Talk:Ares I/Archive 1

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
Support GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail 21:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: OPPOSEThere is nothing wrong with were it is.--aceslead 18:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Old poll, should have been closed months ago, done now. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 18:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on poll

message: The introduction to this article is extremely confusing...seems like it needs major reworking.  70.108.187.117 02:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  needs editing 

message: According to forum.nasaspaceflight.com the CEV capsules will be named 'Orion'. User:Tom walker 17:59 27 July 2006
:This hasn't been officially announced yet. I reverted it's insertion into the article, but it was inserted in such a way as to read that "Orion" was the preliminary name for the CEV. It wasn't. Altair was. If the name "Orion" goes into the article, the surrounding text needs to be rewritten to either do away with this preliminary name business, or make it clear that this name is not official, or do something that doesn't end up making the writing be non-factual. adavidw 08:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orion 

message: The AA tests which are listed in this article have indeed very little to do with Ares I and should be better listed in the Orion entry. Hektor 21:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Test schedule 

message: I removed the following:
* Direct Launch Vehicle: Shuttle Derivative Universal Launch Solution
I removed this link because it doesn't discuss the Ares I vehicle except to generally say that they are opposed to it.
I considered moving it to the references section and using it to back up the criticism section but I couldn't find anything on the Direct Launch site that correlated to the criticisms levelled in that section.  I didn't spend a lot of time looking at the Direct Launch site so if someone finds something that references a criticism of the Ares I, by all means create a reference link to the Direct Launch page that addresses the issue. (Please link to the page that addresses the issue, not just the landing page of Direct Launch).
Epolk 17:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed a link 

message: What is klbm?   CoolGuy 05:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: I feel that Ares IV should be removed from the size comparison image. Ares IV was an unofficial study by NASA, and is no longer being considered, and never was considered as an Ares I replacement. It has no place in that image.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.123.81.176 (talk) 22:14, August 28, 2007 (UTC) 
The last section (the one with the Ares I in a sort-of modified STS configuration), needs to be made into a separate article.  This was a rocket proposed by a group of independents was placed on the NASA Spaceflight webpage.  Unless it has to do with the Ares I directly (such as a hypothetical Atlas V Heavy zero + first stage assembly (al a Titan IV style) with the Shuttle-derived J-2X powered second stage, the anything that deviates from the Ares I article should be made separate.  Rwboa22 19:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ares I Alternative 

message: Can any contributors to this article help clear up the confusion at Space Shuttle external tank#Future use about the ET being the "baseline" for the Ares I second stage?  Thanks!  Sdsds 21:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help on Shuttle ET as baseline for Ares I second stage 

message: I follow this article and noticed that this line has popped up.
"Reports of growing political pressure from Congress to cancel the Shuttle-derived system and instead use existing Atlas/Delta vehicles began circulating in mid-2007."
Is there a reference for this?  Have we got any more detail?  If true this could be very important. Plaasjaapie 18:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, is it just me, or does anybody else feel a bias in the criticism section?  --72.77.141.163 (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the criticism section feels like it's trying to sell another view point. Charles Oppermann (talk) 07:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unattributed "reports" 

message: Does the name of the Ares I and V rockets strike anyone else as deeply ironic?
From the Ares article (emphasis added):
Though often referred to as the Olympian god of war, he is more accurately the god of savage war, or bloodlust, or slaughter personified. (Footnote: Rather than being a brave soldier, he is often depicted as somewhat cowardly. (...))
Among the Hellenes, Ares was always distrusted. (Footnote: "You are the most hateful to me of the gods who hold Olympus," Zeus tells him in the Iliad ( 5.890); "forever strife is dear to you and wars and slaughter".) 
(...) 
Ares' [stance] tended to be the unpredictable violence of war. His birthplace and true home was placed (...) among the barbarous and warlike (...).
Lets consider the US' current stature and esteem in the world... 
And lets also consider the nature and state of the US space program...
Hm... 
Maybe the name is fitting, after all. :rollseyes: ;-P
86.56.34.47 22:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Will this discussion somehow lead to improvement of the Ares I artiicle? (sdsds - talk) 12:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deeply ironic name 

message: It says the stage 1 booster is similar to the shuttle,  but without the parachute and recovery hardware.  Yet it is also stated to be re-usable.   Is this consistent ?  Eregli bob (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stage 1 reusable ?? 

message: I am very unhappy with the facts of criticisms. There are not enough facts included in this section.
 
