What is Digg?Sponsored by AVG
Windows 7 Needs An Extra Layer of Security view!
free.avg.com - AVG Anti-Virus Free 9.0 works with Windows 7, to provide the best protection against web threats.
45 Comments
- thephysicist, on 10/28/2009, -0/+42news in, NASA launched it successfully
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8330424.stm - Harbinger1080, on 10/28/2009, -0/+11I just watched it go up... not as exciting as a shuttle, but it was still pretty cool.
- Chairboy, on 10/28/2009, -0/+7NASA ***** hates ties.
- s4g4n, on 10/28/2009, -0/+7Because if you look at U.S. maps florida sticks out like a flaccid penis, but that was not the first reason. Its because Florida is slightly closer to the equator than any other place in the country, therefore launches get more slingshot boost spin effect from the spin from where they are.
- DeadFox1, on 10/28/2009, -0/+7I also watched it go up. It looked like the top broke off at one point.. Since nobody at NASA went *****, I guess that was supposed to happen!
- dn11, on 10/28/2009, -0/+5video
http://gizmodo.com/5391819/high-res-video-of-ares- ... - majortom1981, on 10/28/2009, -0/+5Also the fact that its right by the ocean. IF something blows up or misfires it will go right into the ocean.
- dubjah, on 10/28/2009, -0/+5Perhaps you missed the big-ass parachutes on the booster in the graphic at the bottom of the article? It's specifically for vehicle recovery, so it can be reused.
- Coreyc150, on 10/28/2009, -0/+4that, and also it takes a lot less energy to change planes to a geostationary orbit if you launch closer to the equator. Important for spy satellites, especially back in the cold war when NASA started.
- Chairboy, on 10/28/2009, -0/+4The downrange issue is the only one that REALLY counts. Everything going equatorial needs to be launched east, so that chunk of florida had the benefit of being:
1. Cheap
2. East
3. South
If they launched in the desert, then spent rocket stages would be crunching down atop schools or something.
"But Vandenburg is on the WEST coast! Think of the children!"
Vandenburg is also used to launch things into POLAR orbits, so it launches them to the south. It sticks out far enough that rockets are unlikely to crash into, say, Tijuana. - MaxxusFlamus, on 10/28/2009, -0/+4It was, this was not a launch to orbit- just a test launch of the first stage and separation. There was actually a tumble motor that fired on that top stage not too soon after separation.
- Coreyc150, on 10/28/2009, -0/+3A rocket is basically a giant fuel tank... so halfway up, when the tank is half full, do you want to be lugging around the entire fuel tank, or would you rather split it in half and drop the excess weight? This is why a one stage to orbit is a bad idea
- Nothlit, on 10/28/2009, -0/+3Yeah, there is something a little more dramatic about launching an airplane strapped to the back of a rocket.
- Gnascher, on 10/28/2009, -0/+31) This was only a test ... the second stage was just a "dummy" payload of the correct size and weight to mock up what an actual crew capsule and payload would be. For this launch, it was allowed to just splash down and sink because it'd cost them more to recover it than to just let it go down to Davey Jones' locker.
2) Much of the launch vehicle is actually reusable. The booster is very similar to the Shuttle's solid rocket boosters (part of the reason they were able to bring this project from inception to test launch in about 3 years). They parachute back to earth for splashdown and recovery. - divinediva, on 10/28/2009, -1/+3And if another "freighter" ends up in the range again.
- adam99, on 10/28/2009, -0/+2Yes, it's not just being south, though that is a primary consideration. Another consideration is to what exists 'downrange' - for any site in Texas or California (for non-polar orbital shots) 'downrange' has significant population centers in it. For Florida, it's (mostly) empty ocean.
- NotAChickenHawk, on 10/28/2009, -0/+2Let's light this candle!
- AndrewDB, on 10/29/2009, -0/+2My grandfather wrote the manual for the Bendix RIM-8 Talos Missle.
It's amazing to see how far we've come isn't it? - dn11, on 10/28/2009, -0/+2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTwuEoJoPEA
- FoxNewsIsEvil, on 10/28/2009, -0/+2Video with sound from NASA website:
http://mfile3.akamai.com/18566/wmv/etouchsyst2.dow ... - Telionis, on 10/28/2009, -0/+2My firm actually built the five-hole velocity probe on the nose of the rocket.
http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/Ares%20I-X.blog/post ...
