Orion Flight Test Live Launch
nasa.gov
nasa.gov
1. This is the equivalent of the Apollo 4 mission in that it also flew without a crew, and was used to prove, validate and verify that Saturn V and associated systems were fully mission-capable.
2. Events like this represent our future. Events like this are the catalysts for our future generation. The children around the world (perhaps one or more of your own) that are viewing this event are the ones that will be galvanized to dream, to explore, to go into astrophysics, computer science, mathematics, etc. Just imagine the seeds that are being planted with every event, be it brought to us by ESA, ISRO, NASA, SpaceX, etc. Our 5 year old is asking questions: what makes a rocket launch? Why is the explosion so big? I mean, we're already having conversations that start to tear me up a little, partly because that connection brings me back in touch with my own passion for technology, and partly because it is a small glimpse that represents Our collective future.
I'm stoked.
edit: my apologies, incorrectly thought this was a first flight of the Orion launch system and not capsule
A Mars mission is 20 years out. You'll be an "old man" by then. It'll take another decade or two to build a permanent Mars base.
What we really need is a lot less enthusiasm and a better plan.
NASA has a $20 billion budget. WhatsApp cost almost NASA's budget. Uber is already valued at $41 billion. Apple earned $181 billion in fiscal 2014. Perhaps a half dozen companies will create a business around space and we'll have a trillion dollar space industry to augment NASA's puny budget.
I suspect that some of those companies will be run by people who got enthused by what NASA is doing now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_manned_Mars_mission_pla...
You are in an echo chamber of enthusiasm on HN. It doesn't translate to the rest of the America. We aren't going to magically triple NASA's budget because of enthusiasm. We canceled a larger supercollider more than CERN 20 years ago because it was a few billion over budget. We said Hubble or SSC, not both. It certainly would have been nice to learn 20 years ago what we are learning today.
Fusion power isn't.
Mind that I'm not arguing for or against a manned mission to Mars. I don't think it would prove any tremendous benefits, though it would be most decidedly cool. I also believe that permanent or long-term Mars settlements are well beyond present technical capabilities.
But the difference here is political will and financing. Not underlying technical viability.
I'm not sure if that's the best comparision. I'm something of a cheerleader for the SLS program, but this is just a dumb capsule test. This isn't the rocket we're going to be using. That rocket isn't even built yet. Historically, rockets are hard and capsules are easy. Assuming that it stays on schedule, which is a big assumption, we won't have a test flight for the SLS until 2018.
We're still a long ways off here for the Orion/SLS launch, at least a decade until a real mission, probably longer. Its incredible how the poorly conceived Bush-era constellation program set us back here. We should have had a SaturnV-level replacement the day the Shuttle was retired.
It seems to me that NASA is backing away from building one giant integrated system. They're working on building a collection of systems that can be composed into different missions. There will be rockets, and service modules, and future space craft.
This is probably a better strategy given the political reality that you only have continuity for 4-8 years at best. No matter what the next president & congress plan, we will have a capsule that is useful. It is bought and paid for.
Also, the capsule might not be as futuristic looking as a space plan, but it is a workhorse. That's all it needs to be. The fact that you can launch it with basically any rocket that is powerful enough is a feature not a bug. I'd love to see Orions on top of SLS, future SpaceX rockets, etc. If it was something super specific it might not be able to fly on other rockets.
"We should have had a SaturnV-level replacement the day the Shuttle was retired."
I think, in part, the historical reason involves the following [1]:
The reality is that we need something other than the threat to national security to polarize us towards a common goal. That's what happened during the Space Race. The Soviets launched Sputnik 1, and that lit the fuse on a world-altering journey.
In the US, this brought about the creation of NASA. NASA's budget soared to nearly 5% of the total federal budget during that time. This "money no consequence" era resulted in a drive by the government to inject capital into the education system by funding the National Defense Education Act. This was designed to address the fact that more engineers and mathematicians were needed to advance science forward.
Fast-forward, and NASA is probably at 0.5% of the federal budget now, if that. The Space Race ended, and funding levels couldn't be sustained, largely due to the fact that the threat to national security had faded. The enthusiasm faded, along with the funding; the need for Saturn V-level lift capability simply could not be convincingly sold to the public.
I've mentioned this before, but at this time, it often feels like there is an under-current feeling of, "Where are we heading, as a nation?" I know this is anecdotal, but today, I was asking colleagues if they watched this morning's launch, and the only response I received was, "What launch?"
I don't have all of the answers. Part of the answer is that our finest hour is when we innovate, when we explore, when we dream. Part of the answer is that it will take a change in attitudes towards science in general, and space exploration in specific. I think Neil deGrasse Tyson summed it best:
"Right now, NASA's annual budget is half a penny on your tax dollar. For twice that — a penny on a dollar — we can transform the country from a sullen, dispirited nation, weary of economic struggle, to one where it has reclaimed its 20th century birthright to dream of tomorrow."
