At 1200GMT on the 6th December, NASA will again attempt to launch the Orion capsule. The previous day's launch was "scrubbed" when issues were found with the Delta IV rocket (specifically, the valves on the boosters). The Decemeber 5th launch was delayed numerous times as engineers scrambled to resolve the issues, including turning off the wind speed meters to avoid automatic abort.
The Orion capsule is a four crew vehicle designed for long duration travel, although currently it is launching unmanned to test the systems during ascent, orbital flight and re-entry.
Space.com has more information and links to the live launch feed at http://m.space.com/17933-nasa-television-webcasts-live-space-tv.html
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
NASA to Launch Orion Vehicle at 1200GMT on Friday
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 27 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 1) by chromas on Friday December 05 2014, @09:02AM
The previous launch was actually scrubbed when they found out Soylent didn't have a post about it.
(Score: 2) by pixeldyne on Friday December 05 2014, @09:31AM
Very sorry for this. The launch is now, i.e. 5th. Previous was 4th Dec.
(Score: 1) by Pseudonymous Coward on Friday December 05 2014, @10:00AM
oh god, OH GOD, IT'S ALREADY DECEMBER
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 05 2014, @11:58AM
No way man. It's "Decemeber" don't you speak Merican?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 05 2014, @11:48AM
The World outside has been using UTC since 1972. Get with the times, 'Merica.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 05 2014, @11:55AM
five
four
three
two
one
ALLLLL HAILLLL OBAMAAAAAA
(Score: 2) by VLM on Saturday December 06 2014, @01:56AM
three
two
one
ALLLLL HAILLLL OBAMAAAAAA
I think you're on to something new, AC, using fox news viewers as an ignition technology. Probably not the best way to reduce instability, combustion instability I mean. The gray and blue hairs might clog the tiny coolant channels in the nozzle, however. Once in awhile AC does hit something out of the park.
(Score: 3, Informative) by pixeldyne on Friday December 05 2014, @12:21PM
... from the mission control a few minutes ago. The vehicle's altitude is now 120 miles and it's on its way to enter the orbit, crossing the Atlantic. Very exciting launch and imagery from the upper stage.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by isostatic on Friday December 05 2014, @01:42PM
Velocity 1341 feet per second
how the hell do you guys get any science done with measurements like 14 furlongs to the hogshead?
(Score: 3) by fnj on Friday December 05 2014, @02:36PM
Since it is literally child's play to convert ft/s to m/s IN YOUR HEAD to within 2% without using any reference at all, I am forced to conclude this comment is pure superciliousness. [hint: the conversion to 2% is multiply by 3 and shift the decimal left by one]
The same thing doesn't quite apply the other way round, because the conversion factor isn't quite as amenable, but within 9% is equally simple, and 1% is only barely harder; a lot of us might resort to pencil and paper to add x/10 to x. [hint: the conversion to 9% is multiply by 3; and the conversion to 1% is multiply by 3 and, to the result, add the result with its decimal shifted one to the left]
Given universal availability of calculators and computers, people of either persuasion who are genuinely put off dealing with the other persuasion's units are ... well, to avoid name-calling ... mystifying.
To answer the question, choice of units is completely immaterial to the science. Oh, and I say that as an SI proponent in the habit of using SI for presentation, and quite at home to "thinking" in SI. And yes, it is silly for any education system not to inculcate SI literacy in the general population, le alone the engineering profession. But NOT because you can't do science and engineering just fine without it.
(Score: 2) by Blackmoore on Friday December 05 2014, @03:19PM
The only real problem is when the computer involved onboard the spacecraft isnt sure if it is using m/s or ft/s - that can be the difference between a touchdown or plowing into mars.
for talking about it with the public? i couldn't really care if he was using metric or ancient roman units.
(Score: 3, Informative) by JeanCroix on Friday December 05 2014, @03:38PM
My schooling in engineering (which occurred over twenty years ago) included both SI and English units, and even frequent problems including both, just to keep us on our toes. But once I graduated and entered the aerospace industry, I found that English units are used almost entirely, and deeply entrenched. It's not the kind of thing you can change slowly, and a one-time sudden switch to SI probably wouldn't come up very high on any bean counter's cost-benefit analysis. Especially when it comes to getting all the interconnected companies and corporations to agree and do it all at once. Heck, we have enough trouble dealing with different file formats on intra-company dealings..
