Видео


NASA's canceled spacecraft and rockets, Orion and Ares 1-X



NASA has been busy planning for a new spacecraft, the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), to be able to rendezvous with the ISS and then to take a crew back to the moon in conjunction with the Lunar Surface Access Module (LSAM). A Crew Launch Vehicle, named Ares I, derived from the Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) will deliver the CEV to low Earth Orbit (LEO) while a larger rocket, Ares 5, will deliver ISS cargo of the LSAM to LEO. Once in LEO, the CEV and LSAM will dock and a J-2X Earth Departure Stage (EDS) will deliver the CEV/LSAM to Low Lunar Orbit (LLO) at 100 km. The EDS is discarded and CEV/LSAM temporarily decouple. The LSAM then performs the Lunar Orbit Insertion (LOI) to deliver the LSAM to the lunar surface will all 4 astronauts onboard. After some amount of time on the surface, an ascent stage from the LSAM boosts the crew back to LLO and the ascent stage docks with the unattended CEV. The ascent stage is discarded and the service module section of the CEV boosts the crew module (with crew) towards Earth reentry, and the service module is then discarded. The crew module reenters the upper atmosphere and an ablative heat shield slows the craft to a point where it is captured by the Earth. Parachutes then slow the crew module for a land (or sea in emergencies) landing. Whew, safe at last from solar storms! Ares V will be able to launch 130 metric tons LEO inclined at 28.5 degrees or it can deliver 55 metric tons to trans-lunar orbit. By comparison, the Saturn V was capable of 118 metric tons to LEO or 47 metric tons to lunar orbit.

See www.plasmaben.com/CEV.html for more info.


I am now published! "In The Lab: Humor for Graduate Students in Engineering, Physics and Math and Those Who Suffer with Them"

http://www.amazon.com/Lab-Benjamin-Longmier/dp/1430322160/


Просмотров: 1593804
Добавлено:
Длительность: 5:55
Комментарии: 1891

Тэги для этого Видео:



Найти больше видео в категории: "28"
Видео загрузил:
Показать больше видео, загруженных


Комментарии:

Автор ElenTiTyVIV ( назад)
vengo por jpelirrojo xDD

Автор Oliver Kosunen ( назад)
Sls!!! Space launch system is the rocket to take humans to asteroids and
mars!

Автор fucheduck ( назад)
put it on one of those Delta IV's maybe not a lost project.

Автор Musicman81Indy ( назад)
I have read so many comments on so many videos, and it really amazes me how
many arm chair astronauts and arm chair scientists there are who think they
know it all. Just makes me sick to see so many people give so much
criticism to what NASA is dong, and mouthing off about all the things they
THINK they know. I saw some comments on another video saying that since
the Orion command module looks like Apollo, therefore they said it's "old
technology". Are people really that dense and stupid as to think that NASA
would actually use 1960s technology to fly ANYTHING today? People need to
wake up and get a sense of reality and do some research before they come on
here blabbing about things they don't understand. 

Автор Daniel Prado ( назад)
Fake

Автор Joan Evans ( назад)
Nasa as a government body/department is dependent on CONGRESS for funding.
When the funding gets cut the projects get cut. (Nixon cancelled the Apollo
program, so no more Saturn 5s; and 40 years later everything you need to
build one is gone).
It's a shame as the hardware is built by private industry, and all the
expertise moves on (if they're lucky) to other work. Meanwhile the F35 is
years overdue and is unbelieveable amounts of money over budget and it
still gets funding. Go figure.

Автор marshalcraft ( назад)
future lem looks crappy compared to original

Автор vladmir paler ( назад)
as long as they canceled this for mars or an asteroid i am fine by it.
besides getting to mars or capturing an asteroid sound more exciting than
establishing a moon base.

