothing to the article. Cjosefy 21:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It has exactly the same relevance as in every other article with a trivia section - it provides a broader context. By similar logic the comments about Zubin should be removed as non-encylopedic "original research" - but that would diminish the article as a whole. If you want a list of tech-spec, the NASA site is perhaps more appropriate. Mtpt 17:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right. Both have been removed. Cjosefy 18:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

RS68 vs SSME costs

On the RS-68 main page it states that:

Each RS-68 for the Boeing Delta IV program costs approximately $14 million to build, compared to the SSME at $50 million

On the Ares V page it states that:

a modified RS-68 engine would cost $20 million USD as opposed to $55 million USD for a single-use SSME

Is it the modification for Ares that would cost the extra bling, then? If so, should that be made explicit here? Daen 15:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

They're comparing apples to oranges. The roughly $50 million dollar per unit price tag for the SSMEs is when only producing enough engines for one shuttle, while the RS-68 price is the per unit price for dozens of engines. Furthermore, the development of a disposable version of the SSME would reduce the per unit cost, while human-rating the RS-68 would drive its per unit cost up. When produced at the same quantities, the per unit costs of a human-rated RS-68 and a disposable SSME are only a few million apart, and the SSME has a higher specific impulse, a higher thrust-to-weight ratio, and is better suited to situations where base heating is a factor. 72.159.47.2 (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 06:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Interplanetary Spacecraft

When NASA would build de Ares V rocket (CaLV), then it would has the possibility of send a manned spacecraft with Nuclear Pulse Propulsion, Medusa named, above the magnetosphere facing the Sun (70000 km up the Earth´s surface). It sounds aggressive but we know there are high level of radiations at this altitude and also the magnetosphere deflect it, avoiding reach the atmosphere. In this place a nuclear-propulsed spacecraft woudn´t affected humans or artificial satellites. One single Ares V could lift a Medusa (60 to 70 tons) to this high elliptical orbit. This spacecraft could reach the moon faster than projected Orion spacecraft. It could descend in the Moon carrying a larger payload, making feasible an intensive colonization, exploration and mining. The ship could return the Earth and landing using an aerobraking shield and small chemical engines. Medusa could carry a large payload of minerals from Moon to Earth. Also this spacecraft could achive the long dreamed manned trip to Mars in a shorter time that current probes do. The advantages of nuclear ships travel in space are huges, they can increase drastically our domain of the Solar System.User:201.220.222.140

Do you have any sources for this idea or is it your own? It shouldn't be incorporated into the article unless it has been seriously considered. Grant 18:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The idea is of my own. I suggest its consideration. User:201.220.222.140 0:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a strict policy against original research, so we wouldn't be able to incorporate it into any article here. --adavidw 00:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a misinterpretation. The proposal is based in a BIS project of a spacecraft with Nuclear Pulse Propulsion called ´Medusa´ (see this page). The principle is only mate Medusa to Ares V rocket, something realizable.User:201.220.222.140

Did anyone notice the weird simularity between atari and ares?

Wow, whats up with that, lol. -Hamster2.0 00:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Both look like triangles? Wow super lol.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.238.184 (talk) 20:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect Propellant

The propellant stated for use in the first stage of the rocket is PBAN. To my knowledge this is just a binder for oxidizers and fuels. If the Orion/Ares project is using standard shuttle technology, the main fuel should be listed as aluminum with ammonium perchlorate as the primary oxidizer.68.227.219.145 (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for noticing this! I have changed the infobox to indicate the SRBs will use Ammonium Perchlorate Composite Propellant, which is (almost certainly) a correct statement. In any case it is I hope more correct than PBAN.! (sdsds - talk) 07:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It is quite important that PBAN is included to distinguish it from HTPB based propellent which has different properties. NASA usually refers to it as PBAN propellent as a shorthand. 130.217.188.28 (talk) 07:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Office Supplies?

From the "design" section: "The Ares V is being designed as a heavy-launch vehicle capable of sending large-scale hardware and materials to the Moon and supplying needed staples to sustain a human presence beyond Earth orbit."

