ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



NASA launches rocket name

Posted: Friday, June 30, 2006 2:55 PM by Alan Boyle

The rockets NASA plans to use to go to the moon and perhaps on to Mars will be called Ares 1 and Ares 5, the agency's associate administrator for exploration systems announced today. The names pay "homage to Saturn," NASA's Scott Horowitz said, referring to the Saturn 1 and Saturn 5 rockets that were used for the first push to the moon.

Ares was the god of war in Greek mythology, the equivalent of the Roman god Mars. So NASA's new rocket name is meant to evoke the Red Planet - but Horowitz insisted that it's not meant to sound warlike. "We didn't name it after the god of war," he told reporters. "That's not our intent. Our intent was that it relates to Mars and exploration."

Even though Horowitz proposed a pacifist rationale for the name, the Ares rockets should pack quite a punch.

The Ares 1, formerly known as the Crew Launch Vehicle, uses a shuttle-derived, five-segment solid rocket booster, with an upper stage powered by an upgraded Apollo-era J-2 rocket engine. Gross liftoff weight is 2 million pounds, the stack measures 309 feet high, and it should be able to deliver a 25-ton payload to orbit, according to NASA's stats.

The Ares 5, formerly known as the Cargo Launch Vehicle, will use two of those beefed-up solid rocket boosters, strapped onto a first stage with five RS-68 engines. There'll be an upper stage similar to that used by the Ares 1. The whole stack would weigh 7.4 million pounds, measure 358 feet in length, and put about 130 tons of payload into orbit. That payload capacity is very close to that of the Saturn 5.

Wind-tunnel testing of the Ares 1 is already under way, said Jeff Hanley, program manager for the overall Constellation launch system.

"A lot of work [is] ongoing right now," Hanley said.

First testing of the Ares 1's launch abort system could begin in late 2008, with a step-by-step schedule for testing the full-scale vehicle beginning in 2009. Hanley said the launch abort system tests were likely to take place at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico, while the full-fledged vehicle tests might be launched from Kennedy Space Center's Launch Complex 39B, the very pad where Discovery is sitting now.

"The shuttle team is intending to be finished with Pad B by that time," Hanley said.

The first crewed flights are now slated to begin in September 2014 - eventually leading to landings on the moon beginning in the 2018-2020 timeframe.

Horowitz said the fact that the components for the Ares vehicle are drawn from the Apollo and shuttle programs was a plus, because so much of the performance data would already be in hand. "You're actually buying down risk very early in the program," he said.

Other components of the system - such as the Crew Exploration Vehicle, the capsule that will sit atop the Ares 1 - have yet to be named. But the name, and the selection of the contractor for the CEV, could be announced by September, NASA says.

Hanley said his team was looking at conceptual designs for the lunar lander as well.

As far as the naming process goes, Horowitz said he "utilized in-house NASA expertise" to winnow through thousands of proposed monikers. The name Ares harkens back to "The Case for Mars," a book in which the Mars Society's Robert Zubrin proposed a strategy for future Red Planet missions. Part of the process was doing the legal work to back up the name, including trademark registration, Horowitz said. (Click here and do a search for trademark serial number 78891265.)

The rumored "notional names" for the CEV and the lunar lander are Antares and Artemis, as reported previously. But Horowitz said he and other officials were still looking over "three or four" finalists for the CEV, including a "leading candidate." He declined to tip his hand on Antares' status on the list.

Update for 7:50 p.m. ET: I fixed a couple of bonehead errors in the technical descriptions of the launch vehicles. At least I think I spelled A-R-E-S correctly.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

25,000 tons? 130,000 tons?
Don't you mean pounds?
Are you sure the payload figures are correct?  Measuring those in tons?  Did you mean to use a different unit of measurement?

I look forward to seeing these new NASA rockets successfully launching their payloads into orbit and beyond.
Why is it taking so long? It didnt take that long to get to the moon the first time and look how far technology has advanced since then.
25,000 and 130,000 tons??? I'm thinking that's a typo since even the Saturn V could only haul 260,000 POUNDS into LEO.  Hmm, do you know something that NASA doesn't know?  I, NASA, and the late Albert Einstein would love to hear your gravitational thoughts on this. lol...
Might want to check those units of measure again -- 25,000 tons into orbit?  On a 1,000 ton total weight launch?  I don't think so!  Maybe 25,000 kilograms, or 25,000 pounds...  Same for the 130,000 ton cargo launch!  More than one space shot has gone astray due to the same problem!

