This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
"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)
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)
Sorry, typo. I meant weight -- G W … 23:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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
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'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)
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)
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)
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
"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)
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)
Sorry, typo. I meant weight -- G W … 23:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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
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'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)
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)
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)
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)