As I understand it, NASA had to delay the entire launch because the nosecone cover got stuck on the probe. I should point out that we specifically told them that such a thing could happen, but they decided to use the cover anyway. (Not our fault!). :)
Congrats NASA. - Telionis, on 10/28/2009, -0/+2Edit. I just found out that in fact, the cover was removed pretty quickly (they had to tear it along the seams), however by the time they did, a cargo ship got into the safety zone, and by the time they shewed them away, the conditions had changed and they had to delay for the day.
- sipsyrup, on 10/28/2009, -0/+1Why did they cut off the launch director's tie at the end? Anyone see that? Something about tradition...
- yesitsme111, on 10/29/2009, -0/+1Great article on the rocket launch, I missed it to.
- s4g4n, on 10/28/2009, -0/+1This is funny because the X-1 resembles a candle, I see what you did there.
- adam99, on 10/28/2009, -0/+1It's designed that way *because* it's more efficient to do that. Maybe not in construction materials, but in terms of lifting payload to orbit. By discarding a massive first stage when its fuel is expended, the resulting craft is much lighter, requiring much less fuel to achieve orbit.
- Super6, on 10/28/2009, -0/+1I was on the causeway on base, cool launch, still debating if it was worth waking up at 4:20 AM 2 mornings in a row
- natashapalmer19, on 10/28/2009, -0/+1just watched it live its cool
- shdwfx, on 10/28/2009, -0/+1@s4g4n: there's got to be more to that story. Yes, being south helps, as you explained, but they actually launch it from northern Florida. There are places in Texas that are farther south than that, and sparsely populated too. And the other big launch site in the US is Vandenberg, CA, which is also kinda south, but not as far as one could get...
- tushyd, on 10/28/2009, -0/+1did you at least wake-and-bake at 4:20am?
- mondoman89, on 10/28/2009, -0/+1Being closer to the equator allows the rocket to have a greater initial tangential velocity. Therefore, they don't need as much fuel to launch into orbit. Also they don't have to worry about as much downrange in the Atlantic ocean.
- heldar, on 10/30/2009, -0/+1Wow, a rocket that lands in the ocean. What was the point of the last 30 years? Full circle. Our space agency has gone to sh** I guess it's time to start over. Wow.
- Chairboy, on 10/28/2009, -0/+1Don't know why you got modded down for that, overaged, the Texas connection is well documented even if the Florida one isn't (they were launching stuff there pre-Kennedy, I think, with the tail end of project bumper and stuff like that IIRC).
The New Mexico spaceport will have the downrange problem too if they ever extend past the single-stage suborbital market. - asgardshill, on 10/28/2009, -0/+1If launching rockets from a position closer to the Equator was the main consideration, I always wondered why KSC wasn't located out on the Florida Keys.
- TMLF, on 10/28/2009, -0/+1This program will save enormous amounts of money. The original premise of the Shuttle was that reusable = cheaper. However, the program's budget history proves that a false notion for space flight. It's orders of magnitudes more expensive than was ever predicted.
- overaged, on 10/28/2009, -0/+1It's all politics. Kennedy had ties to Florida, and Johnson had ties to Texas. Why do you think so much money goes to wars rather than NASA, its all politics.
Branson is not a political man so he IS building his launch site in New Mexico, hence the New Mexico Spaceport. - asgardshill, on 10/28/2009, -0/+1It's a tradition for first-time launch directors. (Probably started by tie salesmen).
- shertzerj, on 10/28/2009, -2/+2That's what she said
- AndrewDB, on 10/28/2009, -1/+1Got another link? I refuse to give Gizmodo the webpage hit.
- dn11, on 10/28/2009, -1/+1and I have to continue wondering why the hell they ever built the launch center in Florida instead of the desert southwest
- hellengineer, on 10/28/2009, -4/+2Launch it man just launch it.
- verdecove, on 10/28/2009, -2/+0Tried to watch the launch here at work but with all the delays I almost missed it. But why are they going a step back instead forward? Isn't it wasting tax payers money launching something that can't be reused? The space shuttle at least was used for several flights. Now they are going back to rockets they brake apart. Guess I don't live close enough to NASA to understand that even my house is located only about 60mls from Houston Space Center.
- inactive, on 10/28/2009, -8/+5"Launch that sucker yeah!!!"
- one of the gay characters in the movie with other gay characters and scientology follower Tom Cruise - DulcetTone, on 10/28/2009, -5/+1A $450M "pathfinder vehicle". I could have shown them the path for just $2M: UP!
- DiggerT, on 10/28/2009, -7/+3Why the hell are they still designing rockets that break apart like this, seems awfully wasteful, surely they should have come up with a more efficient design by now, something that can make multiple journeys there and back without breaking apart like this.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is