Ouch, that's what I get for writing too fast. I was off only by a factor of, um, 1,000. It's actually 25 tons rather than 25,000 tons, and 130 tons rather than 130,000 tons! I was furiously trying to translate 25-mT without using the common-sense meter. Of course that stands for 25 metric tons (which would be a bit bigger than 25 English-measure tons).

I'm also fixing the RS-68 vs. J-2X (see below).

I apologize for the mistakes, and thank all the eagle eyes out there for setting me straight. I'll be updating this item later with more of the details.

Ares V first stage will be powered by 5 RS-68s, NOT 5 J-2Xs as it says.  1 J-2X will be used in the upper stage.
I really don’t believe the contractors or NASA is going to use your figures and engine requirements anyway.

I really think the new ships are an ok intermediate step.  They should not be held over for years as the shuttle was.  Seems to me the shuttle should have been replaced at least 10-15 years ago.  Anyway, if we don’t keep up with newer designs and technologies, we may well cede future space exploration to the Chinese.
It makes me wonder why the only rocket wiath a 100% safety record was not brought back into production.  Solids have not had a stellar safety record.  How soon the powers that be forgot Challenger.
English measure tons? They weigh in at 2240 pounds each. You probably mean short tons - the American variety.....
I don’t sense a single drop of realism at any level of our manned space flight program.  What in the world are we heading back to the moon for?  Why even think about Mars right now?  What good is a space station?  It all sounds heroic and full of glory until someone dies.  I am a huge space advocate, which makes me very critical of programs that waste so much money.  A single shuttle mission costs about as much as the new Mars Recon orbiter, which will send back 10 times (10X) more data about Mars than all past missions "combined."  Which would you rather see more of?  Both of the Mars rovers and the Hubble itself are about the cost of a single shuttle launch.  Which would you rather?  Here we are having just discovered all the evidence of water that we could have ever dreamed of on Mars, Europa, and Enceladus and yet we are wasting away DECADES on a good-for-nothing space stations that -- without a crew of seven -- will never be able to do meaningful science and will be old by the time its ever even completed.  

Thirty five years ago people really dropped the ball by trying to save a few bucks and here we are again trying to make do with “off the shelf” hardware that will likely be cancelled, scaled back, or postponed five times before it ever even flies.  It’s a perpetual nightmare.  If we really want to colonize space, let’s get our "earthly act together" and do it right (like with fly-back boosters able to efficiently hoist 500 tons to LEO, not just 130).  Otherwise, let our robotic probes continue to do what they alone do best and save all the “glory” for the control room.

P.S. Going to the moon just because that is what china is doing is not a valid scientific reason.  Space technology can be driven forward just as by robotic missions (like the "now cancelled" nuclear powered Jovian Icy Moon Orbiter) as any manned mission.
OK ... what I *meant* to say by referring to "English-measure" is 2,000-pound tons - that is, short tons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_ton

Darn those non-metric measures! (Nautical miles vs. statute miles is another one)
For all of you Americans.
Switch to METRICS! Stop using pounds and other strange measurements.
Metrics is much simpler - no confusion.

Examples:
Saturn 5 = apx. 3200 Metric tons in gross pad weight or
The shuttle = apx. 2000 Metric tons in gross pad weight
Or apx. 2MKg - Two MegaKilograms for that part.

Geeetings from the much simpler Europe...
hey screw u pansy  well use any measurement sys. we want
The luner capsule sound like a waste of time and money unless, you leave some of it on the moon to be revisited time and again. Lets just go to Mars first and then stop by the moon on the way back for a little R and R. I don't know what the big deal is anyway unless we are going to use the moon as a jumping off base for further exploration of the planets. Now, to name that would be a name to really consider with age old traditions.
Mr. Eldridge, you say you don't understand why we're going to the moon and what's the use of the space station.  Going to the moon will be so spectacular that folks will wonder why we didn't keep going there.  Lighten up!  It's fun!  The space station is part of going to Mars.  Long flight, need a stopover.
Oh! Thank Chaos that the name is settled!  With that off their minds the brass at NASA can get on with what ever the current version of the Vision (say that 3 times!).  Oh, brother!