I suggest we create a new article called Ares 1 Opposition and Criticisms.
Facts missing are that the SRB rockets are far more dangerous than Liquid fueled rockets.
No astronaut has ever died on liftoff during a liquid fueled only rocket. The Shuttle does not count as it uses SRB's and it's SRB's were the direct cause of the Challenger accident.
This article segment also does not include or address the immense pollution and environmental damage caused by continued SRB's use. They found Perchlorate rocket fuel in all the air, water, soil and food and this is not mentioned. The SRB's we use on the Shuttle have helped Global Warming to melt the Arctic Ocean. There should be 9 feet of ice at the North Pole. It is open liquid ocean nowadays.
This article also does not mention the all the Antitrust laws broken by NASA and ATK regarding the SRB's and the Launch Escape tower on top. It completely ignores the blatant Republican organized corruption that is going on at ATK in Utah and Members of the US Congress and NASA.
I too am becoming a Deletionist! I want to delete Ares 1 rocket because it is bad for Global Warming.
You know, NASA's Michael Griffin looks like a dunce who is stupid enough to be corrupt.
Supercool Dude (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The contribution of SRBs to alleged global warming is negligable. It would be fair to say that SRBs are less safe than liquid fuelled rockets, as they cannot be shut down once lit. This has not changed. Can I remind you that this is not a forum, and should only be used for discussing the article, not criticising the rocket yourself. If you want to do that, I suggest you go to a website like this one. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 09:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm thinking that the whole criticism section should probably go. One or two sentences that are verifiable and reliably sourced could be saved by working them in to the remainder of the article, but otherwise... You just know that something is probably wrong when there's a criticism section in an article...— V = I * R (talk) 01:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ares 1 Criticisms 

message: There is Ares I, and there are also Ares IV and Ares V. But why are there no Ares II and Ares III? What caused this jump in numerology of Ares spacecraft? If there is any known reason, it should be mentioned in the article.
Also, it seems that there is no joint article for all (and only) Ares spacecraft. --78.2.225.76 (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that NASA started the Ares series with Ares I, the crew launch vehicle, and then named the cargo launch vehicle Ares V to provide a connection to the Saturn V heavy lifter. For the Ares IV, my guess is that, since it is a mix between Ares I and V, NASA named it Ares I+V = Ares IV. But that's just a guess. Nat682 (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

text: In the original ESAS proposal, there were discussions of an Ares II/III.  The # at the end referred to the number of RS-25 engines the design had.  Ares I had one, in the second stage.  Ares V had 5, attached to the bottom of a stretched Space Shuttle External Tank as the first stage.  There were II, III and IV designs, which the II and III used the SSET as/is, the IV using the stretched tank.  (these designs were called LV 25, 26, and 27, respectively, in the study)  It was when the issues of air-starting the RS-25 engine were realized, that the issues with Constellation began.  In short, the fight to keep Ares I killed the whole program.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.99.177.228 (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no II & III? 

message: I followed the citation link tagged onto this text: "NASA has announced that ATK Thiokol, the current builders of the Shuttle SRBs, will be the prime contractor for the Ares I first stage.[6] " The article that this note links to does not mention ATK Thiokol or say anything about who the prime contractors are. This needs to be cited or removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.173.221 (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation problems with Ares I Contractor 

message: There are several acronyms used in this article without definition. For example, CEV, EELV and ESAS. I have no idea what these mean. Please don't assume that everybody already knows NASA or pseudo-NASA jargon. Rsduhamel (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alphabet Soup 

message: I have added a reference for the disputed Michoud fact.  There is a discrepancy in the nomenclature, but it would seem that Lockheed is describing the very same stage that is being questioned here.  They make no mention of Boeing.  As for the date, Michoud claims to have made, Saturn stages until the early 1970s.  I suppose it is possible that Michoud didn't get into the Saturn business until 1970, only to shutdown before 1975, and the presence of the Citation-needed flag will have prevented a serious error.  
But I hope my reference is enough to get the flag pulled.  I will attempt to contact the flagger so this article will have one less flag! 
It looks like CiudadanoGlobal flagged the Michoud fact in July 2008, and then bailed in August 2008!
Goodbye
I'm thinking that it's a waste of time for me to contribute to Wikipedia. Huge amounts of time are wasted (for absolutely no compensation) making edits which are not always appreciated and are reverted for often trivial reasons. I have decided to refocus my efforts on specific technical writing projects which will likely pay more in the long run than Wikipedia (they could hardly pay less). Thanks.... CiudadanoGlobal (talk) 06:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boeing built the S-IC stage at Michoud in the 1960s - Citation needed 

