SpaceX to Attempt Launch of Falcon 1 Today

fatron writes "After yesterday's flight readiness review, SpaceX announced they will be attempting the second launch of their Falcon 1 Spacecraft today. The launch is scheduled for 4:00PM Pacific time with a webcast available from T-60 minutes until launch."

Comments

Let's hope

[Rei]

Given that Musk has stated that his patients and pockets are not unlimited, and we only have a few more shots at this, lets all hope that today's launch goes off as planned. It's a nice design overall, and I'd hate to see it fail due to a few technical glitches.

Re:Let's hope

[cmowire]

Well, also if it took you 10 blown up boosters before you got it right, I doubt you'd attract any customers. :P

Re:Let's hope

[Albert Sandberg]

It looks very windy, I think they will push the deadline... at least they should.

Re:Let's hope

[jdray]

When I first looked at the webcam, I thought the rocket was wobbling. Then I realized it was the camera itself on the stand. Still, it was momentarily unnerving.

They'll probably still launch if the winds are only at ground level. If the nav system can't get it off the ground and stabilized in a little crosswind, they don't deserve to be launching.

Re:Let's hope

[Nick_Allain]

I thought my feed was messed up when I saw that but then I realized that they chose an island for launch. Those islands are known for a constant breeze which can likely be accounted for with a little simply rocket science mathematics. I don't think they would have chose an island if they didn't expect some wind. Besides, it's not likely windy up above. On another note, the wonderful blue sky - island paradise webcam is a stark contrast to the 2 inches of snow falling outside my own window at the present.

Re:Let's hope

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that Musk has stated that his patients and pockets are not unlimited I guess it depends on the size of the hospital that he is using. But since they are out in the middle of the Pacific Ocean I would guess that they are probably just using someone who went to one of an auxiliary ship's sick bay. Just taint the food or water and he'll be good for another 10 launches.

Re:Let's hope

[sconeu]

Given that Musk has stated that his patients and pockets are not unlimited,

So he's a doctor, too?

Re:Let's hope

[Anonymous Coward]

What kind of doctor puts his patients in a rocket to space?

Re:Let's hope

[FleaPlus]

According to an (unofficial) post by Kimbal Musk in 2005, "The highest winds we want to launch in is 24 knots [~27.6 mph]." I don't know if that's still there policy, but current wind speed is just around 15 mph.

Re:Let's hope

[Rei]

And more to point, will my HMO cover it? :)

Re:Let's hope

[Megatronium]

For those not watching, the launch was aborted.

Re:Let's hope

[sconeu]

Yep. Abort began at T minus 1:30.

Bummer.

Re:Let's hope

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually read T -00:01:02.

Re:Let's hope

[Darlantan]

That's when they stopped the timer. They called for an abort and began raising the support arm at T-1:30 or so.

Anyone know why yet?

Re:Let's hope

[EvanED]

They just scrubbed for the day actually... 24 to 48 hr recycle, they're running through the scrub sequence now.

Re:Let's hope

[edflyerssn007]

There was a problem with the tracking radar.

-Ed

hmm

[mastershake_phd]

FTA: After the upcoming demonstration flight, Falcon 1 is scheduled to launch a satellite for the US Navy Research Laboratory

Should the US government be using private launch vehicles? Might be a good way to jump start private investment though.

Re:hmm

[QuantumG]

They should use exclusively private launch vehicles and demand competition from their suppliers.

Re:hmm

[B_tace]

Hey, if a private firm can do the job for a fraction of the price, sure! they should be using them and save some taxpayer money in the process.

Re:hmm

[FleaPlus]

Should the US government be using private launch vehicles? Might be a good way to jump start private investment though.

Should the government use private aircraft or private automobiles? There are of course certain situations where private industry is unable to provide what government needs, but the government should never be in direct competition with private industry.

Re:hmm

[Nyeerrmm]

The only public launch vehicle in the US is the Shuttle at this point. The difference here is whether its a traditional big-aerospace company or a small startup that hasn't become dependent on government contracts (i.e. they get paid for results, not attempts.)

However, even there, Griffin's managed to push some stuff through. Commercial Obrital Transport System (COTS) is a program to supply the ISS cheaply, and currently SpaceX (with the larger Falcon 9) is one of the two finalists, along with Rocketplane-Kistler. We should see some results before 2010, and if the launch today is successful that should go a long way to getting it there.

(BTW, if it does blow up again, all major rockets have had about half of the first few launches blow up.)

Re:hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

But those major rockets have all had government funding backing them. There's a limit to the amount of failures SpaceX can handle financially.

Re:hmm

[Sean Riordan]

Nearly all launch vehicle platformsin the US outside of the shuttle are privately owned.

Atlas V is Lockheed Martin
Delta is Boeing
And my current personal favorite due to the recent perfect ride they gave us, the Minotaur is Orbital.

Re:hmm

[hey!]

They should use exclusively private launch vehicles and demand competition from their suppliers.

You mean like Haliburton?

I think we can be pretty certain that any industry which caters primarily to the government will not be dramatically more efficient than the government at doing anything, and possibly less efficient. All the negative risk aversion aspects of government decision making are retained, with whole new opportunities for graft and fraud added on.

At best, it's like the difference between a golf ball landing on some blade of grass, and a golf ball landing on a particular blade of grass. Buying something on the open market is like the golf ball landing on some blade of grass. If there are things out there which are proven to do the job, the might not be exactly what you'd want, but the difference between perfect and good enough is negligible. The difference between landing on one blade of grass on the green and another a foot or so away is negligible.

Specifying something for government consumption is like trying to get a golf ball to land on a particular blade of grass. In order to make sure the competition is fair, you have to ensure a level playing field. In order to ensure that the playing field is level, you have to make sure everybody is proposing to deliver exactly the same thing more or less. Not only does the solution have fewer degrees of freedom, the number of organizations who can respond to such an RFP is limited. In other words, the usual suspects. In other words Haliburton.

And so far we've been talking about the best case.

The worst case, you assume that because the private sector is supposed to be more efficient, you are saving money by using a private contractor. There are very few companies capable of delivering certain things the government wants, and fewer still who can negotiate the contracting process as well. This means that when the government buys those things from the private sector, it is not necessarily buying them from the free market.

I'm not saying that buying from the private sector is a bad idea. What I'm saying is that the problem of financial efficiency, when we are talking goods and services primarily consumed by the government, is an orthagonal problem to insourcing or outsourcing.

