They scrubbed yesterday, but they’re going to attempt to launch those evil spy satellites to watch over innocent Iranian peace ships again today at 11:04 AM EDT.

The sky is clear right now, and if it’s like this in three hours, I’ll have a good view. But if it’s anything like yesterday, by 11 the sky will have clouded up. Of course, they’ve been warning us for the last two days about heavy afternoon thunderstorms that never arrived. Anyway, we’ll see, won’t we?

[Update at 9:50 AM EDT]

It had clouded up to the north earlier, but now they’ve cleared, and an hour and a quarter before scheduled launch, it’s looking good if it holds up. The Cape is north-northwest of me, and I have a pretty good view of that direction from my yard, at least once it gets to altitude.

[Update about an hour before scheduled launch]

I just got a text message from Florida Today that range issues are once again threatening the launch.

We really need to break out of this antiquated “range” paradigm, but it will take radically new vehicle designs to do so.

[Update about 10:30]

Looks like they resolved the range issue, and are go for launch in a little over half an hour. Skies to the north still clear.

[Update about five minutes until original launch schedule]

It’s always something. Now there’s an eight-minute delay due to a technical glitch. Listening to USA ground chatter, it sounds like a problem with a propellant fill/drain valve on the Centaur (the upper stage). New launch time: 11:12 AM. Polling at 11:05 (in about five minutes).

[Update after launch]

Well, it seems to have gone successfully, but I couldn’t see a thing. I wonder if the Atlas just burns too cleanly to be seen from a distance in the daylight?

[Update just after first Centaur burn]

I see over that The Flame Trench that they’re pointing out that this week is the fiftieth anniversary of the first Atlas launch. It’s not as significant as it seems. There’s almost nothing in common between this vehicle and that first ICBM except the name, and the fact that it’s an expendable rocket. Different fuel, different engines, different type of structure, different everything. It’s really an all-new design that came out of the EELV program.

[Update in the afternoon]

As noted in comments, it doesn’t use a different fuel. I was thinking Delta 4 when I wrote that, not Atlas V.

As Clark notes, the time grows short to register for the Heinlein Centennial Celebration next month. As someone strongly influenced by him in my youth, I’d love to attend, but it’s hard to justify the time or money right now.

There’s an Atlas V launch this morning, scheduled for 11:18 AM EDT. I may go out and look if it hasn’t clouded up down here–we’re expecting a lot of rain in south Florida this afternoon (and tomorrow, and into the weekend).

[Update a few minutes before scheduled launch]

Flight’s been delayed four minutes, to 11:22, to resolve some (almost literally) last-minute issues. Unfortunately it’s clouding up here, so I don’t think I’ll see it.

[Update at 11:19 AM]

Range just went red. Launch has been rescheduled for 11:45. I guess they don’t have a tight window on it. There’s not much info available on the orbit or constraints–the payloads are classified.

[Update at 11:38 AM]

Apparently, they have until noon, and then they’ll have to push it to tomorrow. The weather’s supposed to be even worse tomorrow, at least down here, though it may be all right up at the Cape.

[Update a minute later]

Scrubbed for today.

There’s an Atlas V launch this morning, scheduled for 11:18 AM EDT. I may go out and look if it hasn’t clouded up down here–we’re expecting a lot of rain in south Florida this afternoon (and tomorrow, and into the weekend).

[Update a few minutes before scheduled launch]

Flight’s been delayed four minutes, to 11:22, to resolve some (almost literally) last-minute issues. Unfortunately it’s clouding up here, so I don’t think I’ll see it.

[Update at 11:19 AM]

Range just went red. Launch has been rescheduled for 11:45. I guess they don’t have a tight window on it. There’s not much info available on the orbit or constraints–the payloads are classified.

[Update at 11:38 AM]

Apparently, they have until noon, and then they’ll have to push it to tomorrow. The weather’s supposed to be even worse tomorrow, at least down here, though it may be all right up at the Cape.

[Update a minute later]

Scrubbed for today.

There’s an Atlas V launch this morning, scheduled for 11:18 AM EDT. I may go out and look if it hasn’t clouded up down here–we’re expecting a lot of rain in south Florida this afternoon (and tomorrow, and into the weekend).

