[QUOTE=chalsall;400092][URL="http://www.space.com/17933-nasa-television-webcasts-live-space-tv.html"]T-1 60 minutes...[/URL][/QUOTE]I have a conflicting appointment. And the weather is worse today. I got so excited yesterday, that I reposted the glib philosophical questions that I'd recently organized (in the Soapbox wish thread) onto Google+ and asked if any of them were suitable for pondering over espresso on the ISS. I got no reply, which really is a reply.

I look forward to hearing good news about the launch after my phrenology introspection session.

And we're launched! Woohoo!

A perfect launch! Dragon's solar panels have successfully been deployed.

Don't know when we're going to hear about Stage 1's landing attempt, but the two (of three) burns apparently were successful!

Edit: "Ascent successful. Dragon enroute to Space Station. Rocket landed on droneship, but too hard for survival," Musk posted on Twitter.

Almost a perfect bullseye. It tipped over after landing due to too much lateral velocity.

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;400101]Almost a perfect bullseye. It tipped over after landing due to too much lateral velocity.[/QUOTE]

"All we have right now is low frame rate video (basically pictures). Normal video will be posted when ship returns to port in a few days." - Musk on Twitter.

I'm just talking out of my ass at the moment, but I'm wondering...

I know SpaceX want to eventually (ideally) return their stages back to the launch site, but they have already demonstrated many times that they can "soft land" their first stage in the ocean.

Why not let the lower fuel tanks take on water, while sealing the upper tanks. Let it float vertically in the water until it can be retrieved.

Heck, even the STS's SRBs did something like this without controlled decent.

Because the bit that's actually expensive is the rocket engine, which is likely not to be improved by immersion in sea water, and which is fairly unavoidably at the bottom.

I think Lockheed-Martin has a proposal for Atlas-successor where the fuel tanks are blown off and the engine module parachutes down and is protected by airbags for the touchdown.

[QUOTE=fivemack;400109]Because the bit that's actually expensive is the rocket engine, which is likely not to be improved by immersion in sea water, and which is fairly unavoidably at the bottom.[/QUOTE]

Tear the engine down, wash it out, and go again.

It's not like they're not going to do this anyway.

As this wiki indicates, everyone is talking out of their rears about true re-use costs (including the developers). The good news is that there are several projects working on it.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reusable_launch_system[/url]
[QUOTE]No true orbital reusable launch system is currently in use. The closest example was the partially reusable Space Shuttle. The orbiter, which included the main engines, and the two solid rocket boosters, were reused after several months of refitting work for each launch. The external tank and launch vehicle load frame were discarded after each flight.[1][2]

Orbital RLVs are thought to provide the possibility of low cost and highly reliable access to space. However, reusability implies weight penalties such as non-ablative reentry shielding and possibly a stronger structure to survive multiple uses, and given the lack of experience with these vehicles, the actual costs and reliability are yet to be seen.[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reusable_launch_system#Under_development"]Under_development[/URL]

We have lift off
 

[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/14/stephen-hawking-monty-python-galaxy-song_n_7056338.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063[/url]

[QUOTE=petrw1;400113][url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/14/stephen-hawking-monty-python-galaxy-song_n_7056338.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063[/url][/QUOTE]

Brilliant :D