message: I've added three  tags to sources in the Ares I#Exploration Systems Architecture Study section. One of the sources is from Wikileaks, which as a wiki site fails the Reliability test. It is backed up with a second source that is a blog. These sources are fine as long as there's a Reliable source to back them up, but they can't stand on their own.
The third tag is for the NASASpaceFlight.com source(s), as that site is a blog. Again, if there is a reliable source available to back these up then their fine, but they shouldn't be used on their own.
If anyone is able to locate a reliable source which can be used to back these sources up then please do so. Note that the Exploration Systems Architecture Study section still needs a few sources added to it anyway, so if you are able to add any sourcing then I'm sure that it would be helpful.— V = I * R (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the Wikileaks page just points to the report file on different servers.  At least it is not a user editable page.  The appendices document is marked for 'internal NASA use only' so I doubt if it will be available through a reliable source type publisher/site.  I don't think the nasaspaceflight articles are blogs.  That site probably does not meet reliable sources requirements however.  The selenianboondocks.com page does look like a blog.  I'll see what I can do about the non-wikileaks tags.. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, but the problem is that wiki sites are declared unreliable by WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:RS (including Wikipedia itself by the way, and Wikipedia's sister sites)... If it's reliable information, then someone (ie.: the NYT, or similar) should have picked it up and independently verified the information. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that wikileaks is wrong, but as WP:V eloquently states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"— V = I * R (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm familiar with the polices here so give me some credit.  I know WP:RS prohibits wiki sites, blogs, etc.  My point was wikileaks is only hosting the report appendix file, not publishing it.  Whatever, I'm done, got to go.. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, i'm not trying to lay blame or anything... I was simply trying to point out a source issue here.— V = I * R (talk) 22:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

text: The issue with NASASpaceFlight.com has been addressed (see NASAspaceflight.com), so I've removed the tags from those references.— V = I * R (talk) 03:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable source problems in the Exploration Systems Architecture Study section 

message: What is the advantage of this? --GW… 14:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it sort of depends. The idea to try this came about, for me, as I was reading through some of the date linking\delinking debates on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and the ArbCom decision. It started because I was looking for guidance on what format I should use anyway (if you haven't noticed, I've been copy editing and adding a bunch of references recently, which almost always include dates). During my reading I ended up coming across a mention of the magic word somewhere. Basically, the advantage is that it should prevent potentially controversial edits of dates simply to change the date to that editor's favored format. Yes, it's "more characters", but the standardization should balance that "cost". The use of the magic word template should also reduce potential ambiguity as well (For example: figuring out if 2009-12-11 represents 11 December 2009 or 12 November 2009, which #dateformat (correctly) renders as ) Note that I don't have any particularly strong feelings about date formats or the linking issue (although, I do agree that using linking for formatting is a kludge), I'd just like to have some sort of guideline to rely on when it comes to this issue. Obviously, with the ArbCom restriction on mass delinking in place, I'm not looking for an immediate and widespread solution. I figure that now is a good time to discuss the issue, however (at least for our limited corner of Wikipedia, which is basically the Wikiproject spaceflight community... I sould probably point to this discussion on the project page as well) Anyway, this is turning into an essay, so I'll quit here.— V = I * R (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the dates in this article are in the wrong format. Since NASA is part of the United States government, dates should be in the format Month dd, yyyy. This should be the format displayed to readers who are not logged in, or who have not selected any date format. --Jc3s5h (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, the dates should be in the "standard" American format... but, not everyone agrees that there is a standard American format, or what exactly that format is. Is there an ANSI date format standard, or a NASA date standard (there may be, and I'm just not aware of it, so I'm actually asking a question here)? Even if there is, is there a reason we should force that on someone who may want to see another date format? Regardless, there is a format field in the #dateformat magic word template.— V = I * R (talk) 07:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advantage? 