It's not a bad idea, it's just not an automatic win. Not until there is a healthy industry that can exist without government business.

Re:hmm

[QuantumG]

Your entire post is summed up in the second part of mine, "and demand competition".

Useful ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this in any way a space vehicle, or is this just another "single stage to balloon height" effort ?

Re:Useful ?

[cmowire]

If it doesn't blow up, it's two stages to orbit at a mere few million a launch.

Not big enough to launch people or anything, tho.

Re:Useful ?

[FleaPlus]

Is this in any way a space vehicle, or is this just another "single stage to balloon height" effort ?

Um, it's delivering a payload into orbit.

Most launches are private rockets.

[pavon]

This is something that the general public is fairly misinformed about. The majority of rocket launches in the US are using rockets designed and build by private companies like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Orbital Sciences. This includes NASA launches. Space X would be competing with these companies, not with NASA.

Re:Most launches are private rockets.

[AKAImBatman]

I don't think they're so much as "misinformed" as the really big companies (e.g. Lockheed, Boeing, ... that's about it) feed so tightly off of NASA and the government that it really doesn't seem like they're private anymore.

That, and everyone loves an underdog. ;-)

Re:Most launches are private rockets.

[pavon]

To elaborate on my previous post and provied some examples:

Mars Rovers were launched with a Delta II built by Boeing.
Cassini probe was launched with a Titan IV-B built by Lockheed-Martin.
New Horizons was launched with an Atlas V built by Lockheed-Martin.
Many satellites, including the latest GPS satellites are launched using Delta IIs by Boeing.

The Minotaur rocket is built by Orbital Sciences using decommisioned Minutemen ICBM engines and are used to launch some military satelites. They also build many of the rockets used for missile-defense tests.

At least at first, SpaceX would most directly compete with the Pegasus rocket by Orbital Sciences, and hopefully would help to expand the market to include new cliental that can't afford current prices. If they show themselves to be reliable they could also go on to challenge the bigger launchers.

Re:Most launches are private rockets.

[inviolet]

This is something that the general public is fairly misinformed about. The majority of rocket launches in the US are using rockets designed and build by private companies like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Orbital Sciences. This includes NASA launches. Space X would be competing with these companies, not with NASA.

Now if we could only do the same with the exploration missions, such as Mars and the moon.

Can you imagine the glorious caucophony if NASA turned its budget into prizes? $1B for the first Mars rock returned to Earth. $2B for the first Mars ground base active for one year. $4B for the first human on Mars. $4B for the first man-year on Mars.

And what a fantastic spectator sport it would become again. GE, Lockheed, Chevrolet, HP, maybe even Google might all be in a literal race for the prizes. It would be consensually dangerous, as corners got cut to save time and money. The risks would attract more volunteers than ever.

To my eye, one of the great benefits of space exploration is its entertainment and inspirational value. NASA has managed to destroy that by becoming bureaucratically risk-averse. They can't allow even a broken fingernail during a mission, else they get castigated in the next Senate budget conference. And that ruins the experience of being a fan, of the sort we once had in the 1960s.

Re:Most launches are private rockets.

[pavon]

Yeah, especially with the creation of UAC, err I mean ULA. I love how politicians constantly praise the benifits of the "free market" while all of our interactions with private industry result in a government monopoly propping up a private one.

Re:Most launches are private rockets.

[QuickFox]

Mod parent up! Interesting and inspiring!

Re:Most launches are private rockets.

[pavon]

Those goals are too large for anyone to meet with private investor funding, and the prizes are too small for tasks that don't have other profit motive behind them (and don't go off about space mining - it is not economically viable). I mean really, a prize managed to provide some tipping point motivation for a (very cool) suborbital rocket plane, and now people think that can scale to sending someone to Mars?

Both NASA and the military are giving SpaceX serious consideration for their future contracts and that will do more to shake up the launcher industry than a silly competition ever will.

Re:Most launches are private rockets.

[Rei]

Prizes work well in the small scale, where you only need a few people to form a team, and where a few million dollars can win fame and PR that can be cashed into real commercial projects that bring in more money. Prizes work very poorly in the large scale. There, market forces take the lead: if investors are going to put five billion dollars into a project, they're going to want a return on that. The more the risk, the more the return they'll want.

Re:Most launches are private rockets.

[inviolet]

Both NASA and the military are giving SpaceX serious consideration for their future contracts and that will do more to shake up the launcher industry than a silly competition ever will.

The prizes would be in billions, not millions. A billion will get everyone's attention. Corporations can handle space exploration if there is a quantifiable return, such as a cash prize. They can budget for it, calculate risk/return tradeoffs, and manage it to completion -- precisely the three behaviors that corporations are organized to perform.

And if two billion is not enough to swing the project, then make it ten. Or twenty. How much is NASA already planning to spend to go to Mars, especially considering that they must necessarily overspend on safety?

Re:Most launches are private rockets.

[Keebler71]

Can you imagine the glorious caucophony if NASA turned its budget into prizes? $1B for the first Mars rock returned to Earth. $2B for the first Mars ground base active for one year. $4B for the first human on Mars. $4B for the first man-year on Mars.

You do realize that SpaceX is part of the NASA Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program right? NASA has partnered with SpaceX and Rocketplane-Kistler to do exactly what you describe. Milestone award payments based on demonstrations culminating in a resupply demo mission to ISS with a crewed option to follow. NASA already has signed $500M worth of award agreements with these two companies.

Beyond this, NASA has its Centennial Challenge program which also gives cash awards for things like generating Oxygen from lunar regolith or designing a better spacesuit glove.

No offense, but I think part of the problem is the publics lack of understanding how difficult these things are (too much watching Armageddon) combined with ignorance as to what NASA is currently doing.

Re:Most launches are private rockets.

[QuantumG]

If that's the case then there's nothing to lose by proposing the prizes is there?

Re:Most launches are private rockets.

[inviolet]

No offense, but I think part of the problem is the publics lack of understanding how difficult these things are (too much watching Armageddon) combined with ignorance as to what NASA is currently doing.

No offense, but I think most of the problem is NASA's lack of desire to commit bureaucratic suicide. Now that free markets are en vogue again, NASA is willing to dribble out some small (relative to the size of the overall mission) prizes... but no real prizes, such as would get Ford Motor Company's attention, such as would instantly obsolete whole NASA wings.