Автор agmlgat ( назад)
you are correct, i am very lucky to get to know about this site. and i can
tell u, really lucky that i registered and earning more than $40 daily from
this web site :). i got it from here. you can also try it: bit.ly\1em7dPh

Автор Chad Snow ( назад)
I am not talking about Falcon Heavy, I am talking about Falcon XX that
would lift at least 140 metric tons.
nasaspaceflight(dot)com/2013/05/from-atlas-v-falcon-xx-commercial-suitors-wanted-pad-39a/


Автор Sarge Rho ( назад)
Well, that's the Falcon Heavy. SpaceX built the first Falon 9 and the 4
Falcon 1's on their own money. They weren't given money by nasa or the
govt. for that either.

Автор Chad Snow ( назад)
Why make an announcement when they were never given any money to build it.
SpaceX was simply asked to purpose a heavy lift system to NASA.

Автор Sarge Rho ( назад)
Eh, you do realise that a megaton is a million tons, right? The Falcon XX
was just an idea btw, IIRC Elon Musk made no announcement as to wether or
not such a rocket will ever be built.

Автор Sarge Rho ( назад)
Complex, yes, but it can lose multiple engines. You lose one engine on say,
a Delta II and you're fucked.

Автор Sarge Rho ( назад)
Eh, SpaceX IS allowed to create the Falcon XX, they just haven't done so
yet.

Автор Monster LMA ( назад)
Orion is just the Command module it is being used with SLS Ares was
cancelled which the Orion was going to ride on.

Автор bnbcraft6666 ( назад)
ares 1 & 5 where cancelled ares 1 was replaced by the sls and they changed
the Orion mpcv design of the service module and altair lunar lander it was
too heavy so thats dead now where just working on getting it ready so moon
plans will most likely come after we capture an asteroid bring it to earth
and study it

Автор Kerbal And Conquer ( назад)
The US government didn't fund the program sufficiently causing it to get
behind schedule and far too expensive. With costs rising and no way the
Ares V could be launched before 2030 the Obama administration decided to
cancel the program and replace it with a program focusing on Mars and
asteroids rather than the Moon. The new program with the new SLS and Orion
is controversial (shit) but it's not nearly as bad as this program was.
Also Ares 1 was incredibly unsafe and underpowered.

Автор DJoppiesaus ( назад)
Oh, hello Stalin!

Автор Paulo Henrique Capucci ( назад)
Why cancelled?

Автор overclockedHD ( назад)
Guys have a sweet 10mins HD tour inside the International space station/ISS
:- /watch?v=1dzS1ycqDY0 You're welcome :D

Автор Chad Snow ( назад)
On a side note, The Engines the used in the N1 were NK-33 held the record
for the highest thrust to weight ration from 1974-2013 and that is why it
was purchased by Orbital Sciences for the Antares Rocket. SpaceX beat the
record with the Merlin 1D with >1/150 thrust to weight ratio. The F-1
engine holds the highest thrust record, but the SpaceX Rapture engine will
be more powerful.

Автор Juuso Peltoniemi ( назад)
Falcon Heavy is going to fly with 27 engines, and because of that it will
be a complex rocket. Even heavier Falcon rocket could have up to 40 or more
engines... read what happened to the soviet N1 "moon rocket" what had 30
engines.

Автор Chad Snow ( назад)
I wish SpaceX would be allowed to create FalconXX. It would much much more
powerful than SLS heavy. It would be the only real attempt to make it
practical to go to the moon or beyond. NASA/Senate will make is so cost
prohibitive it may never launch. The senate is requiring NASA to use SRB's
which makes no sense at all. The senate only cares about the contractors
who make their campaign contributions and could care less about progress.

Автор Edward Chernarus ( назад)
NASA's goal my uncle works at KSC is to develop the SLS and the Orian
capsule then their going to use the moon for test flybys and once they got
those two systems their going to try an asteroid and try and develop a
lander that can both withstand the heat of mars's atmosphere and be able to
exit its atmosphere

Автор Woodzy ( назад)
In 2010, US President Barrack Obama signed a bill cancelling plans for a
manned mission to the Moon by 2020, and instead, authorizing manned
missions to an asteroid in 2025 and to the planet Mars by the 2030s. maybe
that's why so we can concentrate on getting to MARS!! (provided this
information is correct.)