[Update a few minutes before scheduled launch]

Flight’s been delayed four minutes, to 11:22, to resolve some (almost literally) last-minute issues. Unfortunately it’s clouding up here, so I don’t think I’ll see it.

[Update at 11:19 AM]

Range just went red. Launch has been rescheduled for 11:45. I guess they don’t have a tight window on it. There’s not much info available on the orbit or constraints–the payloads are classified.

[Update at 11:38 AM]

Apparently, they have until noon, and then they’ll have to push it to tomorrow. The weather’s supposed to be even worse tomorrow, at least down here, though it may be all right up at the Cape.

[Update a minute later]

Scrubbed for today.

Burt Rutan thinks that the operating cost of EADS’s proposal will be too high. I’m actually much more concerned (as is he) with the development costs. I’ve seen an estimate of a billion Euros. At 200,000 euros a ticket, you’ll have to sell about five thousand rides just to get back the non-recurring costs, and that doesn’t even include the cost of the money.

I think that the suborbital market makes sense, but not if you have to spend that much money up front. I think a smart entrepreneur could get to orbit for that amount (Elon has only spent a tenth of that amount, though he’s not returning). I just don’t think that a conventional player, like EADS (or Boeing, or Lockheed Martin) has either the cost structure or the risk acceptance to take on a program like this and make it successful. I suppose, though, it’s possible that they’re willing to take a bath on it if they expect it to give them a pre-cursor for a much larger point-to-point market, or military applications.

[Reading a few more articles]

Ah, they’re not committed to it. They’re just floating a trial balloon:

“We are offering a profitable system and have given ourselves until early 2008 to find industrial partners to share the risk, private investment of around

I hadn’t noticed this before, but apparently Mark Wade has put up a little history of the CEV and Constellation program, which describes how Mike Griffin’s NASA, for whatever reasons, completely ignored the advice of its contractors, to whom it had paid millions of dollars to provide potential solutions, and came up with an architecture that, in “synthesizing their suggestions,” bore no resemblance to any of them. Of course, they were just doing their job, trying to follow the dictates of the Aldridge Commission (including affordability and sustainability, and synergy with national security), which NASA seems to think no longer matters.

David Portree has some ill-informed speculation about the NewSpace (which he misspells) industry and space tourism. I was going to respond, but Jeff Foust and Clark Lindsey have already done so more than adequately in his comments section. As Clark notes, it would be nice if people who call themselves “space historians” would educate themselves about what is actually going on instead of embarrassing themselves, and potentially misleading others, in blog posts.

Back before the 2004 election, there were rumors that the Bush administration was considering withdrawal or renegotiation of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which briefly encouraged me. Alas, the pebble disappeared into the pond with nary a ripple.

Now, apparently the administration is instead pushing the Law Of The Sea Treaty. Andy McCarthy is appropriately appalled:

Our current threat environment, coupled with the abysmal performance of international institutions, cries out for a re-thinking all these multi-lateral commitments. Negroponte and England’s claim that we need to ratify LOST in order to demonstrate our commitment to “the rule of law” is absurd. The American people, who do more for the people of the world than any nation in history, have a rule of law; it is known as the Constitution. It allows us to make agreements as needed with nations based on our mutual interests (and it is worth noting that most of the benefits under LOST are already honored under other treaties and international law

Back before the 2004 election, there were rumors that the Bush administration was considering withdrawal or renegotiation of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which briefly encouraged me. Alas, the pebble disappeared into the pond with nary a ripple.

Now, apparently the administration is instead pushing the Law Of The Sea Treaty. Andy McCarthy is appropriately appalled:

Our current threat environment, coupled with the abysmal performance of international institutions, cries out for a re-thinking all these multi-lateral commitments. Negroponte and England’s claim that we need to ratify LOST in order to demonstrate our commitment to “the rule of law” is absurd. The American people, who do more for the people of the world than any nation in history, have a rule of law; it is known as the Constitution. It allows us to make agreements as needed with nations based on our mutual interests (and it is worth noting that most of the benefits under LOST are already honored under other treaties and international law