Test Flight For NASA's Orion Capsule Slated for December 4

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Test Flight For NASA's Orion Capsule Slated for December 4

Posted by timothy on Sunday November 30, 2014 @02:39AM from the big-red-button dept.

Space.com (which will also carry live web-cam coverage) reports that the Orion capsule is scheduled for a test flight, sans passengers, on Thursday, December 4th. For this test flight, Orion will make two orbits of Earth, with the second lap taking the capsule 15 times farther from the planet than the International Space Station. Officials have attached more than 1,000 sensors to the spacecraft to monitor its systems during flight. Orion will also beam down images from its cameras as it is flying through space. NASA will use the information gathered during the test flight to make improvements to the spacecraft before humans set foot onboard. The Houston Chronicle has an article with some excellent diagrams of the planned flight, the Orion capsule itself, as well as some of the technological and political history behind the project.

59 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Frost Pist by flyneye · 2014-11-30 02:48 · Score: 0, Troll

In space no one can hear you piss.

--
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Finally! by Holistic+Missile · 2014-11-30 02:48 · Score: 4, Informative

We should have been at this point about 10-15 years ago, when the shuttles were already past their expected usable life, but still in service. Now, the question is, is there really any practical reason for manned deep-space flights at this point? That will be the hard sell. A way to get to the ISS without thumbing a ride will certainly be a plus!

--
When you're dead, you don't know you're dead. It only affects the people around you. Same thing when you're stupid.
1. Re:Finally! by Teancum · 2014-11-30 03:44 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  More like 30 years ago this should have been happening. Certainly a test flight like this should have happened some time within a couple of years after the loss of the Challenger. The singular failure of NASA to develop a system that will put people back into space has been an embarrassment for decades with dozens of systems that have been developed and even had "bent metal" like the Orion is right now. Yet except for the Shuttle, nothing has actually made the trip into space since Apollo. Even the Shuttle program had numerous set backs and budget cuts that nearly kept that from going into space.
  Keep in mind, the Orion still hasn't gone into space, and the current configuration on a Delta Heavy isn't practical for anything other than possibly a mission to Low-Earth Orbit. I'm not even sure it can make the trip to the ISS with a crew with this configuration. When it is on the SLS, the ISS will never be a destination as there are no missions planned on that platform going there and certainly nothing funded by Congress.
  
  Now, the question is, is there really any practical reason for manned deep-space flights at this point?
  For that, you need to ask if space exploration in general is something worth doing? Presuming that there is something worth doing in space at all, you need eventually to put a crew there.
  A far more important question to ask about Orion though is if this particular is a practical method of travel into space in the first place? At a price of $1-$2 billion per flight, it seems there ought to be a much cheaper way to get people into space.
2. Re: Finally! by sycodon · 2014-11-30 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  It would be interesting to see what NASA could do if it didn't have Lucy constantly pulling the football away.
  
  --
  When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
3. Re:Finally! by Holistic+Missile · 2014-11-30 04:07 · Score: 2
  
  I don't wonder about space exploration in general. I wonder if manned deep-space flights serve any practical purpose at this point. With current propulsion technologies, it seems they would just be suicide missions. Plus, the added cost created by the additional weight of life-support systems, food, water, etc.
  
  However, unmanned missions to scout (and possibly mine) elements and minerals from asteroids, etc. will likely be necessary within our lifetimes given how we are just consuming resources on Earth like there's no tomorrow. Also, the benefits of research that can be performed (again, by unmanned probes) could be tremendous.
  
  I was not aware of the 1-2 billion dollar cost of a single flight. I haven't really kept on top of it - I have just figured that NASA's projects have been dead, due to lack of funding and lack of interest in science in general here in the US. That cost, as you mention, is clearly a concern given our infrastructure is falling apart and our schools absolutely suck. As much as I'm for space exploration and the spinoff technologies, that money could probably be better invested elsewhere.
  
