Hopefully, until the beginning of a new era of lower-cost spaceflight.

[Update just before scheduled launch]

On a fifteen-minute hold for winds. It looks like Clark Lindsey is on the telecon.

I would assume that the count clock will remain stopped at fifteen minutes until the winds die down. They have about an eight-hour launch window.
[Update at 2:27 EST]

Kwaj Rockets says that the mission is aborted (I assume that means for today), but no one else has confirmed that yet.

[Update a minute or two later]

Clark Lindsey confirms. And it's not just weather:

A structural problem has been found in the first stage and will require repair. So launch is scrubbed till next year. RATS!!

Rats, indeed. Better safe than sorry, though.

How is it that they discover a structural problem with the first stage only fifteen minutes prior to launch?

[Update at 4:20 EST]

Here's a report from Alan Boyle.

This seems pretty serious to me. If they discovered that there structure couldn't handle fully-fueled tanks in a static one-g environment, then how could it possible have handled launch loads? Sounds like they had negative design margin at first glance, though we won't know more until they tell us. Fortunately, it's on the first stage, so if they end up having to add weight to it to beef up the structure, it won't have as big a payload impact as it would if it were up higher.

It's nice to see private industry proving that the Gubmint Approach, with all it's delays, holds and scrubs, isn't necessarily the way things need to be...

Oh, wait...

It's nice to see private industry proving that the Gubmint Approach, with all it's delays, holds and scrubs, isn't necessarily the way things need to be...

Oh, wait...

Huh.

Their delays and scrubs seem to cost a lot less than Boeing's and Lockmart's so far...

I'd call these teething problems, for both the vehicle, and the team.

Well, they have the 50-year-old education in such things to go off of, so they *should* be cheaper than BoLockMart.

Shoulda gone with a solid rocket... wouln't have these problems.

:P

"Well, they have the 50-year-old education in such things to go off of, so they *should* be cheaper than BoLockMart."

That's a good point. When do you think BoLockMart will learn things from the 50-year-old education so *they* can be cheaper?

-S

Beat me to it, Stephen...

About ten seconds after they realize that if they don't their stock price will plummet.

Stephen:When do you think BoLockMart will learn things from the 50-year-old education so *they* can be cheaper?

Scott:About ten seconds after they realize that if they don't their stock price will plummet.

That's pretty quick for a huge organization - I don't think they can be that nimble at all.

We've all worked for a version of HugeMegaCo; the executives in the Head Shed catch on quick; they're not at all dumb. But they don't execute the concept - that's done nth layers below them. It takes time to get the word down to the people actually doing the work. Add friction because the supporting organization isnt' optimized for the change, allow for the inevitable 10% who never get the word . . .

IBM is still around, sure. But they could not adjust to the microcomputer world quickly enough to keep their lock on the business. Where IBM was _the_ vendor they are now _a_ vendor. And so on; you can find your own examples readily enough.

I'm not sure the "structural problem" is a design flaw. Reading the article it sounds like it could be a euphemism for "some idiot tripped and hit the wall of the tank with a wrench, and now it's leaking."

Read the articles. Tank failure due to inadvertant excessive vacuum caused by a failed vent valve (failed closed) during de-fueling. Sucked it in like a soda can, which has no structural strength in that direction (nor is it designed to).

Sounds to me like a failure of the design team to identify this as a potential hazard, and provide a rupture point that protects the entire tank from this scenario. Either that, or at least have redundant valves (probably not due to weight), or a better unloading procedure (not that you can take the human out of the equation).

Tough way to learn a lesson. Cryin' shame, we're all rooting for them. But, bets are that the tank is scrap, and maybe the whole vehicle.

"It's nice to see private industry proving that the Gubmint Approach, with all it's delays, holds and scrubs, isn't necessarily the way things need to be..."

The difference is that when NASA has to delay a launch by a day or a month, they are paying twenty thousand people for that day or month. SpaceX is paying two orders of magnitude fewer.

(I see Rand has turned back on the filter that blocks blog5pot - still having troubles with spam, Rand?)

Yes, I was getting more blogspot spam. Perhaps I've left in on long enough that they've gotten discouraged now, though.