ti994apc Says:

Nov 14, 2009 - Since the Ares-1 SRB-5 is a solid propellent motor there is no way to shut it down. Wernher Von Braun was AGAINST the solid boosters used for manned launches.

SarK0Y Says:

Nov 16, 2009 - NASA was/is clownish agency, this record is very good evidence for their lunar program

sixmilecross Says:

Nov 16, 2009 - That last claim seems an exaggeration. I'm not that knowledgeble on the topic, but in the spirit of objectivity, I did a brief Google search as that claim seemed higher than what I've read. Virtually every link I could find, from NASA to NOAA to even radical groups place the atmospheric CO2 level in 1950 at right around 310 ppm vs. a current 2010 estimate of about 385. So, your statement that it has risen several times seems misleading. It's more like 1.2 to 1.3 times.

A86 Says:

Nov 16, 2009 - You're right but if you go even further back it becomes more stark: (dot) drroyspencer (dot) com / wp - content / uploads / engelbeen - 1 (dot) jpg 310 ppm was already a high number to begin with compared to the content for most of human history. The rate of increase is progressing much faster because the demand for carbon-producing industrial energy is higher than every as more countries industrialize (especially China).

moonman9001 Says:

Nov 17, 2009 - That was a perfectly executed launch of the amazing Ares 1-X rocket congratulations gentlemen

somercet1 Says:

Nov 17, 2009 - *Human* history? How bigoted. Relax, in 1000 years most of the land will be covered in ice as our regularly scheduled ice age begins. And my history is correct, as opposed to your fudged models. Now, will someone bring in Kal-El for his report on the planet's core? :-D

somercet1 Says:

Nov 17, 2009 - Another future expensive failure. Yay. Me (in the voice of the boy from "Making Fiends"): "My tax dollars!" I wonder how many astronauts this project will kill. Someone please have the brains and guts to murder this project, gut NASA, rebuild it, and focus on buying systems from the private manufacturers. PLEASE!

A86 Says:

Nov 18, 2009 - Please cite a legitimate scientific source that states in 1000 years another Ice Age will have arrived. And here's a hint: an Ice Age doesn't lower CO2 levels.

A86 Says:

Nov 18, 2009 - This rocket is far less costly than the Shuttle or Apollo and it does much more than either of them. "Technologically speaking, the Ares 1 is like building a new 8-track tape player" The Ares I is technologically more advanced than the Shuttle or the Saturn V. Please list some vehicles that are supposedly more advanced.

ti994apc Says:

Nov 18, 2009 - Ares 1-X uses solid rocket fuel. There is nothing advanced about it. A hollow medal shell with solid rocket fuel inside. Its the same technology used by your basic Estes model rocket engine. Its just very expensive (at its size) and very dangerous. After development costs Ares 1 will end up costing more than the Shuttle.

yakomuto Says:

Nov 18, 2009 - Using this way to get to space seems like a really primitive and out-dated way to get there if you think about it. Not that i could do any better but I feel we should be able to do better as a species.

somercet1 Says:

Nov 18, 2009 - Why do you want to lower CO2 levels? Anti-global warming? Or is it just a totem? Are you aware that inter-glacial periods are about 12,000 years, and we're 11,000 into ours?

somercet1 Says:

Nov 18, 2009 - When we stopped flying, we stopped seeding clouds high in the atmosphere: our albedo changed. Try again, son.

A86 Says:

Nov 18, 2009 - Higher C02 = higher global temperatures = higher ocean levels from melting polar caps = several coastal cities of the world underwater. Not to mention all the millions of people affected by pollution of all sorts. "about 12,000 years" That's an average, not an absolute. That is also on a model of no man-made pollution. Higher atmospheric CO2 affects temperatures and can affect how frequently Ice Ages occur. Not to mention an Ice Age doesn't get rid of atmospheric pollution.

deashute Says:

Nov 19, 2009 - For the record, a NASA study has shown that this project will cost each American taxpayer roughly 45¢ a year. I personally believe that that's a small price to pay for advancements into space. As a country, we can't expect to be taken seriously if we don't work to go beyond our limits and reach out to unexplored areas and territories.

lucidcafe Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - The point isn't necessarily how advanced the rocket is. It is all about getting payload to space cheaply. Aries One is your basic Ford truck to get astronauts and payload to low Earth orbit. We don't need a highly advanced formula one car that costs a billion dollars a pop to do that mission. The Orion Crew module and Altair lander are the "advanced" part of the program. They may look similar to Apollo, but inside they are as different from each other as an eight track is from an iPod.

A86 Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - Exactly. NASA only costs a measly $17 billion/year (it's more expensive to run the public school system of several counties of California) and Project Constellation would only require raising NASA's budget to $22-26 billion/year. The Constellation Program will create up to 200,000 jobs total. Possibly more than the Stimulus has created and for a tiny fraction of the cost. The War in Iraq alone costs over $3 Trillion and escalating the War in Afghanistan would cost over $1.5 Trillion.

locomoco444 Says:

Nov 22, 2009 - IT SPELLED ARES* U DICK!

woodman19 Says:

Nov 22, 2009 - The War in Iraq costs $30 Billion a month, That alone as a yearly Budget for NASA should be peanuts. I dont see any reason for not funding NASA beyond $30 Billion a year and it would be a crime if it wasnt! If you can find money to kill people you should be able to find money to explore the universe.

Salladsdressing Says:

Nov 22, 2009 - If i were the president of the united states i would doubble or tripple the budget for science in general and get the hell out of Iraq and afganistan!

71Daze Says:

Nov 23, 2009 - Piss off you leftard douche bag. The nasa of today is a mere shadow of its glorious past. nasa got to the moon when it was run by white men, now its run by women and affirmative action employees and they can't even think of a decent replacement for the shuttle. God help the space program now that you have Obama for president! Hed probably like to scrap nasa and spend its budget on fried chicken for his homies. The decline of nasa mirrors the decline of America.

fireinthesky00 Says:

Nov 23, 2009 - "...to boldly go where no man has gone before."

A86 Says:

Nov 23, 2009 - WTF are you talking about? WTF do nonwhite employees have to do with NASA not going back to the moon since 1972? I'm pretty sure it has do with the fact that Nixon (a white man) cut NASA's funding and the fact that Congress and presidents have been cutting their funding even more since then. There's no such thing as Affirmative Action for NASA. All astronauts of all races are the top of their fields and classes. Piss off retard.

albinacusbwal Says:

Nov 24, 2009 - == Watch New Moon 2009 Film Free == moviezland(dot)com moviezland(dot)com amweungbblk ognlrjeupf yntmp ojkrceuquda jfade dhkgqbvoo ktisbkrq dvepgykuo

rubenpeeters Says:

Nov 24, 2009 - Yes! Back to the future II is set in 2015. I want a hoverboard and a flying car! I agree that rockets aren't a perfect solution though. But we simply need Ares until we get a working alternative solution.