There’s a little discussion over at the Motley Fool web site about Blue Origin and Jeff Bezos (registration required). I thought that this little bit raised more questions than it answered:

…entrepreneurs such as Bezos, Branson, and Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) co-founder Paul Allen — who funded the winning SpaceShipOne in the X-Prize competition — appear ready to provide the capital. That’s good news for dozens of companies, from Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) and Ball Aerospace (NYSE: BLL) to Orbital Sciences (NYSE: ORB) and SpaceDev. They’re all likely to have a hand in our latest quest for the heavens.

Well, as the old test question goes, one of these things is not like the other three. Why Lockmart, Ball and Orbital? Why not Boeing? Or Northrop-Grumman?

How does the success of low-cost entrants benefit the stock of people operating at high costs, under the old paradigms? Maybe it does, but they certainly don’t explain it. Simply saying that “they’re all likely to have a hand” hardly makes for a useful (or credible) explanation. This kind of thing makes me question the wisdom of any of their other stock advice.

[Via Clark Lindsey]

Clark Lindsey notes an encouraging trend in discussion about space:

…both Bezos and Musk (in other articles) cite the long term goal of space settlement as one of the primary motivations for their projects. In the past year I’ve seen a rise in the visibility and credibility of space settlement as a motivation for human spaceflight rather than simply exploration and science.

About time.

Alan Boyle has a useful wrapup. It would have been hard to top 2004 for an exciting year for private space, but things are moving slowly but steadily toward the day that we open up the frontier, with or without government help.

Maybe last year? All I know is that, historically, it’s unusual for Congress to pass a NASA authorization bill. Usually the thing dies, in committee or because it never makes it through conference, and NASA ends up just working off the appropriation. Traditionally, there has never been much pressure to pass one, because it’s largely viewed as symbolic anyway, and the appropriations bill (which actually funds the programs) is the only one that really counts. But with the new authorization for larger prizes, it’s a great symbol this year.

[Via Space Politics]

Maybe last year? All I know is that, historically, it’s unusual for Congress to pass a NASA authorization bill. Usually the thing dies, in committee or because it never makes it through conference, and NASA ends up just working off the appropriation. Traditionally, there has never been much pressure to pass one, because it’s largely viewed as symbolic anyway, and the appropriations bill (which actually funds the programs) is the only one that really counts. But with the new authorization for larger prizes, it’s a great symbol this year.

[Via Space Politics]

Maybe last year? All I know is that, historically, it’s unusual for Congress to pass a NASA authorization bill. Usually the thing dies, in committee or because it never makes it through conference, and NASA ends up just working off the appropriation. Traditionally, there has never been much pressure to pass one, because it’s largely viewed as symbolic anyway, and the appropriations bill (which actually funds the programs) is the only one that really counts. But with the new authorization for larger prizes, it’s a great symbol this year.

[Via Space Politics]

Out Of The Cradle notes a new program to look for errant objects:

When fully operational, the Panoramic Survey Telescope and Rapid Response System (Pan-STARRS) project will deeply scan most of the night sky several times a month. About three-quarters of the sky are visible from the Hawaiian Islands, and Pan-STARRS will use four linked telescopes connected to its enormous cameras to take broad pictures of unprecedented detail. Objects as dim as 24th magnitude

NASA can now authorize up to ten million dollars for a prize without consulting Congress. The previous limit was a quarter of a million.

It’s apparently not a structural design flaw, as I had feared yesterday.

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.