The really sad part is, it wouldn't cost NASA a thing to offer a $10B prize for a successful private Mars mission, unless the mission succeeded, in which case it has already paid for itself in side benefits (if NASA's own justifications are valid). If (as you imply) $10B is not enough to motivate any private enterprise to give it a try, then what harm is there in offering?

Re:Most launches are private rockets.

[Anonymous Coward]

That isn't NASA's problem. Believe me, everyone within NASA wants to do the hard things. The problem is with a risk-averse congress and the American people... maybe not you and I, but when things go do wrong, and they will, people really do blame NASA. Consider Challenger, Columbia and even the recent Lisa Nowak issue. The public has blamed all of these on NASA.

Re:Most launches are private rockets.

[khallow]

Two observations here. First, Lockheed Martin and Boeing both are heavily subsidized by the government during the development phase. Even SpaceX has received some funding (I believe from the US Air Force). It's not really a private effort until government funding isn't a part of the life cycle of a launch vehicle.

Second, when you say "like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Orbital Sciences", you mean just the three companies Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Orbital Sciences. There are no other companies "like" them. With the formation of the "United Launch Alliance", the minor amount of competition between Boeing and Lockheed Martin just went away. Orbital doesn't compete at all with these other two companies. That's how rarified the launch market is in the US. And most of it appears due to the US government which has neutered competition.

Re:Most launches are private rockets.

[khallow]

NASA has been shown repeatedly to be risk adverse. Just look at either response to the two Shuttle losses for good examples. Congress will always be NASA's paymaster. So blaming Congress for bad decisions is pointless. That is, unless you're willing to abandon the NASA model for funding space development and exploration.

Re:Most launches are private rockets.

[DavidShor]

Last estimate I saw was 400 billion

Re:Most launches are private rockets.

[khallow]

We really don't know how prizes work on the large scale since we haven't done them yet.

Re:Let's hope his PATIENTS are NOT unlimited

[Anonymous Coward]

Having unlimited PATIENTS is only good for Drs and hospitals (and perhaps not even then!).

Having lots of patience isn't too bad though.

Ehehe

[nnn0]

This will never work. The clock seems to be stuck at T+00:00:29, the rocket seems to have been made of rubber or something and there is some serious leakage going on there :)

Re:Ehehe

[Weaps]

Yeah, it does seem a tad windy. The rocking back and forth is making me space-sick.
Countdown hold?
Of course, it seems as if the entire scene is swaying...I know, seismic acitvity!

Re:Ehehe

[EvanED]

Is it just me, or is T+ is used after launch and T- before?

Re:Ehehe

[alexj33]

Hmmm.... It's amazing how many gusts of wind can fit into T 00:00:29- which has lasted for ten minutes now.

Re:Ehehe

[RamblinLonghorn]

It's not just you. I think they just haven't started the actual countdown yet.

It is called cots

[WindBourne]

NASA is starting down this path (again). Do not be surprised to see this pushed more in the next 3 years as more systems come on line. What will be interesting is that L-mart and boeing just merged their rocket divisions. Now, they will have to learn how to compete.

Staying behind the curve

[psaunders]

Yes, it's always very tempting to buy these things as soon as they come out. Who doesn't want their own RP-1 launch vehicle...but the real question is, do you need it right away? Historically, the rate of technological development means that the price will decrease dramatically over the next six to twelve months, making it more affordable for the average, budget-minded consumer.

Other info sources

[FleaPlus]

For anybody looking for more frequently-updated sources of info and don't feel like watching the entire webcase, here's some other useful sources of info:

* SpaceFlight Now's Mission Status Center: According to the status center, they're having some problems with remotely-monitoring the telemetry stream, which may end up postponing the launch.

* Kimbal Musk's "Kwajalein Atoll and Rockets" blog: Kimbal is Elon Musk's brother, and often posts interesting (and highly unofficial) updates from the launch site. He sometimes goes into liveblogging mode, but hasn't done this yet today.

Re:Other info sources

[HUADPE]

He does appear to be in liveblogging mode now, this probably changed between your post and mine. /. is not the greatest means for getting this sort of info. T minus 13:30 as of this post.

wind velocities for Kwaj

[ridgecritter]

look normal to me from the way the palm trees are moving. It's usually windy there. The apparent vehicle sway is actually the camera mount structure swaying, which you can see by using the upper left corner of the image frame as a position reference and watching the tree sway in perfect synchrony with the rocket. Since the tree and rocket present very different wind loads, it's the camera that's moving.

I'll bet every asset the PMTR has on Kwaj is pointed at the launch vehicle. Nothing like a live launch by somebody outside of your organization to calibrate the tracking sensors and wring out procedures. Hope the USAF and the others on the island don't fry the LV electronics with all those radar emissions....

Re:wind velocities for Kwaj

[Sean Riordan]

Generally you get a waiver from everyone in the area for certain bands. Specifically those freqs used for your self destruct and what not. It's probably easier to get the Navy to pay attention to them out on Quaj than Florida or Virginia too.

Re:Let's hope his PATIENTS are NOT unlimited

[Rei]

Yeah, I deserve that for posting so hastily. ;)

Back on topic: it's such a shame that they have Kwaj as a launch site. It's a horrible place due to corrosion, shipping costs are high, and if you discover that you need something that you don't have onsite, it's a major blow to your schedule.

The New Hope: Warp Drive

[Anonymous Coward]

These devices using chemical fuels for propulsion are just toys. They limit us to space travel on the order of centuries between galaxies.

We can do better with warp drive. Dr. Burkhard Heim has already developed the basic theory, and the US Air Force is working on a prototype space ship.

I bet his ..

[TTLof1MIN]

bandwidth bill is astronomical after slashdotting.

Launch hold?

[n6kuy]

Looks like T plus 29 seconds???

WTF?

Re:Launch hold?

[Anonymous Coward]

It appears to be a joke since that's the time when their last launch failed last year

Re:The New Hope: Warp Drive

[AdmiralLawman]

No. For one thing I enjoy knowing that I can have forewarning of attacks against us.

from the wtb-ticket-pst dept?

[fuo]

many people wait awhile to buy new home electronics until after a few iteration and all the "launch" issues are fixed... i think that reasoning definitely applies here. you couldn't pay me to get one something like that this soon.

Hehe

[nnn0]

NEW LAUNCH TIME. Liftoff is now targeted for 2345 GMT (7:45 p.m. EDT). Fueling of the rocket had been suspended while trying to correct the data transmission problem between Omelek Island and the company's headquarters in El Segundo, California. So the launch team is now working to get back on track for liftoff.

