FWIW, that video was hijacked directly from the SpaceX twitter account

[QUOTE=Dubslow;458699]FWIW, that video was hijacked directly from the SpaceX twitter account[/QUOTE]
I included a Verge article that fairly uses the Twitter link. If YouTube receives a takedown request for that non-commercial copy of essentially a press-release publicity video then all the mechanisms will have been followed. I think it is okay on this scale but am willing to be corrected.

[QUOTE=only_human;458704]I included a Verge article that fairly uses the Twitter link. If YouTube receives a takedown request for that non-commercial copy of essentially a press-release publicity video then all the mechanisms will have been followed. I think it is okay on this scale but am willing to be corrected.[/QUOTE]

I didn't click on the link :smile: Sorry. I agree it's not a big deal, just a kind of kneejerk hypercorrective reaction on my part. (Total time between me clicking on the thread and hitting "Submit Reply" was less than 30 seconds, notwithstanding the time I took to watch most of the video for a second time.)

SpaceX CRS-11.
 

[URL="https://www.wired.com/2017/06/watch-spacex-relaunch-commercial-cargo-capsule-first-time/"]SpaceX are about to attempt yet another first for a commercial entity -- re-flying pressurised[/URL] kit.

T minus a couple of hours and counting.

[URL="http://www.spacex.com/webcast"]This feed should come live in about an hour and a half[/URL]. Some of us stream from many sources to get the technical feed as well.

[QUOTE=chalsall;460255][URL="https://www.wired.com/2017/06/watch-spacex-relaunch-commercial-cargo-capsule-first-time/"]SpaceX are about to attempt yet another first for a commercial entity -- re-flying pressurised[/URL] kit.

T minus a couple of hours and counting.

[URL="http://www.spacex.com/webcast"]This feed should come live in about an hour and a half[/URL]. Some of us stream from many sources to get the technical feed as well.[/QUOTE]

Launch scrubbed.because of weather. Maybe tomorrow...

[QUOTE=ET_;460270]Launch scrubbed.because of weather. Maybe tomorrow...[/QUOTE]

Lightening strikes. Possibly Saturday.

Saturday 1707ET/2107UTC is the backup target

Just looking at Paul Allen's [URL="https://www.google.com/search?aq=f&hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&btnmeta_news_search=1&q=stratolaunch"]Stratolaunch[/URL] makes me feel uneasy.

This is supposed to replace part of a rocket's first stage energy needs by flying the rocket up to some altitude and velocity prior to ignition.

So I don't like thinking about ignition problems after releasing the rocket and any other problems involving having to release the rocket anyway or fly it back to the ground after some problem occurs. BTW is that airframe going to be okay with perverse torque incidents?

Elon estimated that flying a rocket up this way might save 5% fuel.

Edit: A positive of this thing mentioned in places I skimmed: A rocket nozzle will require less compromises between full atmosphere and vacuum dimensions.

I agree, on the face it doesn't look like it'll save that much fuel. 10 km high, maybe 250-300 m/s of airplance velocity -- a very small fraction of the ~7700 m/s needed for an LEO parking orbit. I don't imagine the rocket failing will be much of an issue -- as long as it's 50-100 miles of desert (or ocean) in the direction of travel, collateral damage will be essentially nil. And I don't think the optimized nozzle will affect much either, maybe a few percent. So I think an absolute best case scenario is 10% less delta v required for a given rocket, which admittedly could be a lot more from a fuel fraction perspective thanks to the exponentiality of the rocket equation, but still I don't really see it as being a grand way to reduce costs.

Another advantage of Stratolaunch might be avoiding max Q headaches by launching above most of the atmosphere.

edit: oh, I forgot, I saw somewhere mention that some some launch weather problems would be avoidable.

I wonder how the development costs would compare with those of a linear accelerator. Of course, those would be best sited at higher altitudes, near the equator. This puts a number of constraints on the idea.
[Edit: Oh. OK. The plane exists. Do the intended payloads?]
Still, for smaller launches this might be helpful. The catapult might have a lot to recommend it, if it could fling freight capsules into orbit.