Man, those NASA pen-pushers need to get their priorities straight! 78.148.190.56 (talk) 11:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Payload to LEO

I noticed that the reference provided for the payload capacity of the Aries V is now a dead link. A recent online article (http://www.universetoday.com/2008/06/26/ares-v-rocket-gets-an-upgrade-it-will-be-bigger-and-stronger-for-2020-moon-mission-video/) stated that the payload to LEO was being increased to 156,600 lb (71,000 kg). This is far below the value currently listed here. Does anybody have a current reference for the "130 tonnes (287,000 lb) to Low Earth orbit" payload currently shown on the page? If not I'll edit the values and update the reference to that article.Occasional Reader (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The NASA Ares V page says Ares V LV "can carry nearly 414,000 pounds (188 metric tons) to low-Earth orbit." and "... nearly 157,000 pounds (71 metric tons) to the moon." The web page info says it was modified on June 28, 2008, so it looks very current. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Where NASA can get away with hyperbole on pages like this, Wikipedia holds itself to a higher standard! Ares V cannot (in the present tense) carry any mass to orbit, because (obviously) Ares V does not yet exist. At best, we should retain the current "will be able to carry" phrasing. More realistically, we should probably switch to phrasing like "NASA currently expects Ares V will be able to carry...." (sdsds - talk) 03:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• That's fine to point that out, but too much goes beyond verifiability policy. A {{Future product}} tag at the top would help in that regard. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It is tempting to create a {{Future spacecraft}} template, rather like {{Future ship}}.... Also, Marshall has removed the document in question (wonder why?) but Ames seems to still have a copy available. (sdsds - talk) 05:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps contributors could stop referencing websites (which disappear) and start referencing NTRS (ntrs.nasa.gov) technical reports directly (which do not). Pretty much every figure or fact you would ever need to quote can be found in a paper on there. 130.217.188.28 (talk) 08:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

While it may be true that Ares V, as it is currently envisioned, could lift "188 tonnes" to LEO, I believe this figure includes the mass of the upper stage (and any residual propellant contained therein). Calling this mass "Payload" in the article (as it does) would be erroneous. The current article is completely misleading. This needs to be corrected ASAP. 122.57.67.232 (talk) 14:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Looked into it, it appears the guy directly above me is correct. The NASA page never calls the 188 the payload, just the lifting ability.--Craigboy (talk) 01:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I need to say that it makes no sense the ares V could load more payload to Leo than even the actual modern SLS, its Leo capacity is completely outrageous from my standpoint.I think it could bring less than 130 tons but 188 tons is to much for a rocket smaller than the starship.

I could be wrong but i will change the leo capacity to a more realistic level

thank you 90.170.53.11 (talk) 13:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

i changed mind about it,its really a concept like the sea dragon 90.170.52.226 (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Specs out of date

The specs are out of date as of late. Ares V has been given a payload boost. In one place, some of the specs are accurate but not in others. 66.92.132.155 (talk) 04:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Reference 3 is a possibility

The third reference in this article ([3]) describes something that, according to the site, is just a possiblity; it has not been confirmed. Therefore, in this article, we should entertain both possibilities to retain NPOV. Nat682 (talk) 17:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, all reasonable referenced ones anyway. What's the other possibility; the 5 RS-68 configuration? Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Comparison in the lead

Why does the lead compare this launch vehicle to the Energia rocket? The motivation appears to be some kind of "we are better than the Russians" -attitude. If there is not a good reason for this comparison, I'd suggest removing it. Just compare it to Saturn V instead. Offliner (talk) 08:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I removed it. It did not seem relevant there, just a throw in thing like you say. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticism Paragraph

The criticism paragraph in the main article should be deleted because it is invalid. VASIMR is not an alternative to the Ares V because VASIMR engines do not produce sufficient thrust to lift objects off the Earth's surface, see article. A VASIMR space tug is a possible alternative to the Earth Departure Stage but that is a different machine.

Use of anything nuclear in the Earth's atmosphere is likely to be banned.