  --
  When you're dead, you don't know you're dead. It only affects the people around you. Same thing when you're stupid.
4. Re:Finally! by AbsoluteXyro · 2014-11-30 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  We are completely and totally fucked as a species if we do not figure out how to live independently of Earth. That means manned spaceflights. That means colonization of the Moon, Mars, and possibly elsewhere. The sooner we begin this work the better chance our species has for survival. The trouble is getting our current anti-science government to believe it.
5. Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 06:49 · Score: 0
  
  However, unmanned missions to scout (and possibly mine) elements and minerals from asteroids, etc. will likely be necessary within our lifetimes given how we are just consuming resources on Earth like there's no tomorrow.
  (Posting as AC as I've modded here)
  I dunno, but do asteroids contain more minerals per metric ton than earth? I'd guess no, because earth is composed of the same stuff as them. So whether we will mine asteroids or not depends on the fact whether its cheaper to mine our home planet or to transport stuff to it from far away.
6. Re:Finally! by KeensMustard · 2014-11-30 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  For that, you need to ask if space exploration in general is something worth doing? Presuming that there is something worth doing in space at all, you need eventually to put a crew there.
  What makes you think that?
7. Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 09:59 · Score: 0
  
  I was not aware of the 1-2 billion dollar cost of a single flight. I haven't really kept on top of it - I have just figured that NASA's projects have been dead, due to lack of funding and lack of interest in science in general here in the US. That cost, as you mention, is clearly a concern given our infrastructure is falling apart and our schools absolutely suck. As much as I'm for space exploration and the spinoff technologies, that money could probably be better invested elsewhere.
  
  Yeah, well, and as much as I'm against military expansionism/colonialism and the spinoff technologies, the massive amounts more than NASA's budget could probably be better invested elsewhere. That cost, as you mention, is clearly a concern given our infrastructure is falling apart and our schools absolutely suck.
8. Re:Finally! by Irate+Engineer · 2014-11-30 11:46 · Score: 1
  
  We should have been at this point 48 years ago. Oh wait, we were! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... But we dumped all this and forgot it, so it all has to be relearned again by this generation. But even AS-201 was nearly a full production stack. EFT-1 is merely using Delta IV to lob it out into space to see if it will burn up on re-entry or not. Not even close to a full stack. The SLS this thing is supposed to ride on is barely beyond Powerpoint stage. I highly doubt we'll see another NASA astronaut on the moon in my lifetime (and I'm a healthy 40 year old). I actually think it is more likely that Elon Musk will land there on his way to Mars to party with his "crew" of exotic dancers.
  
  --
  Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
  Vote for Bernie in 2016!
9. Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 12:57 · Score: 1
  
  I agree that money could be better invested in some fashion but I don't think it needs to come out of NASA. We could have bought health care for everyone in the country for just the air conditioning bill of troops in Iraq during the peak of the invasion and occupation.
  Really in the end a lot of this is about prioritization or distribution of the available funds. Wealthy neighborhoods have better schools because they raise local taxes to augment baseline funding. This makes perfect sense for the neighborhoods that can afford to do this to do if the baseline funding is not adequate. But how would you make all schools baseline funding adequate? You'd have to levy taxes across the board, and the wealthier one is the more political influence they tend to have. As it's better for their overall bottom line, there isn't incentive.
  That of course is all very simplified and kind of contrived, but it is close enough to accurate to be illustrative. The issue we run into is one of priorities, interests, influence, distribution, and a host of other aspects. The trouble I think with people is that we (understandably) tend to think more short term. I need food, shelter, etc.. I think of my more immediate needs first. But the long term survival of the species depends on technological progress and innovation. If we're going to survive indefinitely, at least for now it seems that we'll need to spread out into the cosmos. That may be eons away, but it has to start somewhere and we need both the practical persons looking at short term survival as well as people looking out into the future.
10. Re:Finally! by Teancum · 2014-11-30 13:06 · Score: 1
  