(Score: 2) by Tork on Friday December 05 2014, @08:50PM
I understand the value of using the same unit system, I don't understand the near-religious zealotry that some people have adopted towards it, especially after a successful rocket launch.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Friday December 05 2014, @06:06PM
But NOT because you can't do science and engineering just fine without it.
Of course you can do science. If you don't talk to anyone outside of one small country.
Once you use your own units, and not the global scientific/engineering standard, Things go wrong [nasa.gov]. Same things happen when you're fueling a plane [wikipedia.org].
Now by all means suggest that feet and pounds are suitable units for international use, and Myanmar and Liberia will support you 100% of the way, but having non-standard units anywhere near a scientific endeavour is a terrible crime.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 05 2014, @12:44PM
With all the flare-up on ignition; I thought it was losing an engine.
Still way cool. Nice video of the whole launch. I could do without the animation cuts.
NASA Rock(s/et)!!!
(Score: 2) by dx3bydt3 on Friday December 05 2014, @06:10PM
I agree. It would have been nice to get the wide angle raw camera feed. I'd rather have been looking at the expanding column of exhaust than a computer animation during the live launch coverage.
(Score: 2) by Leebert on Friday December 05 2014, @09:53PM
I work literally down the hall from NASA TV. If you really do want it, I can ask them about it next week. Not sure if/where raw video is available in general, but if anybody can point me to it they can.
(Score: 2) by sudo rm -rf on Friday December 05 2014, @02:05PM
Looking at the live stram I get an instant urge to play KSP.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 05 2014, @03:38PM
I wish KSP had more goals... more reasons to put a space station in orbit around Duna for instance.
Since I've returned a kerbal from the surface of Laythe and Eeloo I feel like the only challenge left is returning one from the surface of Eve.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jackb_guppy on Friday December 05 2014, @05:38PM
I am glad we can figure out how build and launch a "1960" rocket into space. Maybe we can get to next phase, doing science.
Personally, strap a rocket on to the ISS and send it to Mars. Nice big and roomy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 05 2014, @09:04PM
(Score: 1) by steveha on Friday December 05 2014, @09:47PM
I am glad we can figure out how build and launch a "1960" rocket into space.
I think this is the best NASA can do right now.
Meanwhile, SpaceX has an iterative plan to get to low-cost launches with lots of component reuse.
Personally, strap a rocket on to the ISS and send it to Mars. Nice big and roomy.
No. Design something specific for the trip, probably with a crew module that rotates to get the feeling of gravity.
But get our space technology to the point where we can just put up launch after launch after launch. I want spaceflight to be as routine as airplane travel.
If we had a launch vehicle that could cheaply and reliably put payloads into orbit, we could easily build a space-only craft, never designed to enter atmosphere, that could ferry people and stuff to the Moon and back, or to Mars and back.
0) Get cheap and reliable launch system
1) Launch many payloads into orbit, assemble improved space station and other cool stuff
2) Visit the Moon whenever you want, and visit Mars or comets or whatever
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 06 2014, @04:05AM
Design something specific for the trip, probably with a crew module that rotates to get the feeling of gravity.
Yeah, that will happen. It's a bad idea, hence why it never happened.
0) Get cheap and reliable launch system
1) Launch many payloads into orbit, assemble improved space station and other cool stuff
2) Visit the Moon whenever you want, and visit Mars or comets or whatever
0 - that's the plan. SpaceX and related to move cheap, replaceable stuff into orbit.. the space launch system for more important bits that shouldn't blow up.
1. .....
2. or whatever. very specific.
Trip to mars is not like a trip to Europe. Trip to Mars with modern technology is at best like a trip from Europe to America in early 1500.
Anyway, the only place where people can live on Mars or Moon is underground. Like ants. So the first thing you need to be able to live long term in any of these places is a tunnel boring machine and a power plant to power it. Everything else is meaningless and wishful thinking.
(Score: 2) by dx3bydt3 on Friday December 05 2014, @09:57PM
At least the 60's rockets were capable of heavy beyond low earth orbit. The private space companies are a long way from anything with that kind of capability.