All the effort expended on the ET and we still get flaky foam!  How about using a loose weave nylon (yeah, I do mean stockings) netting to reinforce the foam.  That would have to jack the structural strength way the heck above what it is now.

Takes a big man to publish all the abuse!  Didn't happen to work on the Mars Polar Landing Mission, did you? ;)

Sorry Lars, Old Boy.  Our local jokals can't handle the mental effort to make a change, even though the metic system has been taught in schools nation-wide since the 60's (except maybe Kansas and Missouri and Alabama and Missippi and Georgia and ... - well, you get the idea.)

If you think NASA is in a lather about names, check out Defense Tech for the new name for the JSF (which is no more a fighter than the "F-117".  And we are getting a new class of aircraft carriers! Named after politicians in accordance with the precedents of the Stennis, Reagan and Bush!
Follow-on!  I just read your story on the yawning chasm in the foam!  An inch is 25.4 millimeters and therefore an eighth of an inch is not 30 mm, but 3.175 mm.  The questions are:
What is the total thickness of foam? and Why can't the edges be shaped to relieve stress and aerodynamic forces?

A surform and some sandpaper would do it.  Take about 30 minutes, as a guess.
What needs to happen is NASA needs to re-invent and start producing the M-1 engine.  This engine was much larger and much more powerful than the F-1 engines ofthe saturn 5.  each F-1 engine produces 1.5 million pounds of thrust where as the M-1 produced 1.9 millions pounds of thrust.  Using existing technology a booster very similar to the Saturn 5 needs to be produced using 5 of these M-1 engines.  More power is a good thing!
Somewhere, Gustav Holst is smiling...

In my opinion, people don't want to be limited to rovers and robots exploring the far reaches of space. People want to see people doing it. Granted NASA has sacrificed many promissing "unmanned" programs (i.e HUBBLE) at the cost of keeping the shuttle flying, but sending man to places never "touched" before should be a lasting mission. You do not send your robot camping and ask it to report back the results. Where's the sense of exploration and adventure if we do not send man? How do we grow by reclining in our computer chairs and watching data and pictures (limited to the instruments carried by our "unmanned" craft). Should we limit ourselves and future in space to only machines? Heaven forbid if we ever had to leave Earth. I can hear it now... "Sorry we only have the technology to send inanimate objects to(moon/mars/safe-haven)".
why use a system of measurement that our children aren't being taught in school, just because countries in Europe are?!?

If you want to know the calculations in metric tons or grams or pounds or what ever, do the calculations. It's not that hard.

As to a trip to the Moon and Mars, I'm all for it, if it helps the people of Earth reach out from our own planet into the universe. If it's just for glory and stupidity, then let's get back to helping our poor and needy.
Interesting how this proposal sounds much like it was taken from the pages of Stephen Baxter's 1997 novel "Voyage" (http://www.sfsite.com/~silverag/voyage.html). Right down to the name of the mission and the type of technologies that will be ultimately used (including Apollo style command modules).

Seems oddly coincidental that "The Case for Mars" and "Voyage" came out about the same time.
M. Savaglio, you make a very poetic argument, but I don’t see how you can dismiss the value we get from “watching data and pictures” and how that is not a form of exploration itself.  If you think about it, all that most of us really have from Apollo is pictures and data.  What was it… something like 12 people actualy felt the “exhileration” of exploring the moon, while all the rest of us watched pictures of it.  Hey, that works for me!  I don’t see anyone complaining about Hubble pictures yet we will likely never be able to go to any other galaxy outside of our own.  

There certainly is a lot of passion expressed about space flight, but we really need to determin what our real goals are.  For example, the Planetary Society made the number one goal of exploration the ability to “Read the history of the solar system as well as we can the geologic history of Earth!”  Wouldn’t that be wonderful?  To do that, however, would take an amazing effort, probably in excess of 80 Cassini-sized missions, which we’ll never be able to achieve with “man” in tow.  