  It was Carl Sagan who introduced the meme of robotic exploration being so much superior to crewed exploration. The unfortunate problem is that it is important to actually send researchers eventually to these locations or at least somewhat close to them for more timely and relevant scientific investigations. Some people are suggesting that artificial intelligence may be the key, but like nuclear fusion, warp drive, teleportation, and several science fiction concepts, artificial intelligence is always 30+ years away from actually being developed. It is much harder than it appears where computer scientists who predict silly notions of human like intelligence any time in my or your lifetime is just not facing reality.
  No less than the lead investigator for the Mars Science Lab (aka the Curiosity rover) has openly stated he would gladly pay even a premium over the costs spent on that rover simply to have a few scientists there on Mars to perform the scientific studies there. I'll also point out the involvement of Harrison Schmitt who arguably performed more actual scientific studies and investigations outside of the Earth than all of the robotic missions combined. There is a very real need for human researchers in these places for actual space exploration to happen.
  There is of course some very low hanging fruit, to use an analogy, that is easy to perform at the moment with robotic missions. In some ways you can legitimately point out that to send out these robotic missions in the short term is more valuable than sending crews, but that is a temporary situation that will eventually change. When doing budgets, it is reasonable to be perhaps even placing for right now emphasis on robotic missions. It should be with a purpose that eventually leads to crewed missions though... something that is definitely missing from those who advocate robotic missions alone.
  Crews are going to be needed for actual exploration of space, not to mention that sending people to these places also captures the imagination of those pursuing scientific and engineering disciplines. It has been said "No bucks, no Buck Rodgers". I argue the opposite though, as a soulless spacecraft running around on Mars is not nearly as inspiring as somebody like Buzz Aldrin who can stare you straight in the face and tell you honestly that he has walked on another world. People like him were able to accomplish things that robotic missions could never do, not to mention it also pushed so many technologies to accomplish that huge goal of going into space and traveling to another world that it revolutionized society with consequences that still have yet to completely happen.
  That is why we need to send people to Mars, to Europa, and to other places in the Solar System. They both inspire and create opportunities to make things happen. Huge goals like that will ultimately bless the lives of ordinary people here on the Earth in ways so profound that you can't possibly comprehend the end results from such activity. New ways of thinking, even new political systems as of yet undreamed will result from stuff like this happening. It is that basic to human existence, and why people must be included.... and it is downright silly to divorce crewed exploration of the solar system from robotic exploration. Both need to happen and they must co-exists for either kind of space exploration to be successful.
11. Re:Finally! by Kittenman · 2014-11-30 14:20 · Score: 1
  
  We are completely and totally fucked as a species if we do not figure out how to live independently of Earth. That means manned spaceflights. That means colonization of the Moon, Mars, and possibly elsewhere. The sooner we begin this work the better chance our species has for survival. The trouble is getting our current anti-science government to believe it.
  Totally agree. I can't comment on whether the government is anti-science - it's not my government - but I would also like to subscribe to your newsletter.
  
  And, of course, good luck to the ground crew with Orion. May you be rewarded with success!
  
  --
  "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
12. Re: Finally! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 14:46 · Score: 0
  
  Robots have their advantages and disadvantages. People have theirs too. Using robots as advanced scouts is a good idea. It reduces unnecessary risk.
  However, for the robot-only crowd, some risks are necessary. I know, frightful thought in the era of risk phobic helicopter parents, but it's true.
  Some people are going to die in exploration. It is unavoidable. We need to make sure that they do not die stupidly from avoidable circumstances, which is why both shuttle losses were so maddening. Both were utterly preventable, and the second was discoverable in time to prevent it if anyone had looked. We need to stop that crap, but we do NOT need only robots and we can not stop space exploration if we want to survive as a species. The free market, the unfree market, whatever economic religion you worship at the altar of does not give a damn if we survive or not. We have to care about ourselves.
13. Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 16:31 · Score: 0
  
  We are completely and totally fucked as a species if we do not figure out how to live independently of Earth. That means manned spaceflights. That means colonization of the Moon, Mars, and possibly elsewhere. The sooner we begin this work the better chance our species has for survival. The trouble is getting our current anti-science government to believe it.
  The problem with your argument is that it is a load of bollocks.
  We are completely fucked as a species if we wreck our planet. Maybe we should concentrate on trying not to wreck it, rather than attempting to live in places that are far more hostile (i.e. anywhere else).
  In the long term, it makes no difference at all whether our species survives. It is unimportant.
14. Re:Finally! by Hartree · 2014-11-30 18:42 · Score: 1
  
  So... The two of you are in agreement that we're completely fucked unless we follow your path.
  However, you seem to disagree strongly about what that path is, save that yours is the "right" one.
  Here are two cricket bats. Beat on each other until one of you is unconscious or you reach a consensus.
  The rest of us will continue blundering our way to the future while you have it out. Hopefully, by then the answer won't matter anyway.
15. Re:Finally! by YA_Python_dev · 2014-11-30 22:01 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not even sure it can make the trip to the ISS with a crew with this configuration.
  It can't. The DIVH lacks the features required to safely launch humans anywhere. This will be a one-off test. The "real" thing begins with EM1 and the following missions.
  
