Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
tips@gizmodo.com
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | Email | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
Email | AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
Email | AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
Email | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
Email | Twitter
Sean Fallon
Email | Twitter
Jack Loftus
Email | Twitter
John Herrman
Email | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Email
Chris Mascari
Email
Danny Allen
Email | Twitter
Rosa Golijan
Email | Twitter
Chris Jacob
Email
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Email
Kyle VanHemert
Email
Comment Intern:
Nick Ellenoff | Email
Comment Account Questions:
Comments@gizmodo.com
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
10/30/09
10/30/09
10/30/09
10/30/09
10/29/09
However, just like Carl Sagan said at the end of one of his books; "But I could be wrong." #aresix
10/30/09
10/29/09
It is amazing, but not necessarily an indication of breaking the sound barrier. The shock cone in this picture is actually a Prandtl-Glauert singularity which can occur below the threshold of sound. The rocket is going fast enough, with enough moisture in the air around it, to cause a compression-rarefaction-recovery curve. The negative pressure shock during recovery results in condensation. This phenomenon is not limited to transonic jets and rockets. Even a bullwhip can cause a P-G singularity. Mmmm paste... #aresix
10/29/09
10/29/09
10/29/09
10/29/09
10/29/09
10/29/09
10/29/09
pressure waves build up and compress air particles. condensation. #aresix
10/29/09
'pressure waves build up
and compress air particles
hence condensation' #aresix
10/29/09
10/29/09
This is based off of space shuttle tech if I remember right. The first stage boost is supposedly built from the current shuttle's fuel tank.
I would like to know if this thing can make it to the moon as-is, or if they'll need additionaly boosters on top of that. #aresix
10/29/09
10/29/09
It uses solid repellent and not conventional liquid fuel. Advantages are not likely to explode and can reuse the shell. Disadvantage you can't throttle up or down and once ignited you cant "shut" it off. #aresix
10/29/09
Tell me you are kidding.. Right?
[en.wikipedia.org] #aresix
10/29/09
Solid fuel only burns on the outside surface and as the surface layers burn off the lower layers start to burn and become the surface. So it IS much less likely to suffer a catastrophic explosion then volatile liquid propellants. #aresix
10/29/09
10/29/09
The Shuttle was supposed to be a superior technology, and in some ways it really was, but from a versatility and cost standpoint it was a loss.
Over 50 years people retire, people die, blueprints get lost, tribal knowledge disappears, and you literally have to re-invent the rocket to get back to where you were back then. Only, updated with all the latest/greatest innovative hardware. #aresix
10/29/09
10/29/09
10/29/09
So a review from Frucci is pending?
Note: Yes, I know this is probably getting old but that review is permanently scarring my brain and with terms like "One Spectacular Big Bang", "sheer beauty of the mighty rocket ", "six minute flight was a success", and "the vehicle flew better than expected", I couldn't help myself.
10/29/09
10/29/09
10/29/09
10/28/09
They should be launching the next version of the space shuttle, not a piece of crap rocket that anyone and their grandmothers can make. #aresix
10/29/09
On the flip side we have the Soviet approach with Soyuz that,while less glamorous, consists of cheaper, mass produced spacecraft that are lighter, simpler, safer, and again...much cheaper.
Replacing the shuttle in all likelihood won't mean building another piece of equipment that complicated, or that cool. It will mean shorter-lifespan capsules atop modern rocket systems.
Anyways, it isn't easy to build a brand new rocket system...just look at SpaceX's awesome record. #aresix
10/29/09
In technology you usually take your last incarnation and take what you’ve learned from the mistakes and improve on it by making the next version much better. Here, we seem to be saying that we don't have will and are too lazy to make the effort. Instead, well just go back a couple of version and stick to that.
What we should be doing is making the next replacement a reusable, flyable, cost efficient etc next generation craft. Something out of Star Trek. But instead, we sit back like a bunch of losers in shop class just passing time until the bell rings.
10/29/09
10/29/09
10/29/09
10/29/09
10/29/09
The piggyback shuttle would only need to carry enough fuel to carry it the rest of the way into space which isn’t that far off. It will also then be able to fly back and reused just like the shuttle now.
10/29/09
10/29/09
Also, fuck off with that Japanese car crap. They make better cars. They're not as advanced as our space program. We are the most advanced in the space race. We've been by and on and around Mars more than another space program on the planet, and we've launched the farthest flying currently operating probes in the history of man. I'm just stuck wondering if you're just wantonly uninformed, or if you're trolling, because your argument doesn't make a lick of sense. #aresix
10/29/09
Seriously though, all this space stuff is fantasy to begin with. It's not suppose to make sense "budgetarily." It suppose to push the envelope of human exploration. Anytime you're pushing the envelope, it costs a premium. So, either do it right or don't do it at all because then you're really just wasting money. #aresix
10/29/09
10/29/09
10/29/09
So what we’re the most advanced in space? We will be superseded by China in no time if we let NASA run by a bunch of slackers like you who can only think of past glories. And before you open your big trap think of those idiot slackers now in Detroit who are still stuck in the past glory days when they were the most advanced automobile manufacturer in the world. #aresix
10/30/09
You probably don't even know that there are five planned rockets. The Aries 1-X is just one of those. The different types of rockets will carry different things. Some will carry people, and some will carry objects. Having five independent platforms for space travel is far more efficient than one gigantic "does all" platform. Its the difference between driving a SUV and a prius. You don't always need an SUV, and many times a prius will fit the job better.
Furthermore your "idea" about having a smaller shuttle on top of the "regular" shuttle is exactly how the shuttle operates. Go back and look at a picture of the shuttle. Its a small craft that sits on top of two gigantic rockets and a fuel tank. It rides those rockets up most of the way, and then jettisons them right before aligning for orbit. So basically, exactly what you described... already happening... which shows how much you really know.
10/30/09
[ntrs.nasa.gov]
I was the Chief Engineer on that project by the time I left that program. So you have to excuse me if I laugh at some of the comments.
10/28/09
10/28/09
10/28/09
10/28/09
10/28/09
"T-Zero is totally different—there is no kick, since there are no solid rocket strap-on boosters. The liquid engines are very smooth. The thrust builds up gently until the rocket simply rises off of the pad. You have to go by your watch, and the announcement from the launch control bunker, to know that you are flying!" -Leroy Chiao, Contributing Astronaut for Gizmodo's Space Week. #aresix
10/28/09
10/28/09
10/28/09