Re:Hehe

[ak_hepcat]

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2007
2252 GMT (6:52 p.m. EDT)

"The data is back up in El Segundo. I do believe we are a little bit behind in the count. I think we delayed some of the propellant loading activities," says Gwynne Shotwell, SpaceX vice president of business development. "It looks good for today, which is obviously good news."

How far behind the countdown is running or the target launch time isn't clear at the moment.

http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon/f2/status.html

New Launch Time

[DumbSwede]

From Space.com

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2007
2257 GMT (6:57 p.m. EDT)


NEW LAUNCH TIME. Liftoff is now targeted for 2345 GMT (7:45 p.m. EDT). Fueling of the rocket had been suspended while trying to correct the data transmission problem between Omelek Island and the company's headquarters in El Segundo, California. So the launch team is now working to get back on track for liftoff.

Launch delayed to 23:45 GMT/16:45 Pacific

[mungewell]

Appears that they have had (and fixed) data connectivity problems(???).

Launch delayed 45mins.
Simon.

Re:Launch delayed to 23:45 GMT/16:45 Pacific

[Anonymous Coward]

If they were serving the web camera directly from the island(!), it would have been simply slashdotted.

Re:Launch delayed to 23:45 GMT/16:45 Pacific

[tehmorph]

They're using the akami CDN. Not gonna toast that one, I think. T-25 minutes.

Update

[kitsunewarlock]

Update on their site says the launch is now scheduled for 4:45 PM.

Its delayed.

[AdmiralLawman]

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2007 2257 GMT (6:57 p.m. EDT) NEW LAUNCH TIME. Liftoff is now targeted for 2345 GMT (7:45 p.m. EDT). Fueling of the rocket had been suspended while trying to correct the data transmission problem between Omelek Island and the company's headquarters in El Segundo, California. So the launch team is now working to get back on track for liftoff. Blast it.

Houston..

[tehmorph]

We have voice on the video feed. Sounds like they're on step 103 of the checklist, no change in weather, fuel loading complete.

Re:Houston..

[AdmiralLawman]

Checklist, eh? Where would I find this 'Checklist'?

Re:Houston..

[tehmorph]

Not a clue; just saying there's a checklist involved. I assume some Googling will be useless, but ne'er the less, into the abyss I go... They're on 110 now, finished safety checks, stopped helium pumps, started helium top.

Re:Houston..

[bughunter]

As a past member of launch operations crew for a competing company, I can affirm that these checklists are typically not published.

But good luck to you anyhow - given Elon's unorthodoxy, you may actually find something.

Re:Houston..

[tehmorph]

If you've got the time, care to fill the plebs in on the acronyms?

Re:Houston..

[bughunter]

LC - Launch Control (the smartsexy voice reading the countdown sequence instructions)
LCC - Launch Control Center (aka Mission Control)

some other TLAs overheard

SB - Strongback (the scaffold holding the vehicle until approx t minus 4 minutes)
MD - Mission Director (responsible for mission-level and enterprise-level decisions, probably Elon Musk himself)
RSO - Range Safety Officer (responsible for making sure all is clear downrange for a few miles)
GSO - Ground Safety Officer (responsible for making sure the immediate vicinity of the rocket is clear)
FSO - Flight Safety Officer (part of the Kwaj range; these guys have their finger on the destruct button)
FTSO - Flight Termination System Officer (SpaceX person responsible for verifying the command destruct receiver, ordnance, batteries, etc, are functional)

and some guesses
AVI - Air Vehicle Instrumentation (?) (flight engineer monitoring ground telemetry)

any others I've forgotten?

Re:Houston..

[Yakolev]

Yeah who's LD? Or is that not a person but instead some other acronym?

Re:Houston..

[QuickFox]

Very interesting! Just what I was missing to make sense of the transmission yesterday. This will be useful next time. Thanks!

4:17 PM

[Orig_Club_Soda]

It looks like they are starting up the engines. There is white smoke coming out the side.

Re:4:17 PM

[bughunter]

That is ullage (boil-off) from the liquid oxygen tank as they fill it.

Mark T minus 25 minutes

Re:4:17 PM

[coastwalker]

Helium top started.. this is fun!

good luck

Re:4:17 PM

[tehmorph]

Not just as they fill it- it's gonna be there till there's some other drain (IE firing). Fuel loads are complete now. Just looked and it's stepped up. Now a lot of boiloff- probably because it's now full?

Re:4:17 PM

[golgoj4]

4:25 and the batteries and fuel are go...but no more audio or moving video...oh wait...t-minus 20min & counting.

Re:4:17 PM

[golgoj4]

heh...aborted with about 1 1/2 min left...curses!

Re:4:17 PM

[bughunter]

It constantly boils off, and excess gas (ullage) escapes thru the vent - that's the low level of vapor you see.

When they intermittently "top it off" the additional volume of liquid oxygen displaces the gaseous oxygen at a higher rate, so the vapor plume is more intense.

Huh. That's odd.

[jpellino]

Have you been to an emergency room lately? There are plennnnnnty of patients. Is he using them for ballast or fuel?

the launch has been scrapped and is venting lOX?

[nietsch]

You saw much the same as I did: a clock that was at T+29sec and a rocket still on the pad letting of a could of vapour. I interpret that as the launchatttempt being scrapped due to some reported malfunction. Then you have a rocket loaded with fuel and oxidiser standing on the pad, which is a pretty dangerous situation. there is no way you are allowed to walk up to the rocket and attach some hoses to pump out the LOX. So they have to do it remotely by slowly letting the LOX boil off. That is the white cloud you see escaping from the rocket, I think.
But I could be wrong, maybe that that vapor is just the normal amount of LOX boiling off in the heat of the sun.

Heh

[nnn0]

Clear for launch

Countdown continues

[bughunter]

At t minus 14 minutes they have elected not to hold, and are waiting for t minus 11 minutes to proceed with the sequence.

All stations are reporting ready.

As someone who has done this before, I can tell you, every stomach in the LCC is twitching in nervous anticipation about now.

Re:Countdown continues

[slashbob22]

Terminal Count Abort

Re:the launch has been scrapped and is venting lOX

[MaineCoon]

They're still launching, it was delayed to 4:45.

