This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ares V article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
--GW_Simulations |User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail 21:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
NOO SRBs are proven technology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.146.200.206 ( talk) 05:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
and with extra parachutes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.56.100.129 ( talk) 21:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. [1]
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 [2]:
(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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ares V article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
--GW_Simulations |User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail 21:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
NOO SRBs are proven technology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.146.200.206 ( talk) 05:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
and with extra parachutes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.56.100.129 ( talk) 21:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. [1]
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 [2]:
(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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)