  --
  There's a hidden treasure in Python 3.x: __prepare__()
16. Re:Finally! by KeensMustard · 2014-12-01 00:02 · Score: 1
  
  The unfortunate problem is that it is important to actually send researchers eventually to these locations or at least somewhat close to them for more timely and relevant scientific investigations.
  So it is said - without proof. The point of investigations is to get the outcomes of those investigations back to earth since information stored locally on a hard drive (be it actual hardware or wetware) is useless.
  
  Some people are suggesting that artificial intelligence may be the key, but like nuclear fusion, warp drive, teleportation, and several science fiction concepts, artificial intelligence is always 30+ years away from actually being developed. It is much harder than it appears where computer scientists who predict silly notions of human like intelligence any time in my or your lifetime is just not facing reality.
  Some people claim (without proof) that human levels of intelligence are required locally for a mission to be successful. The problem is that premise, which needs to be proven before we worry about how long it will take to invent AI.
  
  No less than the lead investigator for the Mars Science Lab (aka the Curiosity rover) has openly stated he would gladly pay even a premium over the costs spent on that rover simply to have a few scientists there on Mars to perform the scientific studies there. I'll also point out the involvement of Harrison Schmitt who arguably performed more actual scientific studies and investigations outside of the Earth than all of the robotic missions combined. There is a very real need for human researchers in these places for actual space exploration to happen.
  What were those arguments in detail? Do the arguments generalise beyond Mars (noting that Mars is the most boring place in the solar system)? I'm disinclined to bow because the pope of outer space made a pronouncement.
  
  Crews are going to be needed for actual exploration of space, not to mention that sending people to these places also captures the imagination of those pursuing scientific and engineering disciplines. It has been said "No bucks, no Buck Rodgers". I argue the opposite though, as a soulless spacecraft running around on Mars is not nearly as inspiring as somebody like Buzz Aldrin who can stare you straight in the face and tell you honestly that he has walked on another world.
  Apparently he wasn't inspiring enough 40 years ago, otherwise the program he was involved in wouldn't have been cancelled.
  
  That is why we need to send people to Mars, to Europa, and to other places in the Solar System. They both inspire and create opportunities to make things happen.
  No they don't.
17. Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 01:21 · Score: 0
  
  If the only way for our species to survive is to live on the Moon or Mars, I'd rather we just died out, rather than condemning future generations to a slow decay into airless, treeless, claustrophobic madness.
  Posted anonymously due to the probability of Space Nutters taking offence.
18. Re:Finally! by Teancum · 2014-12-01 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  What were those arguments in detail? Do the arguments generalise beyond Mars (noting that Mars is the most boring place in the solar system)? I'm disinclined to bow because the pope of outer space made a pronouncement.
  
  The argument is pretty simple: When you have researchers on the Earth running a robotic probe, you have at least a half hour or longer reaction time trying to respond to anything that happens on Mars. It gets worse the further out in the Solar System you travel... simply due to the speed of light. Keep in mind that these robotic probes are moving very slow. There are some systems designed to permit the rovers in particular to respond to things sort of like what Google is using for the driverless cars, but there still needs to be some substantial decisions made about what it will be doing.
  I'm merely invoking the MSL researchers because if anybody has a reason to be "robots first!", it would be them. They are obviously folks who are getting paychecks from the robotic missions being run by NASA and have the most to gain by dissing the crewed missions of NASA (like Carl Sagan did). If they instead are pointing out the need for crewed missions, it would seem like a contrary opinion that needs some extra attention.
  If you think we don't need to send people to Mars or Europa, my argument is that we don't even need to bother with space exploration in general either. Stop sending the robots too because it is a waste of time.... for the very same logic that it means we shouldn't send people either. The whole enterprise is either necessary to send both or it is important to send neither. There is no reason to make a preference for one or the other and judge that only robotic exploration is necessary.
19. Re:Finally! by tehcyder · 2014-12-01 02:30 · Score: 1
  