The main alternatives to the Ares V are the DIRECT J-232 or several launches of the Atlas V and Delta IV launch vehicles. Andrew Swallow (talk) 02:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Section is unsourced and tagged as such. That's reason enough to remove it if you like. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the section. Factually inaccurate and unreferenced. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Better boost

How about liquid-fueled 1st stage surrounded by SIX SRBs for super thrust.... then the second stage with 4 SRB boosters... that would put a LOT of payload into space!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.56.100.129 (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Good idea! How about anti-gravity and warp drive, too? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

NOO SRBs are proven technology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.146.200.206 (talk) 05:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Pity they weigh so much that the whole pad would sink into the Florida swamp. As it is, Ares V is tipping the scales *at* the upper safe limit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.169.195.238 (talk) 12:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

and with extra parachutes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.56.100.129 (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not a discussion forum (WP:NOTAFORUM). Move onto to something that improves this article. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

SS external fuel tank

The external fuel tank isn't designed to bear the force of thrust from the bottom but from where the SRB's are hooked up on the sides. The external fuel tank would have to be entirely redesigned from scratch, so how would that use the current Space Shuttle infrastructure?98.165.15.98 (talk) 12:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The first stage has the same diameter as the ET. Ares V has the same basic footprint as the Shuttle, so the launch pad and some of the other launch facilities can be reused with modifications. Since this page is not a discussion forum, look for other sources to provide more details. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"The bigger Ares V would require the rebuilding of the existing Launch Complex 39 crawlerway. All-new crawler transporters and mobile launch platforms would also be needed. A new launch pad might even be necessary." http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/ares5.html

And why would someone use expensive re-usable SS main engines on the expendable 2nd stage?98.165.15.98 (talk) 13:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably won't use SSMEs for reasons such as that. Like I said this talk page is WP:NOTAFORUM. Go to a forum... -Fnlayson (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks to me the Constellation program won't be using "current Space Shuttle infrastructure".98.165.15.98 (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Augustine Commission - When it would be available to fly

The late 2009 report on pg.60 stated "Under the FY 2010 funding profile, the Committee estimates that Ares V will not be available until the late 2020s." On page 87, if NASA (now had) receives the 3 billion increase and decommissioned the ISS in 2015 than a lunar return mission would take place in the mid-2020s. On the same page it states that if it got the 3 billion increase but chose to continue the ISS till at least 2020 than a lunar return mission would not happen till the late 2020s. I will add this to the article. --Craigboy (talk) 22:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Ares IV merge

I suggest merging Ares IV to this article, specifically the Derivatives section. From what all I can tell Ares IV was studied for a short time by NASA, but never became an official part of the Constellation program. A couple Ares IV paragraphs here is about all that would be moved here. The rest is general Constellation text or minor/non-notable info, imo. Please state if support or oppose merging. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I support merging. As there is unlikely to be further developments, it would make sense to merge some of the Ares versions together, as some are really too small to justify seperate articles. Consolidation is good. Kyteto (talk) 10:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• It's been almost a month and no objections have been made. So I will complete this merge. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Not cancelled, merely renamed.

The Ares V has not really been cancelled. The 2010 NASA Authorization bill includes the development of a heavy lift launch vehicle (130 tons) that is expected to fly by beginning of 2017.

And for those of you who think that the space program is not a jobs program, here is an excerpt from the summary of the 2010 NASA Authorization Act:

(Sec. 304) Requires the Administrator, in developing the Space Launch System and the multi-purpose crew vehicle, to utilize existing contracts, investments, workforce, industrial base, and capabilities from the space shuttle and Orion and Ares 1 projects, including space-suit development activities and shuttle-derived and Ares 1 components that use existing U.S. propulsion systems. Specifies the activities that shall or may be discharged by NASA in meeting such requirement.

--Aflafla1 (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The Act clearly canceled the Constellation program and its Ares launchers. Shuttle-derived technologies are to be reused on SLS per the Act. So SLS will be similar, but not Ares V. SLS will actually be closer to Ares IV. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not against the U.S. Space Program conceptually. What I am against is the extent to which Congress, by law, dictates what NASA must do or is prohibited from doing. In particular NASA is largely prohibited from using the technologically best or economically best solutions. --Aflafla1 (talk) 20:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ares V. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131230232306/http://www.qmxonline.com/news/stid-history-of-starflight-models/ to http://www.qmxonline.com/news/stid-history-of-starflight-models/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ares V. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120323160447/http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/handle/2014/40727 to http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/handle/2014/40727

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)