That said, I'd still have preferred if NASA had come up with a shuttle replacement than this craft.
The James Webb space telescope is supposed to be launched in October 2018. There isn't a practical way to do maintenance on it once it's up there. Recall how the Hubble telescope got a huge upgrade and boost to its service life with the repair mission conducted with a space shuttle.
For the long distance targets like asteroids and Mars, I think that unmanned missions are a better use of the money, you'll get more science done sooner, safer and cheaper.
(Score: 2) by Foobar Bazbot on Saturday December 06 2014, @05:14PM
At least the 60's rockets were capable of heavy beyond low earth orbit. The private space companies are a long way from anything with that kind of capability.
I don't think you're being fair. The Saturn V was one rocket from the 60s, and yes, with a LEO payload of 118t, it's the biggest and most capable ever. But the Titan II used in Gemini is just as surely a 60s rocket (the parent ICBM entered service in 1962), with a payload of only 3.6t to LEO. And the Saturn IB and Proton-K (the highest capability launch vehicles of the 60s, aside from the Saturn V) both had a payload of about 20t to LEO.
ULA's Delta IV Heavy (as used in the Orion launch) has a LEO payload of 28.8t (or 14.2t to GTO), and while SpaceX's Falcon 9 v1.1 has only 13.1t LEO/4.8t GTO, the Falcon Heavy (first launch 2015) will have 53t LEO/21.2t GTO.
So a fair assessment of the state of launch vehicles is more like "At least a 60s rocket was capable of heavy beyond LEO. The private space companies are only matching all the other, less famous, rockets from the 60s" or perhaps "The private space companies' vehicles have capability comparable to the best of 1965, so it'll take at least 2 years (more without a major push for heavy deep space missions) till they have a Saturn V equivalent." Fortunately, though politicians aren't interested in anything like 60s-level funding for superheavy launchers, Elon Musk has Mars Fever, and is quite eager to invest profits from LEO/GEO launches into developing Saturn-V-dwarfing MCT. So while it won't be 2 years, at least it'll be more like 5-10 years, and less like "absolutely no progress until we have a contract in hand".
(Score: 2) by dx3bydt3 on Saturday December 06 2014, @06:27PM
Thanks for that analysis, I wasn't aware of some of those capabilities. You're right that it is unfair to assume the Saturn V as representative of 60s rockets. That Falcon Heavy you mentioned is getting close to Saturn V capabilities. Beyond heavy deep space missions is there any incentive for developing heavy lift capability? Do you think Elon Musk's personal drive is all that will pushing heavy lift capability forward, or is there money to be made as well?
(Score: 2) by Foobar Bazbot on Saturday December 06 2014, @09:39PM
I think once superheavy lifters exist, there will be money to be made, but it's not a sure enough thing to justify the development investment. While the MCT (Mars Colonial Transporter) is still in early stages of development, and what little information has been made public is of course subject to change, it looks like the single-core, 9-engine version (which is much like Falcon 9 scaled up to use Raptor engines) will have over 200t LEO capability, and the three-core version (analogous to Falcon Heavy) will lift about 700t to LEO. (Those figures assume both stages are expendable -- full reusability, if attained, would roughly halve the payload.) Of course the MCT's primary mission is right in the name, and Musk does think there's a market for trucking 100 people (yes, per trip) to Mars. Much as I love that dream, I'm not at all sure he's right.
But that sort of lift capability is a brand new thing, and it's hard to predict what applications (beyond manned exploration/tourism/colonization) may suddenly become practical. Certainly the long-promised industrial exploitation of microgravity and relatively hard vacuum will at least be more nearly practical when you can lift a 700t space-factory to LEO in one piece, or truly huge modular space stations 700t at a time. (The ISS, for comparison, presently masses about 450t.) It also will allow much larger deep-space missions -- that includes telescopes with larger mirrors than are now feasible, nuclear-powered (fission, not RTG) rovers, or sticking a scaled-up NERVA engine on an asteroid and flying it home. Or tradeoff payload for shorter flight times, though that's mainly an issue for manned flight, as robots can endure years of dormant coasting with minimal consumables expenditure.