  For that, you need to ask if space exploration in general is something worth doing? Presuming that there is something worth doing in space at all, you need eventually to put a crew there.
  What makes you think that?
  In the short term, I agree. But in the long term, if we can't work out how to support large numbers of people off the Earth, there's precious little point in going into space at all.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
20. Re:Finally! by Necron69 · 2014-12-01 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  Meteorite impact sites are in fact the locations that we mine lots of valuable minerals:
  http://www.univie.ac.at/geoche...
  The heavy, denser metals largely sank deep into the Earth when it was still forming. This is thought not to be true for many asteroids, although we don't know for sure. Estimates of mineral value range from billions to trillions (at current prices) for even small metallic asteroids.
  Necron69
21. Re:Finally! by KeensMustard · 2014-12-01 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  Then by your own criteria, manned spaceflight serves no purpose. We will never have sufficient lift capacity to move significant numbers of people - and if we developed that technology (i.e. an engine with sufficient power to fuel wieght ratio) we would be sufficiently advanced that overpopulation ceases to be an issue.
22. Re:Finally! by KeensMustard · 2014-12-01 23:22 · Score: 1
  
  The argument is pretty simple: When you have researchers on the Earth running a robotic probe, you have at least a half hour or longer reaction time trying to respond to anything that happens on Mars. It gets worse the further out in the Solar System you travel... simply due to the speed of light. K
  But once again - noticeably vague about the exact circumstance in which human levels of intelligence (hampered by the limited human body) would provide a noticeably better result than the types of AI that are currently available. Perhaps if you were to describe a specific circumstance in which a typical space probe - say Mars Orbiter, or Cassini, or Rosetta, would maneuver better if ta human was onboard flying it. Taking into account orbital mechanics, momentum and the like.
  
  I'm merely invoking the MSL researchers because if anybody has a reason to be "robots first!", it would be them. They are obviously folks who are getting paychecks from the robotic missions being run by NASA and have the most to gain by dissing the crewed missions of NASA (like Carl Sagan did). If they instead are pointing out the need for crewed missions, it would seem like a contrary opinion that needs some extra attention.
  It seems to me that if these people are the experts and their knowledge of the state of robotic tech is current, that this view should be able to be articulated in detail, rather than referred to in generalities. Can you enlighten us?
  
  If you think we don't need to send people to Mars or Europa, my argument is that we don't even need to bother with space exploration in general either. Stop sending the robots too because it is a waste of time.... for the very same logic that it means we shouldn't send people either. The whole enterprise is either necessary to send both or it is important to send neither. There is no reason to make a preference for one or the other and judge that only robotic exploration is necessary.
  We should go to Europa and Titan and Triton and Pluto and Neptune and the Kuiper belt becase they are interesting. We've been to Mars, nothing much happening. We should send robots because they are far more capable and do a far better job than humans do. Sending humans is like sending monkeys or voles or siamangs. Sure, animals are cute and fluffy. But the interesting part is the destination, not the cargo. Why should we continue to hinder science because a vanishingly small number of people cling to some dusty notion about humans in space? We don't spend billions of dollars on medieval re-enactments, or steam train, or gas street lights - better, cheaper technologies have replaced them. Same with manned space flight.
23. Re:Finally! by Teancum · 2014-12-02 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not trying to perform a doctoral defense here. If you can't stand my opinion, so be it.
24. Re:Finally! by KeensMustard · 2014-12-02 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not interested in you opinion any more than a child's christmas list to santa - unless you can tie that opinion to a hitching post in the world of objectivity.
  You said that manned exploration is superior to robotic exploration. This flies in the faces of what we observe in the real world - where robots perform amazing feats and bring great increase to our storehouse of knowledge about the bizarre and beautiful world outside our atmosphere. It flies in the face of logic - what would a fleshy, air breathing body and it's associated bacterial load bring to a cruise to the Oort cloud? You apparently can't tell us.
  An opinion that can't be justified in objective terms would be best described as a belief - would you agree? That your opinion that manned space exploration is superior to robotic exploration is in fact a belief?
25. Re:Finally! by Teancum · 2014-12-03 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  What you are demonstrating is a clear belief without objective facts to back up what you are saying. "In the real world" you have robots that work side by side with human technicians performing amazing feats leveraging each other's strengths and abilities. There is a point to doing both crewed and robotic missions, which seems to be the point you are missing.
  I am not at all saying robotic missions need to be cancelled, and I am certainly not a luddite. I'm also not delusional to think that mankind is going to be replaced by robots any time soon.
  My point is that there is a role for crewed missions into space. There may be some better planning that goes on too with those missions and money might be better spent in some cases on robotic missions too, but it is just flying in the face of logic to say that robots alone can get the job done as well. They are an extension and an amplification of the human mind... in all cases. That means they need to have the people in the loop at some point, as they are creations of mankind.
  Robots working in a coal mine do occasionally need human technicians to pull things apart and rework the equipment. Deep sea drilling even has divers that go underwater for weeks at a time for critical repairs... doing things that are enormously expensive and even approaching costs for sending astronauts into space. They use robots with those human in these very difficult situations, and I am suggesting this won't end at the edge of the atmosphere of the Earth either.
  None of this even touches the need for humanity to spread beyond the Earth as a species and become multi-planetary in terms of its long-term survival. Perhaps you are one of those who thinks that humanity is something which should go extinct and hopes a mass genocidal attack or either natural or man-made origin happens to wipe us all out. But in this case I'm not even arguing that line of reasoning but merely pointing out that as the influence of humanity expands through the use of robots, there is going to be a need to send people in some capacity to work with those robots at a much closer range than something measured in astronomical units. So far other than massive insults to me personally you have failed to offer any conclusive reasons for why I am wrong.
26. Re:Finally! by KeensMustard · 2014-12-03 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  What you are demonstrating is a clear belief without objective facts to back up what you are saying.
  I question your beliefs so must somehow have beliefs of my own? YOU said: Presuming that there is something worth doing in space at all, you need eventually to put a crew there.
  We have been trying to uncover the reasons behind that assertion ever since.
  