message: :::Yes to both Sd and HWV. I think the plain and simple won out, and I can see why. Ohm, just one point that came up during the long debate: date ranges are so common on WP, and formatting them in accordance with the guidelines really does make a difference. Currently, no template, either the old one or this dateformat one, can manage that, and indeed much redudancy is required. Really, human care is required. In addition, you mention edit-wars; but disagreement about which format should be used in an article is surprisingly rare—no one cares much, because every English-speaker is exposed to both and can understand them with great ease when the month is spelled out (less so, I think, the ISO format). 
:::May 3 – June 18, 1980 (rather than May 3, 1980 – June 18, 1980).
:::October 3–6, 2001 (rather than the long repetitive version).
:::Please note the en dashes, and that they should be spaced or unspaced according to whether there is or isn't an internal space in either or both elements. WP:MOSDASH is good on this.
:::MilHist articles are particularly at issue, where every battle and war involves date ranges. Tony (talk) 05:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Tony. Yea, I understand what you're getting at. This is hardly the first area where there are clear exceptions to the "rules", though. Where the guidance gets in the way, exceptions are carved out all the time. In quite a few areas there are even exceptions with very little or no written guidance to back them up, since consensus is clear. It's easy enough to see that using currently available formatting functions on date ranges may be unsatisfactory, so fine... don't. I don't see any reason that should prevent the use of formatting functionality where it does work effectively.— V = I * R (talk) 07:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But should you have to insert a date range or something other than a normal full date, how would you go about formatting it so the article is internally consistent? Dabomb87 (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: With the current tools available, either you wouldn't, or you would do something such as:  – , producing:  – — V = I * R (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "either you wouldn't" And that's the point some of the editors are trying to make. We'd have an article with some formatted dates and some that aren't. As to the second point, your example is a normal date range; what about other possible combinations, such as July 3–5, 2009; 5/6 August 1987; 4 March – 17 October 2001? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Any proposal for autoformatting (or any presentation automation proposal, for that matter) must either cover every possible case, (e.g. date ranges, AD/CE/BC/BCE, Gregorian and Julian calendars, etc.) or it must peacefully coexist with hard-coded text for the cases it can't handle. Since the #dateformat system does not handle all cases, and since there is no way to mix #dateformat dates with hardcoded dates without presenting inconsistent formats to users who set a date preference, the system fails for Wikipedia articles. All Wikipedia articles either contain dates that #dateformat can't handle well, or may contain such dates in the future. An editor who wanted to add a date range to an article that presently does not contain date ranges would have to remove the #dateformat syntax from all the dates in the article, which is an undue burden on that editor. --Jc3s5h (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't concede the assertion that there is no way to mix #dateformat dates with hardcoded dates at all (see above for a partial example). However, I'm perfectly willing to set that aside for the moment and address the rest of the point. Part of the reason that formatting fails for date ranges is because date ranges largely define their own format. For example, writing August 7-10, 2009 is a perfectly valid date range format, while 2009/8/7-10 is clearly not. This is why date range formatting is a separate area, not a directly relevant argument against using #daterange:.— V = I * R (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ranges 

message: *Sorry, I must be missing something: how does it "work effectively" to improve the article, for (i) our readers, or (ii) WP's editors? Tony (talk) 09:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Jc3s5h, for this article, why is the date range argument pertinent? The editors of this article do not need to express date ranges, and/or they are satisfied with the kinds of date ranges that can be expressed using #dateformat syntax. If some future editor of this article felt the need to express a date range in a way that #dateformat doesn't support, then the burden would fall upon that editor to develop a consensus among this articles' other editors about how to handle that need. Right? This article need not conform to WP:MOSDATE, which is a guideline but not policy, and which does not reflect the consensus view of the editors of this article. (sdsds - talk) 03:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sdsds, harm versus good: here, since at the moment there are no date ranges or other clear dangers, the harm is limited to the likelihood that newbies will be baffled when they venture into edit mode, and that any editor (1) has to type probably twice the number of characters, (2) is more likely to make an error, and (3) has to know that this article needs this template around every date. In addition, WPians won't readily see errors in date format that our readers will see. The benefit? I can see none, frankly, and I'm still trying to get Ohms to express exactly what it is. Tony (talk) 08:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems easiest to address each point by point, so... 1) I concede that the current magic is annoying. This is a technical issue though, which could (and I think should) be fixed. 2) errors are constant, and they will continue to be constant... these sorts of errors are simply not worth agonizing over. The only way to eliminate the "errors prone"-ness is to do something drastic like remove all text formatting functionality. All of this hemming and hawing over potential errors seems lame to me (which is to say that mentioning this issue is totally unconvincing to those of us on "my" side of this issue). Finally there's: 3) I don't see why. That a new editor, or even experienced editors, either don't know of, don't understand, or actively refuse to use a tool which is provided is inconsequential. Someone will likely come along at some point and use the tools which are available. "Wikipedia is not finished. Not even close. In fact, we're barely getting started." There is no deadline. So, what's the problem? I respect your opinion and your position, truly I do, I just... I guess I just don't understand it, even after all of this. I'm still thinking "I just don't get it" while reading through most of this discussion. I'm sure it's frustrating for you, since I know that it's frustrating for me, but I'm equally sure that if we just keep talking we'll find some middle ground somewhere.— V = I * R (talk) 10:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Efficacy 

