Weather Delays Antares Launch From VA Spaceport

The Washington Post reports that concerns about high winds have postponed until tomorrow evening the launch of Orbital Science's Antares rocket from Wallops Island, Virginia. When the rocket finally launches, it should be a spectacular event for the region: "Clear skies should allow viewing of the 133-foot rocket throughout much of the Mid-Atlantic – including the Washington, D.C. area. Assuming technical issues don’t delay or abort the launch, look southeast and the rocket will be viewable about 10 degrees above the horizon in the Washington area at 5 p.m. 6:10 p.m."

Comments

Anteres is the most overrated event

[WindBourne]

Seriously, OSC has built little to NOTHING of it. All they have done is assemble other ppl work. And most of that, came from overseas. So, here was an opportunity for OSC to not only make a name for themselves, BUT to create a low cost rocket. Now, they have an expensive rocket that launches very little. Within 2 years, SpaceX will likely have a rocket that will take 10 tonnes into orbit for less than 20M, possibly less than 10M. At that point, OSC is done except for satellites.

The only players that stand a chance will be foreign govs. as well as L-Mart, Boeing, and possibly any Company that buys one of the lunar lander companies.

Now to hope that NASA will work with not just Bigelow, but IDC on getting them to put up private space stations, and a lunar base.

Re:Anteres is the most overrated event

[WindBourne]

One other useful idea would be for Bigelow and IDC Dover to put their units at the south Pole. After all, that is what will be on the moon.

Re:Anteres is the most overrated event

[VortexCortex]

Seriously, OSC has built little to NOTHING of it. All they have done is assemble other ppl work. And most of that, came from overseas.

Typical fanboi. Protip: This isn't a Google or Apple or MS article.

If history has proven anything its that affordable reusable components are a good thing.
The more spacers the better, IMO. I wish them luck.

Re:Anteres is the most overrated event

[LanceUppercut]

Well, virtually all such US events are "overrated" in a sense that the equipment is either directly bought from Russia, assembled from Russian components or at least based on Russian designs. This one is no exception. Antares is just another Atlas - an airkit pulled over a Russian main engine. While Russian superiority in this area is undisputed, it's already becoming a commodity. Nothing to write home about.

Re:Anteres is the most overrated event

[WindBourne]

Really? Please tell me what is Russian on the delta 4, SLS, or any of the falcons?

Re:Anteres is the most overrated event

[WindBourne]

And yet, they would be better off with cheaper in-house designs and builds. That was a lesson of the falcon and merlin, but u and others ignore it. Heck when we did the ISS, Europe/ESA insisted on doing the shells even though USA was much cheaper. Why? To develop an industry. Now that spaced is taking off it shows that we need a true competitive arena in the USA, and not just importing others. As such, ULA, rocketdyne, and other american companies are now focused on bringing things in-house.

Re:Anteres is the most overrated event

[WindBourne]

BTW, Russia only had superiority in RP/LOX engines and at this time, merlin is challenging that. For nearly all other engines and motors, USA is superior.

Re:Fool question

[crutchy]

I thought launches were supposed to be made as close to the equator as possible

technically you're right...

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/spacecraft/q0080.shtml

but i'm also pretty sure that politics, economics and bureaucratic red tape are just as significant in selection of a launch site. there was talk years ago about private launches from Australia, which a lot of people claimed was because of ideal launch conditions, but was actually because it was cheaper for the launch company. insurance is one of the largest costs in launching equipment into space. the united states government makes it very difficult and expensive for companies to even get approval to launch (even harder since 9/11). VA is within the USA so i can't give you a definite answer to your question, but i wouldn't mind betting that politics played a role.

the united states government doesn't want private enterprise to succeed in space because if they make it easy it will promote development of much more cost effective launch systems which will then open the floodgates... ultimately the US military loses the high ground it's held over everyone (except maybe russia) for the past half century

this will probably be waived off as conspiracy (and it is for the most part) but i believe that NASA's private launch initiatives are a ruse... i wouldn't be surprised if there are a few "accidental" launch failures to derail private launches in order to secure more funding for launches by NASA and USAF and slow down private space industry in general, especially as nasa and military budgets become more constrained in future.

http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/the_prospects_for_passenger_space_travel.shtml
http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/space_policy_space_tourism_and_economic_policy.shtml
http://www.spacefuture.com/lists/sf-discuss/December-1999/msg00002.html

Re:Fool question (Start taking your meds)

[Required Snark]

Yep, the US government is completely against the private launch industry http://www.nbcnews.com/id/50094995/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/spacex-lands-first-us-military-launch-contracts/

Startup rocket company Space Exploration Technologies, which flies NASA cargo to the International Space Station, has landed its first launch contracts for the U.S. military, the company said on Wednesday.

The U.S. Air Force will pay $97 million for a Falcon 9 rocket to launch in 2014 the Deep Space Climate Observatory, a solar telescope that will be operated by NASA. It will also pay $165 million for a Falcon Heavy rocket for the military's Space Test Program-2 satellite, which is expected to fly in 2015.

If you get back on your medication the voices won't bother you so much. All those people who are out to get you will not seem so threatening, and the hidden messages ont TV that only you can understand will not be broadcast any more.

Re:Fool question

[Anonymous Coward]

There is some cause to believe that SpaceX and Kistler were deliberately chosen by congressional mandate over more established companies like ATK/Lockheed and their Athena III vehicle for COTS back in 2007 because they were expected to fail. Look how we tried commercial and it miserably failed, they would have said. Let us never try it again.

Most parts of NASA are deliriously happy at the outcome. Suppliers to the Senate Launch System are less so.

Re:Fool question (Start taking your meds)

[VortexCortex]

If you get back on your medication the voices won't bother you so much. All those people who are out to get you will not seem so threatening, and the hidden messages on TV that only you can understand will not be broadcast any more.

Sounds boring. Fuck the meds, I say.

Re:Fool question (Start taking your meds)

[crutchy]

the obvious may be correct, but not always

keep drinking your kool-aid though by all means

While SpaceX started as an integrator too

[Su27K]

Like early Tesla, Elon just wants to integrate existing components and be done with it, but later he found out it doesn't work with his ambitions. In OSC's case, I guess they simply don't have such high ambitions, so they just settle for a good business.

Re:While SpaceX started as an integrator too

[WindBourne]

OSC has been building rockets for over 2 decades and still very little that that own. As such, they will be more expensive and slower to market than anybody else.