-
#80 by AbeJ on 05 Dec, 2014 03:47
-
Some of you guys are too much.
"Orion won't get us to Mars alone, NASA is lying."
As the previous person wrote, they know their audience and they explaining it simply and drumming excitement up in the best way possible.
Administration officials have been asked repeatedly in the last few days by the media this very question and they have always replied that Orion will be paired with other modules in the future.
Quit the nitpicking and enjoy the launch.
I was glad to finally read this and its preceding post after getting frustrated with all the negative posts criticizing the way this mission has been marketed.
And I say "marketed" on purpose because I believe that one of the problems NASA has had for years is a lack of effective marketing, and I was glad to see them finally marketing this mission by saying this is how we will get to Mars.
There has been plenty of criticism of SLS and Orion as the rocket to nowhere, or what ever, so I was glad to hear NASA finally present what the ultimate destination is. We all know that it is a huge evolutionary process to actually get there, but once you have the first steps identified and you need support to move forward with limited funding, giving people vision of the reason we are needing to do this is a big help.
Contrary to many comments previously in this thread, NASA has said what is really needed. They are not hiding those additional details. They have said that Orion is primarily how we get people from the ground to BEO and back to the ground, and that there is plenty of additional hardware need for a full mission. But most people don't read those details, or care. Right now, we are trying to generate attention to the first steps in an actual flight test of Orion. With out starting there, you don't get to Mars.
When the average person finally watches people launch on the way to Mars, what will they see? Well, according to the current plan, they will see those people in an Orion spacecraft on an SLS launch vehicle. That's what they will think of as "taking us to Mars", and if we need to get people excited and willing to support future spaceflight, we need to present it to them in terms they can understand and get behind.
Lets face it - the US taxpayers pay the bills and are therefore the "customer", but unfortunately, most of them have no clue what is involved in developing space flight systems. Its a very complicated task. Most of us on this forum get that, and as an engineer in the space hardware industry, I get that. But I also get that to achieve your goals, you need to properly communicate to your audience - whether it is your customer, or your boss, or some investor that helps pay the bills, etc., you need to get the support to do the things needed to achieve the goal. And that often requires breaking down the tasks into simple, understandable steps. If you go into too much detail, or say you need an unachievable amount or resources all up front to do anything, you will get nothing.
I hope I haven't rambled too much here - its been a long day and I'm very tired, but I felt the need to add my comments.
So lets enjoy the first flight of Orion, and hope it helps generate more support and greater funding for NASA in the future so we can get where we need to be as soon as possible!
-
#81 by Coastal Ron on 05 Dec, 2014 05:18
-
I was glad to finally read this and its preceding post after getting frustrated with all the negative posts criticizing the way this mission has been marketed.
And I say "marketed" on purpose because I believe that one of the problems NASA has had for years is a lack of effective marketing, and I was glad to see them finally marketing this mission by saying this is how we will get to Mars.
NASA Administrator Bolden has an editorial on CNN.com where he states:
"We intend to learn as much as possible before Orion carries astronauts to explore an asteroid and then on a journey to Mars."
According to the NASA Administrator we will be getting to Mars using the Orion. Not getting just to BEO, but all the way there, and presumably all the way back. In a vehicle that, as currently designed, can only keep 4 people alive for 21 days, and can only safely return from a distance as far out as our Moon. I've heard that good marketing can convince you to buy something you didn't even know you needed, so maybe that's what's going on here...QuoteContrary to many comments previously in this thread, NASA has said what is really needed. They are not hiding those additional details. They have said that Orion is primarily how we get people from the ground to BEO and back to the ground, and that there is plenty of additional hardware need for a full mission.
See the above quote from Bolden. Plus, aerospace experts have testified before Congress that at it's present funding levels NASA will never be able to reach Mars. Never.QuoteBut most people don't read those details, or care. Right now, we are trying to generate attention to the first steps in an actual flight test of Orion. With out starting there, you don't get to Mars.
NASA doesn't need to generate public interest for going to Mars - it didn't generate public interest for going to the Moon, yet we went there. It didn't generate public interest for the ISS or the various robotic missions we've sent to Mars before they flew. That's not how things work. Congress has to be interested, and so far they have not been.QuoteWhen the average person finally watches people launch on the way to Mars, what will they see? Well, according to the current plan, they will see those people in an Orion spacecraft on an SLS launch vehicle.
I'm not sure you're up to date with current technology. Current and future space travelers are connected to the public virtually all the time, and launching from Earth is just a small part of the journey. And today people are more engaged when there is human interaction, which is not happening when they are climbing into the Orion and holding on for dear life on the bumpy ride up.Quote...But I also get that to achieve your goals, you need to properly communicate to your audience - whether it is your customer, or your boss, or some investor that helps pay the bills, etc., you need to get the support to do the things needed to achieve the goal. And that often requires breaking down the tasks into simple, understandable steps. If you go into too much detail, or say you need an unachievable amount or resources all up front to do anything, you will get nothing.
Well apparently it's been noticed that they have dumbed it down too much.
But again, it's not the U.S. Taxpayer who makes the decisions about funding, it's Congress. So maybe the dumbed down PR messaging has been for that small group of the public, since we all know Congress doesn't pay attention much to what NASA does. But if anyone thinks this Orion test flight is going to convince Congress to fund a human mission to Mars, then I think you're in for a bit of disappointment.QuoteSo lets enjoy the first flight of Orion, and hope it helps generate more support and greater funding for NASA in the future so we can get where we need to be as soon as possible!