Re:the launch has been scrapped and is venting lOX

[Yendys]

Well, the arm just came down at T-8:00 so I am assuming they are going for the launch.

Abort!

[SirBruce]

Terminal count abort. No launch.

Wait, what?

[tehmorph]

Terminal countdown abort and they've put the SB back? What?

Terminal Count Abort

[Anonymous Coward]

T- 1:02 Abort

Aborted

[edwardpickman]

Well they just aborted the launch a minute before launch. Given the windy conditions I'm not sure why they fueled it in the first place.

Terminal Count Abort

[bughunter]

No reason given by the LC.

We can expect an announcement in 15 to 30 minutes if they intend to recycle for today or stand down.

discrimination against other media players?

[proudhawk]

ok,
I found this to be rather rude on their part. I don't run a mac and I don't have windows.
so how am I to enjoy this feat of modern technology from a LINUX desktop.
Apparently I can't (not with these guys anyway).

Re:discrimination against other media players?

[Anonymous Coward]

mplayer works fine for me. you can load mms streams if you have the right codec (WMV3)

Re:discrimination against other media players?

[Anonymous Coward]

Paste this into Kaffeine mms://a141.l2216521225.c22165.g.lm.akamaistream.ne t/D/141/22165/v0001/reflector:21225

Re:discrimination against other media players?

[Dungbeetle]

Try this from a terminal (assuming you've got mplayer installed).
It's how i'm watching it - not that you're missing anything at the moment ;/.

mplayer -cache 64 mms://a141.l2216521225.c22165.g.lm.akamaistream.ne t/D/141/22165/v0001/reflector:21225

Re:discrimination against other media players?

[meowsqueak]

mplayer works here (Ubuntu 6.10).

Re:discrimination against other media players?

[Anonymous Coward]

"...so how am I to enjoy this feat of modern technology from a LINUX desktop."

Mmm, nothing like the smell of proprietary codecs on the open web. You can do it. One approach is to get xine from here and add the w32codec-0.52-1.i386.rpm. And get the MediaPlayerConnectivity plugin for Firefox and you should be able to view it.

Re:discrimination against other media players?

[proudhawk]

well guys, its just as well that i missed it (aborted launch).
as for the player problems, it turned out to be a missing codec 9and
an improperly configured plugin handler for firefox).

sorry for the OT post.

Evil villain?

[yulek]

anyone else think that the launch site looks like it's on some remote tropical island? okay, so it's not inside a volcano, but still... definitely evil villain style.

Re:Evil villain?

[bughunter]

That is Omelek Island, part of the Kwajelein Atoll. It's a US Military launch site and frequently leased out to small commercial launches.

Re:Evil villain?

[Danny Rathjens]

It is a remote tropical island. :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwajalein_Atoll

Re:Evil villain?

[sconeu]

anyone else think that the launch site looks like it's on some remote tropical island?

There's a good reason for that. The launch site IS on some remote tropical island.

AnomalyNet

[tehmorph]

I assume that is their internal network for comms? Only a matter of time, I suppose, before they come back on public and give the verdict.

Re:the launch has been scrapped and is venting lOX

[jpop32]

Well, the arm just came down at T-8:00 so I am assuming they are going for the launch.

And then it went up again at T-1:02. This-or-that abort sequence. It's not clear what happens next.

afk 10 minutes

[Anonymous Coward]

They mentioned something about a telemetry error.

Re:the launch has been scrapped and is venting lOX

[blueadept1]

From http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon/f2/status.html

2355 GMT (7:55 p.m. EDT)

The problem appears to be related to Range telemetry. The team needs another 10 minutes to examine the situation.

2350 GMT (7:50 p.m. EDT)

Engineers are working on the problem that stopped the countdown. SpaceX has time available to troubleshoot the issue and try the launch again -- so the flight has not been scrubbed for today.

Not scrubbed yet

[Rixel]

"2350 GMT (7:50 p.m. EDT)

Engineers are working on the problem that stopped the countdown. SpaceX has time available to troubleshoot the issue and try the launch again -- so the flight has not been scrubbed for today."

2355 GMT (7:55 p.m. EDT)

The problem appears to be related to the Range and telemetry. The team needs another 10 minutes to examine the situation.

Re:Not scrubbed yet

[tehmorph]

It's the RF channel to the Range, apparently. Give 'em time.

Re:Not scrubbed yet

[bughunter]

From Spaceflight Now:

"At about a minute-and-a-half out of launch, we shift from communicating to the vehicle through the land lines to communicating through the Range RF (radio frequency). And it is possible we were just not picking up the Range RF signal. So that's what I know so far," says Gwynne Shotwell, SpaceX vice president of business development.

Re:the launch has been scrapped and is venting lOX

[Frotokid]

0003 GMT (8:03 p.m. EDT Mon.) A possible explanation for the countdown abort being called: "At about a minute-and-a-half out of launch, we shift from communicating to the vehicle through the land lines to communicating through the Range RF (radio frequency). And it is possible we were just not picking up the Range RF signal. So that's what I know so far," says Gwynne Shotwell, SpaceX vice president of business development.

Scrubbed.

[jcr]

About a minute after I tuned in. Bummer.

-jcr

scrubbed

[Anonymous Coward]

end

Now Scrubbed

[acoustix]

Launch scrubbed for today. Haven't heard when it will be rescheduled.

Nick

scrubbed

[yulek]

bummer, they just scrubbed :(

24-48 hour delay. they are defueling

Scrubbed

[dankenstein355]

Launch has been scrubbed

scrub

[icebones]

scrubbed for the day

SCRUB

[Frotokid]

0011 GMT (8:11 p.m. EDT Mon.) A new launch date has not been announced. But SpaceX says another try could be made on Tuesday or Wednesday. 0010 GMT (8:10 p.m. EDT Mon.) SCRUB! Today's launch attempt has been called off.

Re:the launch has been scrapped and is venting lOX

[ProtonageNet]

It has officially been scrapped for the day.

Launch scrubbed at about 0:10

[Anonymous Coward]

The launch has been scrubbed at about 0:10 UCT.

ABORTED

[kitsunewarlock]

Launch delayed for 24-48 hours.

It's no go.

[KliX]

Scrubbed. Doh.

Launch scrubbed for today

[Traksius Egas]

The launch has been scrubbed for today 20070319.

Re:Launch scrubbed for today

[Dripdry]

Alright already! It's been scrubbed well enough to eat off of, thank you ./ers!

