Flight data which will mean very little, since Ares-IX has nothing in common with Ares-I.
Ares-IX does not have to be 100% similar to Ares1. Computer models and wind tunnel models are also not 100% similar to final airplanes and other final rockets (nor are heat shields used for tests 100% similar to the real ones in size and relation to atmospheric entry). It is about gathering data to improve modeling and predictions.
It would not be a smart idea to completely build a fully operational Ares1 launch vehicle to test it and discover that something of the design has to be changed.
Uh, yeah. I said that Ares-IX was not new, not Ares-I itself.
Ares-IX has never been build and launched before. It's a new launch vehicle, just like Ares1 is, which also never has been build and launched before.
Huh? It is neither clear nor simple- then again, most rockets are not.
Ares1 is not most rockets at all, already because of its unique first stage. The Space Shuttle stack already is way more complex and elaborate than Ares1. Especially the Orbiter. Like Ares1, Soyuz also is a simpler configurated launch vehicle than the Shuttle. It is a cheap and reliable design for decades. The Shuttle has caused roughly a decade of not flying into space manned. The most gap producing program for now.
"New" seems to be your buzzword, but "new" means nothing- NASA could be peddling an SRB launched by a billion firecrackers arranged in a fibonnachi sequence, which would also be "new". "New" does not mean "a good idea".
Ares1 is a completely new launch vehicle. But for those who don't like the word
new and want to play with words and definitions, I agree to replace
new by
different. Anyway, never has a solid rocket been used as a single first stage. The second stage also did not already exist before, just like Orion as well. Ares1 is something new/different (or whatever people may want to call it) that NASA does. It is not related to good or bad, which is individual opinions like the Shuttle, Apollo and any program was and will be accompanied with.
The only thing safer about Ares-I is that is has an escape option that STS does not. There are potentially a multitude of issues that could lead to a loss of crew.
There are always a multitude of issues that could lead to a loss of crew of any system. Space flight is about flying on top of thousands of tons of explosives no matter if its liquid or solid, about traveling with high kinetic energy within an artifical "world" we call spacecraft, far away from our safe home. People should always keep that in mind. Safety and certainty is something that is more narrow in space flight than one might think and wish.
The launch escape system of Ares1 is not the only safer improvement in relation to the Shuttle. The thermal protection system of Orion is completely covered during early ascent and can not be potentially hit by foam during any phase of ascent. The less elaborate stack/launch vehicle also won't for sure cause that many delays and depending costs than the Shuttle does and did. It's already not that much high-maintenance -> no complex reusable delay causing SSME's and its depending systems and issues.
NASA also seriously wanted the Shuttle, which has proven itself to not be that much of a good idea. Just because NASA says they're going to use does not mean that it's a good idea (or that they'll actually end up doing it).
The Shuttle was an amazing gain of knowledge and experience beside those two losses. Its risky outcomes will increase future safety of Orion and how it gets into space.
Yes, but they have their own problems. For one, they cannot be fueled at the pad- they have to be fueled while the vehicle is mated together, which leads to long stays at the pad and potential safety issues.
Long stays of Ares at the pad won't be more risky than the Shuttle at the pad for month, which always includes two fully operational solid rocket boosters and had never been a serious safety issue at all.
Those solid rocket booster safety concerns are no longer vaild for decades. I also was concerned still a few years ago until I had to change my mind because of the facts that speak for itself. The only valid concern in relation to Ares1 is potential vibrations during first stage ascent. And that is something that can be ruled out. The word "impossible" does not exist in this case.
). SRBs are quite reliable and safe. There is no serious reason yet not to use Ares1, beside potential low budget.
But I forgot, yet another valid concern is that its mass margin has been exhausted, so hopefully these "certain solutions" will take no mass to implement.
). But the key is how different the 5-segment will behave at the same data points (for lack of a better term) as this 4-segment thing. Remember, adding another segment isn't like lengthning the hull of a liquid fueled rocket, you're changing the dynamics of the engine because the entire vehicle is essentially an engine.