I have no doubt the flight will go as planned when it finally lifts off - this is 50 year old technology and techniques we're talking about. In fact considering the technological leap that the Shuttle represented when John Young and Robert Crippen flew STS-1 compared to this flight, I'd be surprised if there were any surprises. Which raises the question for why it's so critical to test the Orion at this point - is it that marginal of a design? -
#82 by sdsds on 05 Dec, 2014 07:37
-
Which raises the question for why it's so critical to test the Orion at this point - is it that marginal of a design?
I think the best way to phrase that question is, "What made testing Orion now (late 2014) worth the purchase of a Delta-IV Heavy back in 2010?" Those were strange times.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22880
Chris Bergin wrote a fine article once the fog had cleared:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/11/nasa-approve-eft-1-flight-orion-pushes-2013-orbital-debut/
-
#83 by owais.usmani on 05 Dec, 2014 09:06
-
Sesame Street's Elmo stopped by to visit the launch pad as United Launch Alliance prepares to launch NASA's NASA’s Orion Spacecraft, which was built by Lockheed Martin. Photo credit: NASA — at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Space Launch Complex 37.
-
#84 by bkellysky on 05 Dec, 2014 10:45
-
Weather Channel (USA) reporter just explained the orange flare as steam from fuel boil-off lit by lights. Subtle-enough an explanation that it sounds true. But upthread on the update thread it's said to be a flare-off of excess fuel - I assume that's right?
-
#85 by Semmel on 05 Dec, 2014 10:49
-
Question: Why do they make their clock hold at the 4 minute mark - for 15 minutes? Why not make the launch sequence 15 minutes longer?
-
#86 by ceauke on 05 Dec, 2014 10:55
-
Hi guys
Why do they burn the excessive H2 from the boiloff rather than saving it for later? Is it that cheap? -
#87 by Hog on 05 Dec, 2014 10:56
-
Hi guys
They burn it off for safety, plus gaseous hydrogen is useless to anything launch related.
Why do they burn the excessive H2 from the boiloff rather than saving it for later? Is it that cheap? -
#88 by Jim on 05 Dec, 2014 10:57
-
Question: Why do they make their clock hold at the 4 minute mark - for 15 minutes? Why not make the launch sequence 15 minutes longer?
The hold at T-4 is variable and can be extended. It is a good holding point since it is before the terminal count. -
#89 by Jim on 05 Dec, 2014 10:59
-
Hi guys
Why do they burn the excessive H2 from the boiloff rather than saving it for later? Is it that cheap?
It would take more energy to recover and reliquify it -
#90 by Semmel on 05 Dec, 2014 11:02
-
The hold at T-4 is variable and can be extended. It is a good holding point since it is before the terminal count.
Ahh thx.. They gave the impression the 15 minute hold is a fix time period. -
#91 by bkellysky on 05 Dec, 2014 11:16
-
Love that live view of the faring? sep!!
-
#92 by Jim on 05 Dec, 2014 11:16
-
The hold at T-4 is variable and can be extended. It is a good holding point since it is before the terminal count.
Ahh thx.. They gave the impression the 15 minute hold is a fix time period.
they stay in that hold for most of yesterday -
#93 by riney on 05 Dec, 2014 11:36
-
The usual fireball that accompanies ignition on Delta IV-Heavy didn't seem quite as large this time. Were steps taken to mitigate it on this flight?
-
#94 by Jim on 05 Dec, 2014 11:40
-
The usual fireball that accompanies ignition on Delta IV-Heavy didn't seem quite as large this time. Were steps taken to mitigate it on this flight?
They start one booster before the others. -
#95 by Rocket Science on 05 Dec, 2014 11:45
-
Jim, just to be clear was the LES loaded and fired or just inert, jetisoned and by what means?
-
#96 by Jim on 05 Dec, 2014 11:53
-
Jim, just to be clear was the LES loaded and fired or just inert, jetisoned and by what means?
The abort motor is inert and the jettison motor was live. -
#97 by Rocket Science on 05 Dec, 2014 11:55
-
Thanks!Jim, just to be clear was the LES loaded and fired or just inert, jetisoned and by what means?
The abort motor is inert and the jettison motor was live.
-
#98 by Prober on 05 Dec, 2014 11:56
-
Congrats to ULA on the Delta Heavy launch
Jim special congrats to you; sure your feeling good right now
-
#99 by neoforce on 05 Dec, 2014 12:05
-
Quick notes on US media coverage. Advantage of a 7:05 launch is the three main national morning shows have all just started. I recorded two on TIVO and used my iphone for the third. (sorry for low tech pictures taken from a TV set.)
I didn't expect much coverage of the launch, because this was NOT a slow news day. But two of the big three covered it live:
- Good Morning America ABC covered it live, starting at about t-20 seconds. Stayed on it for about 1.5 minutes.
- CBS This Morning. Covered it as "just moments ago" with replay of the last few seconds of count and first 20 sec of launch on tape and commentary for a few minutes.
- NBC Today show covered it live, but I didn't get that recorded for more info.