UPDATE: Launch Scrubbed

[Dac]

Today's launch has been scrubbed and postponed for at leat 24 hours.

Whats new here?

[Orig_Club_Soda]

How is SpaceX's Falcon 1 different, improved over the Saturns (besides being private enterprise)?

Are they re-inventing the wheel? Isnt the Saturn technology avaialble? It would seem the profit is in actually reaching space, so using proven technology would be fastest to re-create and succeed.

This is how we should return to the moon. We are wasting too much time and money trying to be new and fancy.

Re:Whats new here?

[AdmiralLawman]

Saturn's have not been used in decades.

Re:Whats new here?

[Orig_Club_Soda]

And yet Saturns worked well and put stuff into space regularly... I am not sure what you are saying.

Re:Whats new here?

[Anonymous Coward]

They were also insanely expensive.

Re:Whats new here?

[mschuyler]

Falcon is WAY smaller than a Saturn.

Re:Whats new here?

[Catbeller]

Because of lack of economy of scale. If cars weren't mass-produced, they'd cost ten million dollars apiece.

Launch Scrubbed

[Jbcarpen]

The launch was scrubbed with 62 minutes on the clock.

Re:Launch Scrubbed

[meowsqueak]

62 *seconds*, actually...

Re:Launch Scrubbed

[Jbcarpen]

eh, oops. I was working on some other stuff when the scrub was announced, and I switched back only to see the number 62 frozen on the display.

I guess the moral of the story is... Pay attention to the minute details to avoid coming in second best.

Lauched Scrubbed

[Kjellander]

They just said the launch was scrubbed due to fuel issues and they will try again tomorrow.

No, an IP attorney

[Teancum]

It should have read patents and deep pockets are not unlimited.

Although who am I kidding here. When he is successful Boeing will pull out a stealth patent they developed for the Delta IV and demand "fair and reasonable" royalties to put Elon's prices on par with other Loc-Mart rockets.

Aborted for Today

[verbatim_verbose]

24 or 48 hour delay, with more details coming tomorrow.

Commodity vs. specialized equipment

[Teancum]

I think you missed one minor point, but otherwise you were hitting dead on.

Where the government can save money is to buy commodity equipment/goods that are sold on a larger basis than just to government contracts. Even this has some problems (for example, the Army buying diesel fuel for trucks... still needs specialized logistics). But as has been said, if an Army private can purchase a hammer for $5 at the local Home Depot, he should be permitted to do that instead of going through the normal supply chain where the same hammer will cost $100 due to logistical overhead and layers of approval.

And some efforts to allow this sort of "petty cash" spending has been introduced into some military units and smaller government agencies, precisely because of this sort of savings.

I certainly think the military was much more efficient with the use of money during WWII, when nearly every position was an actual sworn officer or enlisted member of the military. Of course there was graft and corruption, but you also stood to have a military tribunal if you were caught, or even receive battlefield justice. Such stuff doesn't happen with Haliburton and its sub-contractors.

Re:Commodity vs. specialized equipment

[Anonymous Coward]

> But as has been said, if an Army private can purchase a hammer for $5 at the local Home Depot, he should be permitted to do that instead of going through the normal supply chain where the same hammer will cost $100 due to logistical overhead and layers of approval.

That's a good example in the way you didn't mean.

Send a private to get a hammer at Home Depot and you'll get any old junk. The Army requires good equipment to avoid downtime and personnel injury. I was a carpenter for a decade, so please just trust me that it really does matter with hammers to keep this post short, 'kay? (Or imagine buying Kwik-E-Mart keyboards instead of IBM Model M's, if that helps.)

I absolutely agree you don't want a bureaucratic foodchain making hammers cost $100 and taking forever to get where they need to be, but that's a management issue. The Army is 9/10ths management, so we better require them to be good at it.

Your example is a great example of how sound-bite solutions are often wrong, and corporations & their elected critters make a lot of traction by duping voters with this sort of guff.

> I certainly think the military was much more efficient with the use of money during WWII, when nearly every position was an actual sworn officer or enlisted member of the military.

Most of them were also brand new to the job, so played by the book. But mainly money was used more efficiently because it was hard to get. With the huge expansion and maximum effort there was enormous competition for resources. It wasn't until about 44 that basic items like aluminum and rubber were being produced in quantities to meet all demands.

Re:Commodity vs. specialized equipment

[Teancum]

Too bad this was posted anonymously. There is some real meat here that could be explored into further detail.

I know that the civilian contractors do form a major part of the current structure of the U.S. military, and there are many reasons why these individuals (many of them ex-military as well) choose not to be a part of the traditional military chain of command/heirarchy. And my comment about WWII force organization was a broad generalization, where certainly many of the points you bring up here applied to the nearly 15 million American in uniform when General MacArthur signed the peace treaty ending the war against Japan.

The current civilian contractor/military personnel relationship, for example a contractor being a cook of a Burger King franchise on a post in Baghdad is very different from the Army cooks that existed in WWII and Korea (even though a cook is still a MOS). This is also due to, IMHO, the fact that most military activity centers around a fixed military installation, as was especially true during most of the Cold War. And the war in Iraq really didn't spend all that much time as an invading army and fluid campaign fronts against an organized enemy. Even in Iraq, it is rare for organized groups of tens or even hundreds of insurgents in what could loosely be called either a paramilitary or even full military organization. If such groups do exist, they are quickly and judiciously "expidited" and the threat eliminated.

As far as hammers are concerned... yeah, I know that there are different hammers to do different tasks. And sending a private into a Home Depot is likely to get a disposable $5 hammer, as once you have done the task that needs that hammer in the first place (whatever that is) it would be much more of a hassle to inventory and store that hammer for a later use. And for some (certainly not all!) applications you could use "any old hammer", just as you can use the Quick-E-Mart keyboards in environments where you know the keyboard is likely to be thrashed in just a few days anyway. Not all situations require the expensive solution. I'm just pointing out that there are often easier solutions to problems than throwing money at them.

Re:Commodity vs. specialized equipment

[IdahoEv]

if an Army private can purchase a hammer for $5 at the local Home Depot

You haven't shopped at Home Depot recently, have you?

Launch scrub is good news

[caywen]

I'd much rather see a launch scrub with a week delay than a complete failure that resulted from a cascade effect from a seemingly minor glitch. I think Musk's OCD-like control over launch parameters and procedures is exactly what the private space industry needs to win the confidence of organizations who have millions riding on each launch.