  My point is that there is a role for crewed missions into space.
  No, your point was: Presuming that there is something worth doing in space at all, you need eventually to put a crew there.
  
  There may be some better planning that goes on too with those missions and money might be better spent in some cases on robotic missions too, but it is just flying in the face of logic to say that robots alone can get the job done as well.
  Describe SPECIFICALLY what it is that humans can do better than robots in the vacuum of space : And I don't mean meaningless tripe, I mean practical tasks to do with the point of going into space: to explore. Show how the need to perform this task justifies the extra expense associated.
  
  Robots working in a coal mine do occasionally need human technicians to pull things apart and rework the equipment.
  There aren't any coal mines in space. On earth, it makes economic sense to use humans to repair robots because, you know, breathing. In space, we would use a robot to perform the repair. Or, just send another probe if the first broke down. No biggy.
  
  Deep sea drilling even has divers that go underwater for weeks at a time for critical repairs... doing things that are enormously expensive and even approaching costs for sending astronauts into space. They use robots with those human in these very difficult situations, and I am suggesting this won't end at the edge of the atmosphere of the Earth either.
  So you base your argument on a set of criteria confined to low earth orbit, as if humans in low earth orbit are exploring.
  
  None of this even touches the need for humanity to spread beyond the Earth as a species and become multi-planetary in terms of its long-term survival.
  Demonstrate this need using objective criteria.
27. Re:Finally! by Teancum · 2014-12-05 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  So you base your argument on a set of criteria confined to low earth orbit, as if humans in low earth orbit are exploring.
  It would help if you actually read what I wrote:
  
  They use robots with those human in these very difficult situations, and I am suggesting this won't end at the edge of the atmosphere of the Earth either.
  That means people can be in the rest of the universe too. The edge of the atmosphere is also known as the Kármán line, which is (usually) the legal definition of space, and I am implying that people don't need to be confined to just living on the Earth. Since you got this so wrong, I need not reply any further.
28. Re:Finally! by KeensMustard · 2014-12-05 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  Describe SPECIFICALLY what it is that humans can do better than robots in the vacuum of space : And I don't mean meaningless tripe, I mean practical tasks to do with the point of going into space: to explore. Show how the need to perform this task justifies the extra expense associated.
  [no response]
  I take it from you lack of response that you cannot think of anything?
  