message: Ohm's law's experimentation is not limited to this article; see this diff. Therefore this discussion must move to a different arena. I am not sure if it should go to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) or some forum for followup issues to the recent arbitration. --Jc3s5h (talk) 23:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Way ahead of you → User talk:Tony1#Procedural question— V = I * R (talk) 00:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: General use of #dateformat

message: Please note that I created a sub-page at Talk:Ares I/Lead in order to assist in developing the article Lead. It's currently intentionally broken up into single sentences grouped into sections based on which paragraph the sentence is to be in, within the actual article. However, this is intended to be a general use scratchpad in order to allow us to collaborate more easily on the article lead (since you need to edit the whole article in order to edit the lead, it can sometimes be problematic). I definitely do not want to be the only person editing the scratchpad, so please jump in and contribute something.— V = I * R (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Ares name origin part should come later in the Lead like it was before.  Keep those 2 sentences together and move to later in the lead.  The order of the everything else seems fine to me.  This order will describe what it is first, which is important for the Lead. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that we need a couple more sentences, and some light copy editing of the existing ones, as well. I'm in the middle of something else now, but I planned on doing more significant work on this in a little bit.— V = I * R (talk) 23:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

text: * I copied and rearranged the text in a new section on that subpage sorta like I described above.  Add/rework as needed.. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sub page to develop the Lead 

message: This article should not attempt to include material about why NASA selected Ares I as the CLV for Constellation.  Doing so will generate dischord among editors and not benefit readers.  (Some views on this include allegations of unlawful misconduct by living persons, and getting into that wouldn't help the intended audience for this article.)  (sdsds - talk) 06:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Covering why NASA selected the Ares I design 

message: In the "Testing and Analysis" section: "Wernher von Braun said that no human should ride on a solid rocket as they were just too dangerous."  His statement is over 30 years old, isn't about the Ares testing and analysis, or the specific concerns for the early abort scenario.  There are safety concerns about SRB failure, however, I don't feel this particular statement is suitable to the context, or adds meaningful information to the topic. -- Peat (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the early 1970s to the sentence, but agree that it is not that relevant now to Ares. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wehrner von Braun Reference - Not in context? 

message: I removed two citation needed flags in this section because they refer to information gleaned from the Exploration Systems Architecture Study, which is already cited to NASA's website in the first paragraph. Do we really need to repeat the citation (in the same section) at every presentation of fact?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.167.198.122 (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The NASA ESAS report (ref. 6) does not support the specifics of those statements (launch pads & launch failure rates).  That's why I readded the cite tags.  Besides, just removing those tags does not follow policy guidelines (WP:Verifiability & WP:CITE).  -Fnlayson (talk) 14:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Fair enough. But the statements you subsequently deleted were not the statements that were flagged. Citations should go at the end of the statement that needs citation, not the beginning.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.167.198.122 (talk) 15:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I removed the part about the launch pads costs, which was uncited and tagged.  These details may be in the report's appendix, which was not officially released. I'll check on that and other sources... -Fnlayson (talk) 15:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exploration Systems Architecture Study citations 

message: What a mass of rocket?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbs12 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass 

message: The Titan IV had 22 successful launches and only 2 launch failures.  Wondering where the above information came from which is mentioned in the text.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.66.192 (talk) 14:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titan IV's high failure rate? 

