Falcon 1 is... well it is space history

OM wrote:
On 24 Mar 2006 15:34:48 -0800, "Rusty"
wrote:

Yes, we all know how "reliable" the so called "reliable news
oganizations" are when it comes to space coverage.

...Yeah, "reliable" like FOX or that guy who shills for them who posts
two-line retorts without clipping sufficient quotes?


If you will read my post above, I was refering to Nasawatch and nothing
else. I believe Nasawatch is more reliabe than most of the media at
large. Don't you?

Rusty

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 18:03:50 -0600, Herb Schaltegger wrote:

Damn it, I was TRYING to watch the live webcast but the video froze at
about T -15 seconds or so and never resumed. I closed my computer and
left work as the audio continued but before the vehicle was lost.

So much for the wonders of the Free Market(TM).

"Free Market" hell... if they're trying to save
~$15 a month in extra bandwidth fees by handing
over their video PR to that exceptionally
glitched MS "streaming crap" setup they used...
then they're just too penny-foolish to survive.

(~$15 will get you 100 gigs of pretty reliable
bandwidth, and however popular the launch video
would have been it wouldn't have been THAT
popular... not at that resolution. And a simple
non-MS streaming setup would have actually
worked AND would have been compatible with the
browsers intelligent folks actually use.)

--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"

Rusty wrote:
Matthew Ota wrote:
Yes, lets let the "dust settle" and continue to monitor the news from
reliable news oganizations, and not from web logs (blogs)

Matthew Ota

Yes, we all know how "reliable" the so called "reliable news
oganizations" are
when it comes to space coverage.

Make up your own mind by watching a replay video
of the entire launch at "www.nasaspaceflight.com".
I'm not affiliated with that web site (this isn't an ad),
but it happens to have the first video capture I've seen
of the launch.

In the video, I see about 25 seconds of stable ascent,
followed by a sudden loss (or shutdown) of propulsion.
An insulation blanket appears to be flapping and
peeling off of the vehicle just before the problem
occurs.

From the look of the island outline below as viewed
from the downward looking camera, the rocket
appears to be heading more or less in the right
direction, but it is impossible to know for certain.

I also see a bright flicker or glow appear in the
engine area shortly before the problem. No way
to know if this is nominal or off-nominal.

When propulsion was lost, the rocket appeared to
veer toward the east/southeast, then enter a flat
spin and fall toward the shallow ocean or maybe
even a beach area.

Those first 25 seconds were terrific!

- Ed Kyle

I think Spaceflight Now is more reputable than Nasawatch
But that is just my opinion. There is also the Spacewire source:

http://www.spacewire.net/topstories.php

Lots of news releases published there.

In addition go he

http://www.spacedaily.com/index.html

and he

http://www.spacedaily.com/index.html

Matthew Ota

On 24 Mar 2006 17:12:40 -0800, "Rusty"
wrote:

If you will read my post above, I was refering to Nasawatch and nothing
else. I believe Nasawatch is more reliabe than most of the media at
large. Don't you?

....Depends on how you define "reliable". To be honest, I find Keith's
denouments of NASA at times to be almost as intolerable as Jeff Bell's
lies, damned lies, and completely intolerable foistings of anti-NASA
propaganda. That's one of the reasons I rarely read Keith's site
anymore. I got tired of getting ****ed off over people ****ing on
something I believe in.

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

On 24 Mar 2006 17:44:11 -0800, "Matthew Ota"
wrote:

I think Spaceflight Now is more reputable than Nasawatch
But that is just my opinion.

....At times, this is true. However, like the Orlando Sentinel, they
also did some lifting of the Annotated Timeline we did for the
Columbia Loss FAQ, and didn't give proper accreditation. It's sort of
a moot point because we were more interested in getting the correct
info out, but it doesn't say much for journalistic integrity when you
get down to it.

....Right now, Spaceref is really my first-visit of choice for
space-related news, then Spacedaily for a tabloid rag view on what I
just read on Spaceref - that, and to see what act of self-sodomy Jeff
Bell decides to plaster in his waste of space he calls an editorial
column. I almost never visit Space.com, for that matter.

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

On 24 Mar 2006 15:34:48 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Rusty"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:


Matthew Ota wrote:
Yes, lets let the "dust settle" and continue to monitor the news from
reliable news oganizations, and not from web logs (blogs)

Matthew Ota

Yes, we all know how "reliable" the so called "reliable news
oganizations" are
when it comes to space coverage.

Good shot.

Herb Schaltegger wrote:

Damn it, I was TRYING to watch the live webcast but the video froze at
about T -15 seconds or so and never resumed. I closed my computer and
left work as the audio continued but before the vehicle was lost.

So much for the wonders of the Free Market(TM). I expect a snarky,
one-line apologetic from Rand at any moment.



Well, if worse comes to worst, SpaceX still got the thing off the
ground, which is more than most other private rocket ventures ever did.

Pat

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 04:58:27 GMT, simberg.interglobal@org (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

You get tired of everyone who doesn't agree with everything you
believe in, very quickly, to the point of making asinine ad hominems
about them.

....Deal with it.

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 21:43:08 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:

Well, if worse comes to worst, SpaceX still got the thing off the
ground, which is more than most other private rocket ventures ever did.

....The interesting thing is that it reminded me a lot of John
Carmack's last attempt :-/

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[