  It would help if you actually read what I wrote:
  Here is what you wrote: Deep sea drilling even has divers that go underwater for weeks at a time for critical repairs... doing things that are enormously expensive and even approaching costs for sending astronauts into space. I've highlighted the section that caught my eye. How much does going underwater cost? I couldn't find any figures related to the costs of divers going underwater to repair deep sea drilling rigs. I did uncover the cost of James Camerons DeepSea challenge (http://deepseanews.com/2012/04/shouldnt-we-be-more-skeptical-of-the-deepchallenger-dive/) which works out around 5 million dollars. I'm sure you would agree that 5 million dollars a person would not get you to LEO, let alone beyond LEO (which, thanks to the necessary delta V) starts at a floor 10x that of LEO.
  In short, I was being generous.
  
  Since you got this so wrong, I need not reply any further.
  You don't get to decide.
What's the deal with Slashdot Deals? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 03:03 · Score: 0

So I clicked on that "Deals" link, and it brought me to a page with a big wasteful green "Slashdot Deals Store" image, and then a gap, and then a footer.
I assume there was probably some content that should have loaded in the middle, but for whatever reason it didn't load in my browser, or was blocked or something.
In the footer it said something about "StackCommerce". Is StackCommerce related to the Stack Overflow and Stack Exchange web sites or companies or whatever they are?
1. Re:What's the deal with Slashdot Deals? by Holistic+Missile · 2014-11-30 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  The whole thing is probably served up by ad servers. To a group of people who most likely have multiple layers of ad blocking. Know your userbase much, Dice?
  
  --
  When you're dead, you don't know you're dead. It only affects the people around you. Same thing when you're stupid.
2. Re:What's the deal with Slashdot Deals? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 03:30 · Score: 0
  
  You're missing out on 91% off the Linux Learner Bundle (was $601 now $49)!
3. Re:What's the deal with Slashdot Deals? by ihtoit · 2014-11-30 04:02 · Score: 1
  
  fuck that, I want that USB hub with 28 ports! I can never have too many USB ports!
  
  --
  Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
4. Re:What's the deal with Slashdot Deals? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 04:23 · Score: 0
  
  My god it's full of stars
Faith in future by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 03:09 · Score: 0

Such a great achievement will pave the way for a man on the moon within 10 years. For sure around 2015/2020 we'll have a colony up there.
1. Re:Faith in future by Teancum · 2014-11-30 03:46 · Score: 2
  
  NASA isn't even planning on the first crewed flight until the year 2024. Yeah, I have faith in the U.S. government getting things right.
2. Re:Faith in future by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 05:33 · Score: 0
  
  How many Moon flights wer the private sector working on in 1969? And if even governments haven't been back since, your billionaire buddies aren't going to line up either.
3. Re:Faith in future by Teancum · 2014-11-30 13:16 · Score: 1
  
  Why bother talking about private sector flights? In 1961 Alan Shepard performed the first sub-orbital crewed flight in America.... something really no more exotic than a Virgin Galactic flight. Less than a decade later he was walking on the Moon.
  In that same period of time NASA is going to boldly leap from a test flight of this capsule to sending a crew to an asteroid.... and still won't have the capability of sending somebody to the Moon even if they had to do so. That is the point I'm making, and how NASA has totally screwed up in a big way. Something is seriously screwed up and is hardly inspiring anybody any more.
  If some billionaires can get to the Moon before NASA can return, my hat is off to them. It should be embarrassing that the last person to walk on the Moon is still Gene Cernan. He didn't even expect to be the last one in the 20th Century.
4. Re:Faith in future by tehcyder · 2014-12-01 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  If some billionaires can get to the Moon before NASA can return, my hat is off to them.
  What's the easiest way to end up as a billionaire in the private space industry?
  Start as a multi-billionaire.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
If we wait to colonize space, we never will! by murkwood7 · 2014-11-30 03:53 · Score: 2

The only way to ensure human survival is to colonize space. Starting with this solar system but eventually moving on to others.
The only way to colonize space is to fucking START COLONIZING SPACE.
I believe that if we wait to start colonizing space something, space rock, super volcano, radical islamists, pick your poison, will destroy the possibility of survival.