(I hope InclinedPlane chimes in. His/her knowledge on space-related topics exceeds mine, from what I've read in associated comments. Raising the bat signal...)
[1] I feel that I need to caveat that I'm speaking as an American here, although I believe that I am "a citizen of the world" in my world-view. I get excited about all launches, regardless of space program or country of origin. I realize that this is a global forum.
Thank goodness, if this is actually the case. It might be heresy to "leadership" aficionados, but "national" goals are usually windfalls for a few people, fairly benign to most of the elites, and disastrous for the rest of us. Less national direction, please!
When I was in grade-school in the early-mid 90's, I brought a news clipping of a Shuttle launch in for a "current events" classroom segment. Many of my classmates responded with disinterest: "Why do you care? There are Shuttle launches all the time." We were young enough not to remember Challenger, so space-flight seemed routine and boring. As tragic and disappointing as the Columbia disaster and end of the Shuttle program were, I think they actually reminded us not to take manned spaceflight for granted.
I work with an astronomer and physicist with a PhD from MIT. She was actually less excited about today's launch than I expected, mainly because she's more interested in the science being done by robotic missions. I'm sure she's right that they're much more cost-effective and able to deliver almost as many results, but I'd place a small wager that manned spaceflight was at least partially responsible for her interests and career path.
Also, I realized this morning (while looking at diagrams comparing the sizes of various launch configurations) that just seeing a picture of a Space Shuttle with its rockets still makes me a bit emotional. I can't say for sure what effect it had on me growing up, but I'm sure that it played a part in my development as a civic- and tech-minded individual.
Now to grab some lunch to be back in time for the second stage burn to 3200 nm apogee orbit (3640 mi = 5760 km).
EDIT: Looks like the feed is now revived (12:11 UTC).
I was watching livestream.com using VLC + livestreamer script and it worked without any issues.
The problem is that these mirrors should have been listed clearly at the nasatv site as well as in www.nasa.gov/orion.
Have you thought, recently, how difficult it really is to broadcast video to millions of viewers and all of the individual moving parts that make that happen? It's mind boggling.
Yes. And as far as I can tell, YouTube has it down to a science. If I were NASA, I would let YouTube broadcast the live stream, and embed a YouTube player on the NASA website.
Yes, but arguably, NASA has rocket science down to a science too. My point still stands: it's still a pretty complex and difficult thing to pull off with a high rate of consistency.
http://news.discovery.com/space/private-spaceflight/final-co...
This looks so complex BUT it is coming in so fast (20,000 MPH) into the atmosphere BUT there are so many points for failure. Surprised there wasn't a simpler and safer solution.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/08/dragon-v2-rely-parach...
While I personally would prefer to have the authentic sound, I can understand why they did it this way.
http://www.livestream.com/spaceflightnow
http://www.ustream.tv/nasahdtv
For example, the crews of several Soyuz missions experienced 8+ G's when the so-called "ballistic" re-entry mode occurred due to various systems problems.
Apollo crews returning from the moon commonly experienced 6 - 7 g loads during re-entry
The US space shuttle's entry profile was designed to limit decelerations to 3 g's (as was the ascent profile).
It isn't the speed, it's how you fly the ascent/descent profile. And yes, the conical Apollo capsule form (largely re-used by Orion) is a lifting body that is actually flown through the atmosphere.
http://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/article/U-S-astronaut...
The difference between Orion and Soyuz is a question of speed; the EFT profile was supposed to simulate a "deep space" reentry, which is faster and steeper than a low-earth-orbit rentry.
You can see the difference in the Apollo program, using the same capsule but with different flight profiles:
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s2ch5.htm - Table 2
Apollo 7 and 9 come in at 3.3G-ish, and the rest 6.5-7G-ish.
If it's actually 8G, that does seem a bit high; but Orion's actually a pretty huge thing, and denser than Apollo, so I guess that makes sense. And they only let the best trained very healthiest multiple-phD government employees ride the thing, so I don't think it's a big deal.
I would have expected them to start an infinite series of baby steps, “We went suborbital!” “We went almost as high as the ISS!”
Today we took the first step to be a multi-planitary species.
Today we took the step to go further.
Today we started the countdown clock to step foot on Mars.
Today we took only small step in a very long process, but many small steps got us to where we are today, to be able to send a rocket into space (a rocket!!! into space!!!) and many small steps lay before us to take a small step onto the Martian surface.
I am inspired!
How specialized was the heavy lift configuration for the Orion payload?
Edit: they've stopped now.