Автор mquiroz90 ( назад)
I want to make history changed where it was never cancelled why Obama why
cancel it dang it

Автор Karl Daufenbach ( назад)
People say it's a money issue. It's not. The federal Bank bailout was more
money than all of the money NASA has ever received. So it's not that we
don't have the money, it's that the way we spend it is so warped.

Автор David n ( назад)
WRONG! Orion is NOT canceled, NASA is still going to the moon [2017
unmanned; 2021 manned]. Why are people so lazy that they can't do
research??????????????

Автор frank varner ( назад)
why cant we learn from history. dont throwaway your lunar ascent
veichle,you may need it before you get home [apallo 13].

Автор smeltriver09 ( назад)
Yeah, isn't it all so damned pathetic!! Now, Barack & his minions & his
die-hard loyalists can proceed to turn this country into another North
Korea!! BO is just another flaky commie!

Автор kjp7324 ( назад)
We should just hand our money over to the poor little drug dealing ghetto
scum instead of funding such exploration

Автор danthemanzizle ( назад)
I like the simplicity of using one simple oversized solid booster to get a
liquid 2nd stage out of the atmosphere then burn the more efficient liquid
motor to take care of the remaining delta V needed to get to orbit,
although, being that it's a nasa design I'm sure it will be just as
expensive to launch as the fucking space shuttle.

Автор Wawaweewaj ( назад)
please please bring it back!!!!!!!!!!

Автор Wawaweewaj ( назад)
honestly fuck obama

Автор The Blue Kommandant ( назад)
Is it just me or did they only use one sound for the entire animation?

Автор dave alen ( назад)
Been there done that! The space programe is in a mallaize!Go to mars with
the ruskies andchinks

Автор benneb1000 ( назад)
I would of said "FIX NASA NOW!"

Автор Shawn Driscoll ( назад)
If Romney loses, the Republican party needs to just disband. The country
will have no need for a Democrat-Lite party when it's being ruled by the
real thing.

Автор Mandolinpossum ( назад)
What do you expect? A new space station every other week? NASA can only
afford to work on so many projects at once. They recieve less than one
percent of the annual federal budget. It's not a lot to work with. If you
really want to blame someone for how underfunded NASA is, you can blame
Congress who have consistently cut NASA's budget in favor of National
Defense over the years, regardless of the president in office at the time.

Автор Shawn Driscoll ( назад)
I meant new space programs. And NASA announcements mean nothing.

Автор Mandolinpossum ( назад)
The Radiation Belt Storm Probes which were launched last month to study the
Van Allen Radiation Belt, Orion and Altair are both still being funded and
developed, despite the Constellation program itself being cancelled, and
just today, NASA announced plans to install a space station into an orbit
slightly higher than the moon in, if all goes according to plan, just over
half a decade. NASA's funding is a cut of the whole of the government's
annual budget, not awarded per project.

Автор Shawn Driscoll ( назад)
Cool. I have a stalker now. So what great space program (other than paper
pushing) does NASA have that Obama gave the green light, as well as
funding, to?

Автор Mandolinpossum ( назад)
Again, you make it painfully obvious that you have not even the faintest
clue of what you're talking about.

Автор Mandolinpossum ( назад)
If you're going to parrot anti-Obama rhetoric, at least do it in a field
that's not completely obvious you know absolutely nothing about. You've
obviously not followed the space program at all in recent years and clearly
don't know Obama's stance on space exploration, which he has, time and time
again, encouraged and praised. I don't care whether or not you agree with
his politics, but don't just puke rhetoric without doing at least an iota
of research on the subject.

Автор Shawn Driscoll (155 лет назад)
The only new funding NASA might get is for a proposed upgrade to their
museum to bring in more tourists. And to rename a NASA airport a spaceport.
The rest of the stuff still going on was already paid for. Houston will
soon see a cut in jobs as well.

Автор Shawn Driscoll (584 года назад)
For now, the private sector will wait until Obama is gone before they
continue work on any commercial space projects they may have. The tax
increases on Jan 1st, if Obama is re-elected, will not make space travel
worth while. Companies in the US and in other countries will look to either
Russia or China to get things done for them.