It also seems to me that many of the people who argue the point that “manned exploration” is so valiant and so much better than robotic exploration are really only trying to “fool the public” into eventually wanting to colonize space.  But if your real goal is to colonize space for the safety of man (whether it is an L2 space station or Mars) than why not argue that point in the first place?  My comp II professor always said “Argue the point – don’t go dancing around it.”  Don’t hide your intensions and stand up for what you believe.  I, too, support human colonization, and I think others will as well!
Congratulations on your successful July 4th launch.
3-4-7.  Yeah, I know how to do the math.
NOW scrap it.  You don't know what you are doing and polluting our atmosphere with your waste and payloads.  Maybe the previous accident was a wake-up call.  You were planning on sending up 29 missions to the Space Station that year.  Let's multiply all those missions by the space orbital debris that you would have left in our Global Warming planet.

Scrap it,now, before it is too late.   Happy July 4th.  Don't take the date seriously, take the math seriously.  3-4-7.
I think people are underestimating how far away Mars is, and the problems of living in a totally hostile environment. We need to learn how to live in an off-world colony. It's wiser to do so in our backyard, where we can offer help from earth within a day or two, as opposed to being months away on Mars. Once we know how to maintain a lunar space colony, we can go on to Mars and interesting moons. There's nothing wrong with taking baby steps if you are a baby.
There's an echo of SF here...the cislunar space ferry in "2001: A Space Odyssey" (1968)is called the Aries V.  
The hilarious part of these comments is that you offer them like NASA's top scientific minds haven't already thought about them. What do you, the average American, think you could tell them that they haven't already explored? If you have serious suggestions, why are you writing them here where they'll never be seen and not sending them to NASA?

And someone one PLEASE tell me why people are bickering over the measurements. You MUST have more important things to be complaining about unless you were just put on this earth to find things to complain about. If that be the case, hurry up and die already.
So forty years later we're looking at a launch vehicle that has the same lift capacity as the old Saturn 5s.  Ain't progress wonderful.
What is it about space exploration that brings out all the wackos, nut-jobs, conspiracy-theorists, self "educated" physicists, nay-sayers, etc.  Did Columbus, Magellan, Amundsen, and other explorers have to deal with this element? ...
It's good to see that now, with improved technology, improved rocket design and capabilities, and improved aerodynamics for the Apollo-age vehicles (Command Module, LEM, and rocket), and learning our lessions from previous incidents, should make going to both the Moon and Mars much more exciting.
I think going back to the moon will be great but why wait soooooooo long to do it??? by the time the proposed manned moon mission takes place 50 years would have gone by, 50 YEARS!!! C'MON!!NASA GET THE BALL ROLLING NOW! What Nasa should do is since the space staion would already be in ordit nasa could modify it to attach a lunar craft that could go back and forth to the moon without having to return to earth everytime, have several capsules attached to a docking ring on the station and several lunar crafts docked to it, as for fuel...have several tanks attached to the station and send up Ares V with filled fuel tanks to be docked at the station or oxygen tanks to be docked with the station, this would be more cost effective than sending capsules and lunarcraft every time you launch, make a reusable craft that is docked at the station. this is my imput,check my site out I make 1:48 and 1:70 scale Saturn V rockets for display and flying purposes,check them out!
Lets go to the moon, make water, and collect HE3
By the way i think that all this space travel is rubbish! even IF you do manage to travel to some planet that has life whats going to happen? You'll end up in a space war and us civilians will be in the middle. And all these scientists complain about the pollution! Look at the rockets!!!!!!!! The ammount of pollution caused by just one launch is more damage than any 1000 cars could do!!! why does the human being have to know everything? All the answers to all the questions! I agree with Marie (wright). I mean come on! your all killing us slowly!
you know what? SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much money is being wasted on rocket launches that arent leading anywhere except into pollution and death when we could be saving children and adults that need it! I mean come on! All those people in Africa that are dying from starvation or mosquito bites or polluted water! We have the power to save them and WE ARE DOING NOTHING?! I have been trying hard to get my point across. We have soooo much food and excess money being wasted that we might as well go dig al their graves NOW! these rockets are killing us all slowly! So are cars but not as much...the ammount of pollution...ive already said this in an earlier comment... that rockets cause! I think we all need to help each other! For them people who cant help themselves! Who else will?


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=850

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google