Constellation Year in Review Video

To me, more interesting than that is the Constellation Blog on the righthand side of the page and what was posted today: "Constellation Finalizes Thrust Oscillation Fix"

How can they claim to have fixed the oscillation problem when not flying a five segment booster?

hesaenger: "How can they claim to have fixed the oscillation problem when not flying a five segment booster?"

You haven't heard yet of the Probabilistic Fix Assessment?

I've been told that the supercomputers at NASA have agreed that the PFA is the very latest in risk management technology.

Maybe the ground test motor results? They did fire a five segment motor with the new propellant...

ATK has some super smart people who know their solids. I have seen a lot of engineering predictions before test-firing, proven "spot on"

Still Ares 1 is a bad rocket choice, who should be cancelled as soon as possible.

I LOLd when he said "monitoring of controlability and aerodynamics" while showing the Ares IX seperation where the two stages are pointing every which way but up, hahaa.

BUT, we're a bunch of cynics here. This type of video is very important and this could be the thing that inspires a young boy or girl that will end up on the International Lunar Base 20 years from now. Good stuff.

So a crew vehicle that splashes into the high seas is safer than one that lands on a runway? If so, shouldn't commercial airliners land that way, for the safety of the passengers?
This is assuming, as the Constellation faithful insist, that Orion is a safety optimized design. It certainly would not be a case of sea-return as a desperate attempt to deal with the limitations or Ares 1, would it?

I really don't know where to begin, but here goes...

The shuttle program was a costly and unnecessary mistake. Let's not make a similar mistake with Constellation and Orion.

Robotic exploration capabilities have reached the point that humans (with their insanely expensive life-support systems) aren't necessary for basic space research.

The ISS can be serviced and crews delivered quite adequately with the Progress and Soyuz vehicles that have an already established splendid track record for reliability.

Send NASA back to the drawing board with the task of developing robotic tools to explore asteroids and planets. If we're eventually going to leave this planet we need much more basic research and that can best be done by robotic explorers.

Finally, much of what NASA is presently "developing" is the result of a "vision" promoted by our most recent ex-president. I think the nation will eventually recover from his "vision" but we shouldn't let NASA go down the road to ruin by building an unnecessary and exceedingly costly vehicle.

And while we're at it let's force NASA to use the metric system in both their engineering and public relations. Wake up - we're in the 21st century!

Flash001 - you focused on one aspect of space launch/flight and ignored everything else. I think everybody would like runway landings more. Don't be a troll.

Everybody elses vehicle is better and less costly, until it gets off the drawing board and becomes hardware! Amazing how that is. If you want to rely on the good will of the KGB Colonel for reliable access to the ISS, go right ahead.