Автор Mandolinpossum (600 лет назад)
Where are you getting this nonsense? NASA still is funded by the
government. They are massively underfunded, (and have been since even
before the Bush administration) but they have, by no means whatsoever shut
down, or ended in any way, shape or form. They launched two space probes
out of Kennedy Space Center just about a month ago without any issue caused
by "environmental surveys". Even if that were the case, NASA has space
centers across the country, not just in Florida.

Автор Shawn Driscoll (1290 лет назад)
There is no NASA if Obama stopped funding it. Florida is now asking for
their land back since NASA is gone. Any future plans by NASA in Florida
will require environmental surveys performed first, which means no future
plans.

Автор Mandolinpossum ( назад)
NASA did not, I repeat, did NOT get shut down. NASA is still functioning
and still developing spacecraft. Bush proposed the Shuttle program be ended
long before Obama got into office. Its cancellation was finalized along
with Constellation due to being ineffectual with the current budget. NASA
has other launch vehicles which can perform most of what the shuttle could
at much lower costs, which is why the Shuttle program was ended. It was
obsolete. Simple as that.

Автор Mandolinpossum ( назад)
The Shuttle had been in use since 1981. It was aging and its systems showed
that. It was effective in its time for delivering people and payloads to
orbit, but now with Atlas V, Soyuz, Dragon, and the other vehicles in use
and development, it's cheaper to use rockets to get things up there. It'll
likely be a while before NASA goes back to spaceplanes, but with all the
recent advances in the name of space tourism, we certainly haven't seen the
last of them in the private sector.

Автор Shawn Driscoll ( назад)
If Bush had anything to do with NASA being close, you would hear the media
complaining about it and about the jobs lost 24/7. You would see public
outcries as the last shuttle was transported to Los Angeles. But no. The
media was totally for the idea of closing NASA. Why is that?

Автор Mandolinpossum ( назад)
NASA wasn't shut down. Bush proposed the cancellation of the Shuttle
program and Obama had the Constellation program shut down because it was
massively over budget and getting nowhere for it. The Orion and Altair
spacecrafts which were originally desgned for Constellation are still being
developed. Beyond that, NASA astronauts are still travelling to the ISS
aboard Russian Soyuz vehicles. If you're gonna throw around conspiracy
theories, at least have some idea of what you're talking about.

Автор Shawn Driscoll ( назад)
Governments are against people leaving Earth.

Автор Shawn Driscoll ( назад)
It's due to Obama not wanting anyone to leave Earth from the US. So he shut
down NASA basically to better control his people.

Автор Giannis Mariettos ( назад)
that's a crime! she can't throw her trash to the space without bring them
back again! she must pay a fine for them!

Автор KSPFan343 ( назад)
Says the guy who can't spell cancel

Автор Barto23 ( назад)
And not only that, the Orion aircraft is going to be able to be reusable 10
times each aircraft. Not like Apollo that the ship that the Command Module
could only be use one. And I think its safer those aircraft with that
almost indestructible Command Module. And theres no change of direction. We
are going to the moon, the probleme is when. Whit this crisis, I hope that
NASA have the money to keep on the track...

Автор Barto23 ( назад)
No, they are making other types of craft to land on the moon and start
building a station there to get ready to Mars. The Problem is that the
Shuttle has a 450millon $ cost in putting it in Space. Those types of
aircraft cost to Rusian and China like 60millon $, so there is a saving in
there. NASA is expecting to launch the new aircraft in 2015 and start
getting ready to go to the Moon, but this economy crisis preaps delays
everyting

Автор Majoraspirit ( назад)
Why didn't we think of this before? First launch a space statio in space to
orbit earth (ISS) The launch some other shit at it and watch it blow up!
Kidding, launch other shit at it refule or some shit then launch to the
moon. From there make a moon base and maybe some other stations orbiting
the moon so you can repeat the process and get to mars!

Автор Bender Bending Rodriguez ( назад)
We're landers on the moon, we carry a harpoon!