Cool.

[b00fhead]

Wake me up when they test a Cobra Mk. III

Featured video. What the.... !!!!!

[jonhirsch]

You would think that they could afford to buy a new video camera rather than using dads 15 year old VHS fricken camcorder and the tape they got with it when new.

Cost, Simplicity, Feasability

[pavon]

Isnt the Saturn technology avaialble?

No it isn't. And if it was they wouldn't want to use it.

This is brought up in every slashdot article about returning to the moon and it is a really bad idea. First off the Saturn was designed to use 1960's technology. Now there is nothing wrong with that, except that you can't get it anymore. And the manufacturing techniques are different than the techniques we use today. So right off the bat you'd have to rework the design to be updated with modern components and manufacturing capability. Now you need someone who understands the rocket in order to make these changes. Unfortunately, those people aren't around anymore. This is something that far too many managers don't get - designs themselves are not nearly as useful without the working knowledge as to why the design is the way it is, and all the small little lessons learned while creating and building the design. Furthermore, we have learned a lot since then. We are much better at making lightweight materials, which is a big deal since the amount of fuel and thrust needed increases exponentially with weight. We are better at designing engines to operate more efficiently, again saving even more weight for payload.

Lastly, as much as people like to ditch on the shuttle, it's boosters are incredibly safe and reliable, and they are fairly powerful too. The problem is that overweight, poorly positioned excuse for a crew module. I have to agree with NASA that it is a much better idea to build off of the portions of a currently flying system such as the shuttle or Delta IV, than to start over from scratch, which is effectively what they would be doing with the Saturn. We are not wasting time and money reinventing something new, we are saving money by adapting a known good design, and wasting time by doing it on a small yearly budget, and by continuing with the ISS.

As for Space X it would be an even worse idea to them to use the Saturn design for the Falcon 1, as they are planning on using it for completely different reasons. As an entrant into the launcher business, it makes sense for them to start with LEO capability and work up from there. The Saturn was created as a no expense spared, get to the moon as quickly as possible, arm-race machine. Space X is trying to decrease the cost of getting to orbit by an order of magnitude over current launchers which are already significantly less expensive than the Saturn was. And they are trying to do it without sacrificing reliability. The way they are doing this is by decreasing the complexity of the rocket as much as possible. The engineering on the Saturn V was incredibly impressive and complex. It had five engines on the first stage, another 5 engines on the second, and one more on the third. This is complete overkill for what Falcon 1 is trying to achieve.

The Falcon 9 on the other hand, does pretty much what I explained above. It takes the overall architecture of the Saturn V (redundant engines etc), updates it with modern manufacturing, new efficient engines, and improves upon the simplicity of it's construction and design. It is a smart way to go about building a rocket.

Re:Cost, Simplicity, Feasability

[Orig_Club_Soda]

Thanks. I just want to confirm I understand the Falcon 1 is not the same size as the Saturns. What I meant is, SpaceX and whomever seems to be recreating the wheel in the sense that certain values and capacies have already been discovered. Retooling of factories has to happen whether you build an old design or a new design. None of these parts are "off the shelf". And, since SpaceX is brand new, they are experiencing all the same set up costs. But they are experiencing what they did today because they are using all new parameters.

Russia is using old technology successfully. There is something to be learned from that.

Re:Cost, Simplicity, Feasability

[Anonymous Coward]

I should point out, Elon pulled a few tricks out of his sleeves when starting SpaceX. He hired off a bunch of experienced talent from Lockheed and Boeing who had already learned a lot about building rockets by working on the Atlas and Delta programs. That's why SpaceX was able to design, build, and comprehensively test a completely new rocket (structure, engine, avionics) from the ground up in just 3-4 years, with a small team, and actually competitive performance.

In reality, they are using old technology (mostly). They haven't changed anything major in the way they build their rockets, although the specifics of their design are their own. Their engine is a fairly standard RP-1 and LOx design, fueled by a turbopump and controlled by a helium pressure system. The body and tanks are advanced, using inconnel alloys and friction-stir welding, and the avionics are probably kept as straight-forward as possible.

If SpaceX is successful, I think they'll even be competitive with the cheapest Russian competitors in the small launch market.

OT: slashdot moderation

[Anonymous Coward]

why is parent redundant and the one posted 5 minutes later informative?

and /.ers complain that the editors have too many dupes...

Mod parent up?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not exactly and earth-shattering revelation, but it sure as heck makes sense. I noticed the T+29 seconds thing as well.

Good to see them keeping track of themselves and laughing a bit about it.

US Timezones

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish that Americans would realise that the rest of the world doesn't know what time 4pm Pacific actually is! It's this assumed arrogance that really pisses off everybody. Why can't they use GMT offsets like the rest of us?

Re:US Timezones

[emilper]

they used GMT : 11GMT

SCRUBBED!

[Anonymous Coward]

OMFG it was SCRUBBED 4 2day!! 20 more posts to go till we all know!!! Quote dis if ur SCRUBBED!

Re:SCRUBBED!

[tehmorph]

Retry's at 4PM today (PST, so about 11 PM GMT). Apparently their launch software autoaborted as it didn't take account of the hundred milliseconds or so during RF/hardline switchover, ran a system state check during the disconnected phase, reported failures and called abort. Ooops. Hey, at least it's not hardware, right?

That raises a good point -

[DarrenR114]

We're starting to see a problem with accumulating "space junk" of objects in near-Earth orbit. Maybe this could pave the way to a space salvage operation ala the TV series "Salvage 1".

The Launch is back on!

[Teancum]

SpaceX just announced that the abort happened because of a glitch when handing off monitoring and control systems to the internal guidance computers, as a communcations delay resulted in a delay from the rocket. (see http://spacex.com/updates.php)

The launch is back on for 4 PM PDT (-7 hours GMT).

Let's hope that SpaceX has all of their ducks in a row on this one. This is just one of those things that happens when you have to get out of the lab and where simulations break down. Sometimes you have to actually have to fire the thing to see what happens.

This is also why it is called "rocket science".

Re:The Launch is back on!

[Q-Hack!]

Now if they would just get the webcam back up.

Re:The Launch is back on!

[Q-Hack!]

According to spaceflightnow.com

2210 GMT (6:10 p.m. EDT)

SpaceX tells reporters that launch remains on schedule for 2300 GMT.

Re:The Launch is back on!