message: Substituted at 20:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: The reference does not say 138 M per launch. It says it could get as low as 176 M per launch.  The 138M is a marginal cost, i.e. The additional cost per rocket launched.  There is a high fixed cost ~770 M  per year that must be amortized across all the launches in year.  One could not achieve 138 M cost unless you shot up an infinite number of rockets per year. Even the 176 M is extremely doubtful. A more realistic figure, which assumes 6 flights per year is about 260 M dollars. And this assumes the cost estimates are correct, that itself is doubtful. --71.214.221.153 (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference cited for that part mentions both $176 million and $138 million as marginal costs.  176M is the typical number and 138M is the low end number.  Probably optimistic either way.. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I stand corrected.  --71.214.221.153 (talk) 16:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

text: * And I had missed the $176M number yesterday.  That's the better one to be listing. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re Ares I Launch Costs 

message: Why is there no mention of the Launch abort system used with the Ares I?
Thekennedy (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Launch abort system 

message: It is time to make this article say Ares 1 WAS and not IS! This program was canceled under Obama's budget cuts. It will NOT be resurrected by NASA nor Wikipedians. I used to belong to NASA Spaceflight Forums, but I was banned because I objected to the Ares 1 rocket. I now belong to Space.com forums. Deletionists supporting Ares 1 erased my writings. I post little here these days as other deletionists erase everything I wrote. Each launch of the Space Shuttle releases 150 tons of Hydrocloric Acid that eats the Ozone layer and adds to Global Warming. I have become quite active against GW and lend a hand when I can, cause we Wikipedians care.
Supercool Dude (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You probably know this, but just as a reminder to others:  Wikipedia strives to say in its articles what can be defended by references to highly reliable sources.  It's probably possible to find sources that assert the Ares I project has been canceled.  Citing them would be a good way to start introducing recent events into the article.  But finding reliable sources that assert it has been canceled will be difficult, because the President's budget is only a proposal to Congress for FY2011. (sdsds - talk) 01:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Ares currently is funded for the rest of fiscal year 2010, so was does not apply yet. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Probably closing it out, termination costs etc, are likely to consume a good bit of the current funding.  As with the space shuttle, when we cross that invisible irreversible line from "is" to "was" seems a bit ambiguous.  We'll have to see what Congress does with it before we know the dust has settled for sure.  Meanwhile, the sentence in the lead section, declaring President Obama's proposed cancellation in the FY 2011 NASA budget, seems enough.  Wwheaton (talk) 00:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I basically agree with the sentiment that the sentence describing the proposed cancellation is enough. I would however suggest a tiny change to the first sentence. Rather than describing Ares I as the crew launch vehicle being developed by NASA, I propose describing it as a CLV being developed by NASA. Both sentences are "true"; yet the change might leave readers with a better understanding of the situation. (sdsds - talk) 04:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  You seem to be suggesting that 'the' is not correct.  What other crew launched vehicles are being developed by NASA under Constellation?  NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program is the only other thing I can think of, but it is separate. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

text: We agree that the first sentence as it stands now is truthful.  We should ask ourselves, though, if a different (but also truthful) first sentence would be more helpful to our readers.  I assert the first sentence (indeed, the entire lead) could be improved in a number of ways.  Making the first sentence less definite (by using the indefinite article) would be one such improvement.  (sdsds - talk) 06:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

text:  According to the recently passed Continuing Resolution, Ares I and Constellation are still on the books until Congress passes an omnibus spending bill.  This article should be changed from 'WAS' to 'IS'.  And as a further note, the text should never have been changed in the first place.  Just because the President says we are canceling something doesn't make it so until Congress passes a bill canceling the Ares I and the President signs it, which most likely will come in April, but until then this article is in error.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.128.150 (talk) 05:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update? 

message: Hi all,
In the Exploration Systems Architecture Study section, second to last paragraph, no opposing viewpoints are presented alongside the criticisms. In keeping with the NPOV policy, I am adding a few words and references supporting other viewpoints. 
In the last sentence of the same section, I like the use of “apparent flaws” since it remains neutral. In the same sentence the modifiers “faulty” and “unfairly” strike me as unbalanced. I am removing them in keeping with the NPOV policy.
 
I welcome any discussion about these changes! Jbowman15 (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality questions in the Exploration Systems Architecture Study section