Автор IMAMPOJMA ( назад)
why rocket works in vacuum

Автор Sadik Gungor ( назад)
They know there is live in the Mars

Автор Sadik Gungor ( назад)
Omg full of fags here why downvote my comment? Just asked? Wow...! Thanks
for your answer ;)

Автор E.J. Ramos ( назад)
I bet the first rocket was Orion and the 2nd to launch was Ares 1-X

Автор Pretzelsz ( назад)
Another video, taken over by a bunch of politics.

Автор Jahobes ( назад)
Fucking Bush.

Автор superduperbjarne ( назад)
Making rockets is easy! I've done it several times in KSP (Kerbal Space
Program) try it yourself! ;D

Автор Morgan Jones ( назад)
Flatulence sound up into space.

Автор GrandHeapEntertainment ( назад)
I like your video presentation. Hey check out this NASA Orion Mission
Advertisement I did on my page.

Автор Beergut222 ( назад)
Fucking Obama

Автор A86 ( назад)
Isn't it though? I really hope SpaceX is up to snuff because if they aren't
the US is SOL. We'll be stuck relying on the Russians by hitching rides on
Soyuz, and even that will dry up in the next several years because the
Russians are phasing out Soyuz with their new PPTS spacecraft (which IS
intended to actually take Russian cosmonauts to the Moon). Problem with
SpaceX and Bigelow Aerospace is their main interest is space hotels and LEO
ferrying, not landing people on other planets.

Автор A86 ( назад)
Ultimately the Shuttle was supposed to launch in late 1980 but was delayed
to early 1981 due to last-minute technical problems. Originally the gap
would have only been a year or two, then later should have only beeen 5
years but ended up being nearly 6.

Автор A86 ( назад)
Actually it was 1975-1981. The last American manned mission before 1981 was
the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project flight in 1975 launched by the Saturn IB
rocket. Originally there was supposed to be at least 1 more launch to
Skylab in 1974 and there was supposed to be a Saturn INB launch of a second
Skylab into LEO in 1975 or 76 but funding was cut by Nixon. The Space
Shuttle was originally supposed to launch in 1977 or 78 but was delayed due
to problems with the SSME.

Автор Doctor699 ( назад)
where is the like multiple times button? Its bad enough cancelling the
program, but it is tragic that we cant even get to LEO anymore!

Автор DF Rellom ( назад)
You guys are crazy!! Bunch of winy biiches!! Obama has nothing to do with
the cuts NASA's been facing. He has even said he would do what he can to
halt these cuts. And without doubt thought these cuts will have to take
place, it will only be temporary, these missions will happen.

Автор gretell celeiro ( назад)
Agreed. Nuff said.

Автор AdrianEaston ( назад)
just another way Obama is ruining everything.

Автор Bryanzebox ( назад)
true, but can you help him and the US to solve the debt problem? One must
understand the cause and effect first.

Автор Subic Song ( назад)
Aged Orion ......

Автор Archy11102 ( назад)
That's one small step for CGI artist, one giant leap for NASA. trololol

Автор CFO34 ( назад)
so many lost dreams. so much lost potential :(

Автор owazio ( назад)
Why?

Автор N7Sean21 ( назад)
they said that nasa concelled orion, but i dont think so, i just went to
the KSC two days ago and on the bus tour they said that NASA is currently
building a new heavy launch vehicle that can go to the moon again and mars
and beyond. and also i saw at the KSC that they are sending a bigger
robotic rover to mars in august of this year.

Автор Seanathon James ( назад)
@luisr12491 Obama cut back military spending at least... Maybe he should
just sell main control of NASA to a country that can afford it... Like
Canada...

Автор CaptainAthiest ( назад)
@luisr12491 NASA needs a reset. It take us 40yrs to realize there is no
shuttle replacement and all projects doing leapfrog over budget. That's
because there is no competition so why innovate. The $ will come to the
same number of companies year after year. The tech is maturing and soon
even individual can do space launch. Rocket science is difficult and space
is fixed but rockets can improve to perfection just like a Civic. And
that's what we need to do and not this moonshot.

Автор TheRealObeeMusic ( назад)
now maybe it's just me but I see the whole private sector space game as one
of the greatest possible outcomes of the space race. We are can unite as
the HUMAN space race and work together in the private sector rather than
each countries own space program.