--
- X/Y -
1. Re:If we wait to colonize space, we never will! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 06:11 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah we're such a fucking gift to the universe and really need to ensure our survival.
  lol ego. Live long and die out, brah.
2. Re:If we wait to colonize space, we never will! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 08:37 · Score: 0
  
  If you feel that way, just kill yourself now.
3. Re:If we wait to colonize space, we never will! by DerekLyons · 2014-11-30 12:33 · Score: 1
  
  I believe that if we wait to start colonizing space something, space rock, super volcano, radical islamists, pick your poison, will destroy the possibility of survival.
  The problem is, even if we started colonizing space tomorrow, it'll almost certainly be a century or more before we can build a colony that can survive unaided. And if it can survive unaided, all it accomplishes is being a pit down which we collectively shovel endless bundles of cash to no good end. (Well, unless you're foolish enough to think that providing a pacifier for idiots is a good end.)
4. Re: If we wait to colonize space, we never will! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 14:49 · Score: 0
  
  And if we do nothing, nothing will get done. Stop judging progress in terms of dollars.
  Since you won't, fuck you.
5. Re: If we wait to colonize space, we never will! by tehcyder · 2014-12-01 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  And if we do nothing, nothing will get done. Stop judging progress in terms of dollars.
  Since you won't, fuck you.
  Since we haven't invented a source of limitless wealth, you have to judge everything in terms of dollars. If we spend almost all our resources on building a play tent for half a dozen adventurers on the Moon, and see the rest of the inhabitants of planet Earth revert to a pre-Stone Age existence, would it really be worth it?
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re: Stop the pork now! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 03:54 · Score: 0

Yeah! There are millions and millions of Obama voters that need more cash on their EBT cards!
Fuck you.
the day before Hayabusa? by ihtoit · 2014-11-30 03:56 · Score: 1

is it a coincidence that this launch is slated to take place just 24 hours before the rescheduled launch of the asteroid sample return mission?

--
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
1. Re:the day before Hayabusa? by ihtoit · 2014-11-30 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  sorry, 24 hours after Hyabusa. My bad.
  
  --
  Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Re: Stop the pork now! by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2014-11-30 04:20 · Score: 1

A pox on both your houses.

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
To the moon, Alice! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 05:07 · Score: 0

Jackie Gleason had the right idea...human powered transportation to the moon.
Well by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 06:28 · Score: 0

Let's just hope it's more stable than EAs origin.
What kind of cheese? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 00:10 · Score: 0

What kind of cheese will they use to simulate human flesh, like the test flight of Space-X's Dragon. There a new tradition to uphold!
I hope that don't use chedder or god forbid, Velveeta processed cheese product. I am hoping for Welseydale! Wallace is right, it really is the best. NASA can recover the cost by sale it in 100 gram pieces after recovery at Space Cheese premium prices!
1. Re:What kind of cheese? by tehcyder · 2014-12-01 03:22 · Score: 1
  
  What kind of cheese will they use to simulate human flesh, like the test flight of Space-X's Dragon. There a new tradition to uphold!
  I hope that don't use chedder or god forbid, Velveeta processed cheese product. I am hoping for Welseydale! Wallace is right, it really is the best. NASA can recover the cost by sale it in 100 gram pieces after recovery at Space Cheese premium prices!
  Are you insane? Wensleydale is far too crumbly. A dense German processed cheese would be more realistic.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
BOOOM! by gelfling · 2014-12-01 01:36 · Score: 1

I predict a fiery death somewhere over the Indian ocean.
Can't wait to watch it by clam666 · 2014-12-01 02:33 · Score: 1

Well I'm going to the launch on some congressional passes with friends and it'll be tons of fun. At least this time the launch is between 7am - 9am rather than 2am as it always seems to be when we attend these launches.
I'm hoping to ustream the launch from the causeway for those who are interested in nerding out.
The Delta IV-Heavy | Orion EFT-1 should be a go and the weather looks (last I checked) good, and my SO and I can't wait.

--
I'm a satanic clam.
i dont understand why we dont have station on mars by softwarek · 2014-12-03 00:44 · Score: 1

Lets face it . Earth no matter what we do will not br livable for ever . There are 1000 of asteroid, comets and other space junk that all ready aimed a earth we can make these sci fi that we will just blow it up or we are going to stop the moon from moving away from us every year it a little futher away. So it should be a very high priority in every country to work together and figure out a way to get ourself on another class 5 planet. It to late for my generation also my kids but maybe we can save my grand kids. We have 2 choices figure out away to have several generation long space flight to reach another planet or we just give up the human race and sto p worrying about how we treat the planet. It doesnt matter becuase we screwed anyways. We should take half of every country miltary budget and put it towards space exploration. Just my thoughts on the matter.