NASA is wrestling with a potentially dangerous problem in a spacecraft, this time in a moon rocket that has not even been built yet.

Engineers are concerned that the new rocket meant to replace the space shuttle and send astronauts on their way to the moon could shake violently during the first few minutes of flight, possibly destroying the entire vehicle.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,323987,00.html

NASA has been working on a plan to return to the moon, at a cost of more than $100 billion, since 2005.

why arnt they using the old apollo tech?

Dunno. Obsolete? Faulty? :confused:

why arnt they using the old apollo tech?
For one thing, Apollo brought all of two people to the Moon for a very short time, plus one extra person to babysit the return vehicle. We want to send more people than that and for a much longer period of time. For another thing, we have learned quite a bit about materials since the 60s.

The launch vehicle is one thing that is not even close to what they used for the Apollo missions. Apollo was launched on the Saturn V, a liquid-fueled rocket. The Ares rockets are solid rocket engines.

The Apollo program also ran into a very serious vibration problem: Pogo. This was not an acronym. Millions of kids in the sixties had pogo sticks. Early versions of the Saturn V jerked around so much during ascent that engineers likened the behavior to that of a pogo stick. Here is a 1968 article from Time Magazine (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,902216,00.html) on the problem.

Why ARE they using solid fuel? I thought the whole point was that liquid fuel and O2 worked more effectivly and reliably

wow

solid fuel=less risk

but they probably will be using hydrazine

solid fuel=less risk
also cheaper to make
and less mechanical parts that can fail

w00t.. We return to the moon.. Shotgun the first nuclear WMD base.

The ares 5 will carry 130 000 kg to LEO (65 000 kg to lunar orbit).
The Saturn 5 (apollo missions) could carry 118 000 kg (to LEO) or 47 000 kg to lunar orbit.
It's a improvement but I gues the real difference has to be in the lander itself.

138% is not that impressive. I gues if they could make them cheaper but if they are then it will also be by a small margin and considering NASA's budget they might of well be more expanisve. Still I like the ID that it could land on a near earth asteroid

Why ARE they using solid fuel? I thought the whole point was that liquid fuel and O2 worked more effectivly and reliablyI've asked you this before, and you didn't answer. Why do you have a picture of Yoda as your avatar when your name is Asgard? Shouldn't your avatar be this:
http://scifipedia.scifi.com/images/e/ea/Asgard1.jpg

An alien? Asgard is the city/land of the gods in Norse mythology.
Besides his name is Asguard.

Why ARE they using solid fuel? I thought the whole point was that liquid fuel and O2 worked more effectivly and reliably
Solid fuel rockets are much simpler than liquid engines. No plumbing, no moving parts, no slosh, no cryogenics. Many of the scrubbed Shuttle launches were scrubbed because of problems (real or sensed) with the complex main engines.

The key challenges with solid rocket engines are explosions and inability to turn them off. There is no turning back once a solid rocket's engines are lit.

An alien? Asgard is the city/land of the gods in Norse mythology.
Besides his name is Asguard.
I figured he miss spelled it. I'm aware of the Asgard of Norse mythology. But his Avatar suggests a sci-fi connection.
The Asgard are a fictional race of characters created for the TV series Stargate SG-1.

Physically, the Asgard are similar to the "little gray aliens" portrayed in numerous science fiction and UFO abduction stories, films, and television series (including The X-Files).The Asgard of yet another depiction of what most "alien believers" think Aliens look like, commonly known as the Roswell Greys.