[Q-Hack!]

and another update from spaceflightnow.com

2220 GMT (6:20 p.m. EDT)

"We are in a hold right now. We've got a potential RF (radio frequency) compatibility issue with the payload, which we're working through. I anticipate we will come out of the hold in about 10 or 15 minutes and get back on track," says Gwynne Shotwell, SpaceX vice president of business development.

Weather conditions are acceptable at the launch site today, she added.

2218 GMT (6:18 p.m. EDT)

It appears launch time has been delayed further to 0005 GMT (8:05 p.m. EDT).

Re:The Launch is back on!

[Q-Hack!]

2230 GMT (6:30 p.m. EDT)

The 0005 GMT (8:05 p.m. EDT) target launch time has been confirmed.

Re:The Launch is back on!

[QuickFox]

The launch time 00:05 as local time around the world

Re:The Launch is back on!

[coastwalker]

whoah here we go again....

Re:The Launch is back on!

[coastwalker]

internal abort after ignition... locking down again.

Another abort

[goltz20707]

Another terminal count abort, this time after main engine ignition. No word yet on cause.

Re:Another abort

[coastwalker]

they are going for a recycle to t-11 at 0028

Re:Another abort

[coastwalker]

sounds like t-11 starts from 0054

Re:Another abort

[QuickFox]

Now going for t-16 at 00:54 for a launch at 01:10. Several preparations are in progress.

I'm a little impressed that they could abort so smoothly several seconds after main engine ignition. Considering the energies that are unleashed I assumed that that would be rather difficult. But maybe that just proves that I'm no rocket scientist.

Re:Another abort

[coastwalker]

Yes they have a good set of procedures for getting this thing off the ground. Any big system can only be tested for real, no matter how good all the individual bits are.

Something went wrong today

[caywen]

Watched the webcast. I was really excited, but apparently something went wrong right before liftoff. The rocket appeared to abort during ignition. The good news is that it never left the ground, so maybe they'll be able to retry soon. I'd hate to see them have to spend another year building another rocket.

Re:Something went wrong today

[QuickFox]

They're going to try again in a few minutes, starting with the countdown at t-16 minutes at 00:54 GMT, for a launch at 01:10 GMT.

Re:Something went wrong today

[caywen]

Wow, this launch really has me biting my nails. I can only imagine what it must be like for Mr. Musk. T-11 minutes and counting.

Re:Something went wrong today

[coastwalker]

I have a very large malt whiskey for when it does go. though I might have tested a couple already!

Re:Something went wrong today

[caywen]

The feed cut out, but so far it looks like the Falcon 1 has gotten into space! Dunno about orbit, yet, but the when the feed cut out, it was right after one of the crew reported that things were nominal. Oh man, this is history in the making!

Re:Something went wrong today

[coastwalker]

looks like it went into oscillattion after sucessfull stage separation and shroud ejection - the second stage ran for some time before this happened. then abrupt telemetry loss. bummer.

Re:Something went wrong today

[QuickFox]

Does this mean it's lost or is there still hope?

Re:Something went wrong today

[caywen]

Real bummer, but they already achieved an amazing thing. It was absolutely incredible to watch this privately funded rocket blast its way to orbital heights. Absolutely thrilling and SpaceX deserves a huge round of applause.

Re:Something went wrong today

[QuickFox]

What does oscillation mean in this context? The vehicle shaking?

Re:Something went wrong today

[coastwalker]

I am sure it fell to bits - but as a totaly random punt I would suspect the shroud ejection didn't push far enough out and the casing struck the side. Didn't I see crystallized material in the camera view after shroud ejection - surely at 161km there isn't enough gas around to do that - that was fuel leaking and freezing ?

I am not a rocket scientist so I had better wait for them to tell us what happened. Whatever did happen I am sure they have the smarts to fix it. Pity all this costs so much money, it flew fantastically up to the oscillations. Where do I buy shares :-)

Re:Something went wrong today

[caywen]

Yeah, seriously. 1000 shares now, plz. Do you think it would burn up in reentry?

Re:Something went wrong today

[QuickFox]

Indeed they do!

I really, really hope they don't lose heart. With their rocket making it this far, it seems to me that they are very close to success now.

Re:Something went wrong today

[coastwalker]

It was a great technical success. They had a problem with the first stage being 0.1% below measured limit. So they recycled and the first stage worked perfectly, then the separation worked perfectly, then the shroud ejection worked, then the second stage fired and worked perfectly. Then something put oscillations into the system and it lost the plot. So what are you worried about? - They have to figure out what went wrong after most of the dynamically tricky bits went right? The problem isn't with the really tricky bits with atmosphere and gravity. So they have to learn a bit more and avoid a problem at 161km, based on the performance up to that point I don't think that will stop them. Always assuming there is enough cash to test out the fix.

Thanks to them for sharing this inspirational effort I say. A good team with a shared goal can do wonderful things. I salute their efforts and wish them luck.

Re:Something went wrong today

[QuickFox]

So what are you worried about? Is your question intended as a response to my worry in this other comment that they might lose heart? With my very limited knowledge about these things, I was unable to guess how large a proportion of the difficulties they had overcome and how much remained. I also didn't know if they had lost a valuable, important satellite.

But indeed you're right, they seem very enthusiastic and confident, they say that they overcame 90% of the risks, and that the problems that remain are easy. This looks great indeed! There's every reason to celebrate!

Wonderful!

errg

[Anonymous Coward]

And my computer crashes at T-3 seconds...
Hope they put up a video on their website.

Success!

[More_Cowbell]

The launch made it into space before their webcast died. (on the second attempt today)

Re:Success!

[geekyMD]

This was absolutely fantastic! Watching it reaching outerspace and seeing the curvature of the earth LIVE! I know it was just a webcast and I'm still at home, but it felt like we there there!

Any comments on the near end wobble? Did anyone else see that? It looked like it was hitting turbulence. Was that the end of the atmosphere or was it losing attitude control. It looked like it was increasing in magnitude with each oscilation so I'm guessing it was a fault that was overcompensated? Any other theories? Not that I want to detract from what SpaceX is doing, but I'm just curious about what might have happend. These guys are my new heros!

If anybody can find a video please post it!

Re:Success!

[level4]

Here you go: http://spacex.com/00Graphics/Videos/Falcon%201%20D emo2%20Launch%202007%20-%20High%20Quality.wmv WMV format only, sorry. Amazing stuff, really exciting.