Автор Atmos ( назад)
@willitstimothy2 exactly. And if we are only worrying about our country,
the military really doesn't need to be so... big.

Автор A86 ( назад)
@willitstimothy2 - "I do believe strongly though that we should have kept
the space shuttles" Even though they were at this point something of a
budget sink I do agree we should have tried to extend the usage of the
Shuttles at least 1 more year if not another 3. Bush screwed his own plan
by not properly funding it (and having unrealistic deadlines) and Obama
really screwed us by proposing a shitty alternative with almost no funding
and nowhere to go (since he didn't want to go to the Moon).

Автор A86 ( назад)
@willitstimothy2 - like SpaceX, Bigelow Aerospace, etc., are being
supported with gov't subsidies due to the huge costs, liabilities and long
periods of waiting for buyers. There's a reason there weren't many private
companies offering to build rockets when Robert Goddard got one off the
ground. Even if more do become successful, having an entirely private space
industry would result in the US being limited to space hotels,
transcontinental spaceplanes and maybe lunar getaway vacations.

Автор A86 ( назад)
@willitstimothy2 - There is currently nothing really stopping more private
space launchers from stepping up to the plate aside from the fact that the
costs to get started are huge (in the tens of billions), it takes a long
time (designing and building a rocket takes several years at least), it's
very complex and requires building new infrastructure, and there are
relatively few takers who would want to pay for a ride. The few companies
with real chances of taking people to space

Автор A86 ( назад)
@willitstimothy2 - I agree with you that overall Bush's plan was probably
better in that it guaranteed we would have an alternative launcher in a
definitive period. Obama's plan leaves us without a guaranteed launcher for
God-knows-how-long. I disagree with the last part. Deregulating space
travel would be a bad idea (imagine the legal fallout if a private space
company has an accident and people get killed or maimed) IMO and relying on
the private sector would be quite a shaky deal.

Автор willitstimothy2 ( назад)
@A86 concurrently be realistic options.

Автор willitstimothy2 ( назад)
@A86 I think where we disagree is that I don't think that the Government
should have any part in the space business other than to heavily promote it
and deregulate it on the private level (I guarantee you that great advances
will be the quickest when profit is involved, both for low cost large scale
space transport and for trying to mine the moon and other objects for
industrial metals). I do believe strongly though that we should have kept
the space shuttles until private companies could...

Автор willitstimothy2 ( назад)
@A86 Bush was a wartime president, which meant that everyone hated him and
persecuted him and everything he did, but I know this in spite of all the
mistakes, which all presidents make, thus I don't hold any hatred or
disgust for him. Did he make some terrible choices? Yes. But except for the
patriot act and similar things, and I believe (I may be wrong) he only
supported phasing out the space shuttle after developing an alternative, I
don't think he was that bad. Obama is plain stupid though.

Автор willitstimothy2 ( назад)
@edyken77 No it actually isn't the problem, we just don't mind our own
business and instead police the world as if it is our own. It isn't. And we
have no right to tell anyone that they cannot have nukes or anything else
for that matter. We can have as big a military as we want, but we shouldn't
let it leave our waters or land unless someone else actually strikes first.

Автор SecretSepp ( назад)
@luisr12491 look back before you leave Obama be sure before you close that
door before you roll those dice think twice :)

Автор A86 ( назад)
@cheezoncrack - The Afghanistan War isn't over, just the Iraq one. Now
we're gearing up to replace Iraq with a war with Iran.

Автор Atmos ( назад)
I say we cut defense in half, and put that half into space exploration and
education. Our military might gets us into situations that are unnecessary.

Автор A86 (1793 года назад)
@jlr92958 - I doubt it. I think he's simply being a naked opportunist and
trying to free up more money to waste on the useless Afghanistan War (or
possibly more bailouts in the future). Like when Johnson and Nixon ended
the Apollo Program to free up more money to waste on the Vietnam War.

Вставка видео:

URL 
Ссылка 

Поиск Видео

Top Видео

Top 100 >>>

Видео

Seo анализ сайта