Once members of an ancient alliance with three other races, (the Nox, the Furlings, and The Ancients), the Asgard are one of Earth's most powerful allies in the Stargate SG-1 universe. They are an ancient and benevolent race who have acted as universal peacekeepers and played a major role in protecting several worlds in the Milky Way through the establishment of the Protected Planets Treaty reached with the evil Goa'uld. On some of these worlds (for example, Cimmeria and K'Tau), the Asgard are worshiped as Norse gods, appearing as holographic "Norse" warriors to the peoples on the planet.
http://scifipedia.scifi.com/index.php/The_Asgard

because Asguard actually has nothing to do with norse mythology OR the Asgard

It was a name i made up based on a mispelling of the land of the big enermy in lord of the rings that i was using as my name for a game of D&D

Actually the Asgard are cool but yoda is just as good

solid fuel=less risk

but they probably will be using hydrazine

My guess too. Hydrazine Methenol compound and liquid O2 as an oxidizer. I would think that solid fuel is heavier though, which would mean less efficiency.

NASA already let the contracts out. The first stage of the Ares I is a single five segment solid rocket engine derived from the solid rocket boosters used on the Shuttle. The second stage is a liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen engine derived from the J-2 engine used on the Apollo's second stage.

The Ares V first stage will comprise two five segment solid rocket engines plus five liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen engines. These engines are derived from the engines currently used on Delta IV rockets.

Since the contracts have already been let, the only reason NASA will back off on the decision to use solid rocket engines is because of utter failure. The vibration problem might be that failure, but probably not. Almost all rocket engines have problems with acoustic vibration at some stage in their development. We have largely learned how to overcome those problems.

yes people, we are officially going back in space-age time, back before the 50's...

Bottom line, there isn't much new about anything we have today. Our automobiles still use internal combustion engines. Our computers are just better and faster versions of technologies that have been around since the 1950s. Our bridges and roads are just better versions of things that have been known since Roman times.

The same goes for launch vehicles. We have not yet mastered the magical techniques that science fiction films use so freely to zoom around the galaxy. Until then, we are stuck with what we know, which is chemical propulsion techniques. Existing alternative propulsion mechanisms are simply not as powerful as or are more dangerous than chemical rockets.

There has been some research into alternative propulsion methods such as magnetic rails, but I don't think they are too serious about alternatives...no driving need for change. However, with the development of nanocarbons the space elevator is getting closer to reality, and that will really be sweet when they build one of those...no solid or liquid fuel nor engines needed.

There has been some research into alternative propulsion methods such as magnetic rails, but I don't think they are too serious about alternatives...no driving for for change. However, with the development of nanocarbons the space elevator is getting closer to reality, and that will really be sweet when they build one of those...no solid or liquid fuel nor engines needed.

But the stresses at the higher atmosphere levels.. Will it blend? I mean hold ?

But the stresses at the higher atmosphere levels.. Will it blend? I mean hold ?

It will hold, if all goes well...else you might be flung into outerspace, the moon, another planet or the sun. We have everything necessary to build it.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2006/03/01/8370588/index.htm

Hey! Stop with the off-topic posts! In an attempt to derail the off-topic drift of this thread, here is an article from AviationWeek on the original topic:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/aw012808p2.xml&headline=Thrust%20Oscillation%20Issue%20Threatens% 20Ares%20I%20Design&channel=space
Engineers at the Ares I project office here are working with experts from across the country to better understand the thrust oscillation issue in the first stage, a five-segment version of the four-segment reusable solid rocket motor (RSRM) that is fired in pairs to power the space shuttle stack off the launch pad. ... Although the problem isn’t fully understood, none of the NASA engineers involved in solving it sees it as a show-stopper. “I hope this is the worst we’ve got to deal with,” says NASA Adminstrator Michael Griffin.

why arnt they using the old apollo tech?

Because the apollo never took us there. That's why they're having so much trouble now. We won't go to the moon for atleast another 50 years.

Because the apollo never took us there. That's why they're having so much trouble now. We won't go to the moon for atleast another 50 years.

Really? You think? :confused:

Because the apollo never took us there. That's why they're having so much trouble now. We won't go to the moon for atleast another 50 years.

It's a consipiracy I tells ya, a conspiracy!!! :itold:

I mean seriously, if you truly believe that the landings were faked then I've just lost the last of my faith in humanity... Bring back the good ole days of natural selection I say and rid the world of all these idiots.