6 ms·

This is awesome. Two thoughts spring to mind: 1. This is the equivalent of the Apollo 4 mission in that it also flew without a crew, and was used to prove, val

by Arjuna 12y ago

This is awesome. Two thoughts spring to mind: 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.

rquantz 12y ago
Thank goodness the top comment is no longer about quibbling with units. This is an awesome achievement, and it points to so much more.
robbiep 12y ago
I only wish that this had of been able to attract more publicity. New capsules are always cool and NASA is the king of them all... But as a government body in a tech 2.0 world it doesn't attract the attention or respect that is worthy of its (occasionally bloated, cost-overrun, but nonetheless amazing and awe-inspiring) achievements edit: my apologies, incorrectly thought this was a first flight of the Orion launch system and not capsule
astrojams 12y ago
This! This!
melling 12y ago
Sure, and 2 years after Apollo 4 we landed on the moon. We did a few missions and haven't been back to the moon in 40 years. 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.
- zipwitch 12y ago
  A Manned Mars Mission has been 20 years out for 40 years, just like fusion power.
  - dredmorbius 12y ago
    A manned Mars mission is within the grasp of existing technology (and has been for 40 years). 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.
- rquantz 12y ago
  Speak for yourself. This is exciting. We have a plan. What we need is enthusiasm and funding.
  - melling 12y ago
    I'm the guy who cut pictures of the Viking missions out of the paper when he was 10. I've seen lots of enthusiasm. The Shuttle, Skylab, Hubble, the Space Station, the Rovers on Mars, etc. 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.
- Fuzzwah 12y ago
  A better plan needs more money. To secure the money the US has to be filled with enthusiasm.
  - melling 12y ago
    Not thinking outside the box. Thankfully Elon is. Hopefully, a few other engineers/businessmen will. 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.
nickhalfasleep 12y ago
It's impressive, but no Apollo 4. That launched on the production stack, with a ready to go capsule including all life support systems. 4 was a Phoenix after the disaster of Apollo 1.
drzaiusapelord 12y ago
>This is the equivalent of the Apollo 4 mission 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.
- krschultz 12y ago
  I wouldn't discount the capsule. From the sound of it, the plan is for this to be a fairly universal capsule for years to come. If it has the longevity of Soyuz, we might be flying Orions (with design upgrades) for 40 years. That's not a bad thing. 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.
- Arjuna 12y ago
  Good points. "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.
organsnyder 12y ago
I sat and watched the countdown (the video cut out at T-00:15) with my 3.5-year-old son this morning. He was extremely excited, to the point that he was able to sit still for a half-hour just listening to the announcements of various system checks. Even without being able to watch the actual launch live (we watched a taped version a few minutes later), he still seemed to be catching quite a bit of excitement, and asked a myriad of questions ("How does the rocket return to earth?" "What's that flame?"). 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.

by Arjuna 12y ago

rquantz 12y ago

Thank goodness the top comment is no longer about quibbling with units. This is an awesome achievement, and it points to so much more.

robbiep 12y ago

I only wish that this had of been able to attract more publicity. New capsules are always cool and NASA is the king of them all... But as a government body in a tech 2.0 world it doesn't attract the attention or respect that is worthy of its (occasionally bloated, cost-overrun, but nonetheless amazing and awe-inspiring) achievements edit: my apologies, incorrectly thought this was a first flight of the Orion launch system and not capsule

astrojams 12y ago

This! This!

melling 12y ago

Sure, and 2 years after Apollo 4 we landed on the moon. We did a few missions and haven't been back to the moon in 40 years. 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.

zipwitch 12y ago
A Manned Mars Mission has been 20 years out for 40 years, just like fusion power.
- dredmorbius 12y ago
  A manned Mars mission is within the grasp of existing technology (and has been for 40 years). 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.
rquantz 12y ago
Speak for yourself. This is exciting. We have a plan. What we need is enthusiasm and funding.
- melling 12y ago
  I'm the guy who cut pictures of the Viking missions out of the paper when he was 10. I've seen lots of enthusiasm. The Shuttle, Skylab, Hubble, the Space Station, the Rovers on Mars, etc. 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.
Fuzzwah 12y ago
A better plan needs more money. To secure the money the US has to be filled with enthusiasm.
- melling 12y ago
  Not thinking outside the box. Thankfully Elon is. Hopefully, a few other engineers/businessmen will. 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.

nickhalfasleep 12y ago

It's impressive, but no Apollo 4. That launched on the production stack, with a ready to go capsule including all life support systems. 4 was a Phoenix after the disaster of Apollo 1.

drzaiusapelord 12y ago

>This is the equivalent of the Apollo 4 mission 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.

krschultz 12y ago
I wouldn't discount the capsule. From the sound of it, the plan is for this to be a fairly universal capsule for years to come. If it has the longevity of Soyuz, we might be flying Orions (with design upgrades) for 40 years. That's not a bad thing. 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.
Arjuna 12y ago
Good points. "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.

organsnyder 12y ago

I sat and watched the countdown (the video cut out at T-00:15) with my 3.5-year-old son this morning. He was extremely excited, to the point that he was able to sit still for a half-hour just listening to the announcements of various system checks. Even without being able to watch the actual launch live (we watched a taped version a few minutes later), he still seemed to be catching quite a bit of excitement, and asked a myriad of questions ("How does the rocket return to earth?" "What's that flame?"). 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.