backtop


Print 77 comment(s) - last by rudolphna.. on Aug 6 at 1:31 AM


SpaceX Falcon 1 on Launch Pad  (Source: SpaceX)
Falcon 1 Flight 3 experienced an "anomaly" two minutes into flight

Saturday August 2, 2008 was the launch date for SpaceX's third attempt to launch a privately funded rocket into space. Falcon 1 Flight 3 launched from the Kwajalein Atoll located about 2,500 miles southwest of Hawaii.

According to the New York Times, Falcon 1 Flight 3 failed to reach orbit. Reports say that around two minutes into the flight the rocket was seen to be oscillating before the live signal from an on-board camera went dead and the rocket was lost.

Mission Manager Max Vozoff and launch commentator said, "We are hearing from the launch control center that there has been an anomaly on that vehicle." SpaceX's Elon Musk wrote in a blog post on Saturday at the SpaceX website, "It was obviously a big disappointment not to reach orbit on this flight [Falcon 1, Flight 3].  On the plus side, the flight of our first stage, with the new Merlin 1C engine that will be used in Falcon 9, was picture perfect.  Unfortunately, a problem occurred with stage separation, causing the stages to be held together.  This is under investigation and I will send out a note as soon as we understand exactly what happened."

Musk continued writing, "The most important message I’d like to send right now is that SpaceX will not skip a beat in execution going forward.  We have flight four of Falcon 1 almost ready for flight and flight five right behind that.  I have also given the go ahead to begin fabrication of flight six.  Falcon 9 development will also continue unabated, taking into account the lessons learned with Falcon 1.  We have made great progress this past week with the successful nine engine firing."

Falcon 1 Flight 3 is not the first failure for SpaceX. DailyTech reported in March 2006 that the first Falcon 1 flight failed 20 seconds after liftoff. It was later determined that the failure of the rocket was due to a fuel line leak. In March 2007, DailyTech reported that the second Falcon 1 flight had failed about five minutes into launch.

The payload on Falcon 1 Flight 3 was varied and included the Trailblazer satellite developed for the Jumpstart Program from the Department of Defense's Operationally Responsive Space ORS Office. Two small NASA satellites were also onboard Falcon 1 Flight 3 including PRESat -- a micro laboratory for the Ames Research Center -- and the NanoSail-D -- a test project to study propulsion for space vehicles using an ultra-thin solar sail.

The New York Times reports that the rocket was also carrying the ashes of 208 people who wished to be shot into space. Among the cremated remains were those of astronaut Gordon Cooper and actor James Doohan of Star Trek fame.

SpaceX's Falcon 1 launch facilities are on Omelek Island and part of the Reagan Test Site (RTS) at the United States Army Kwajalein Atoll in the Central Pacific. SpaceX's Falcon 1 rocket was designed from the ground up  in Hawthorne, California and is a two-stage, liquid oxygen and rocket-grade kerosene powered vehicle.

SpaceX says that the first stage of the Falcon 1 is powered by a single SpaceX Merlin 1C Regenerative engine and the engine was flying for the first time aboard Falcon 1 Flight 3. The second stage of Falcon 1 is powered by a SpaceX Kestrel engine.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Leave it to the pros
By masher2 (blog) on 8/5/2008 9:26:51 AM , Rating: 2
> "No customer cares how much it costs the Russians to develop... They care about the price they will be charged"

Exactly. And when a private firm only five years old is already cost-competitive with the Russians at the end of a 50-year program, using a design essentially obtained for free from the Soviet military program, that speaks wonders for the innovations of private enterprise.

> We should then in reality take every single project that has to do with space propulsion that occurred before and during shuttle development"

Now you're just being silly. Should we include a line item line item in the calculation for Isaac Newton's efforts at determining the laws of motion? Utter nonsense.

But leaving out obvious costs like the design costs specifically for the shuttle itself is equally silly. We've spent $150 billion on the shuttle program, and it's had 115 launches. That's $1.3 billion per mission. End of story.

> "Umm. Cost accounting was done, however I doubt we are privy to the figures"

Correct cost accounting was *not* done for major Soviet military projects. In fact, such accounting was essentially impossible, due to the command nature of the Soviet economy. Ask any economist or defense analyst specializing in Soviet-era information.

> "So now we're comparing a series of moon missions...vs. not launching a crappy 500kg object into LEO orbit 3 times in a row, and building a snazzy website... Hmm.. Apt comparison, really"

Oops, in 1963, when NASA was as old as SpaceX is now, they hadn't launched a series of moon missions; they'd done nothing but launch a man into LEO for a day. Admittedly more than SpaceX has accomplished sure...but then NASA had not only several percent of the federal budget to work with, but the accumulated decades of knowledge from the best minds of the US (and German) military missile programs.

And yet you're still missing the point. No one is trying to compare the achievements, the glory, or the relative difficulty of the two programs. We're simply pointing out that, once private enterprise matures a bit more, it will be able to operate at a far lower cost structure than a government bureacracy. That's it.


RE: Leave it to the pros
By Darkskypoet on 8/5/2008 1:45:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Exactly. And when a private firm only five years old is already cost-competitive with the Russians


BUT THAT'S JUST IT!!! They are not cost competitive, as no launch of Falcon 9 has occurred, and no successful launch of Falcon 1 with a payload has either. Cost competitive means they are successful at doing so, until this point, they are simply advertising a service they have not, and so far can not, delivered. I can do that too, as can you.

Hell, considering that all the really expensive work has been done for SpaceX by other Space Agencies, they too virtually received a free design. (Again, you have to compare their limited R&D cost considering public domain knowledge, vs what NASA had to overcome. Any GOVERNMENT agency starting today would have a massively cheaper time of it then NASA in the 60's. China for a fraction of the investment of either the U.S or Soviet Union will put many of these private firms to shame.

quote:
But leaving out obvious costs like the design costs specifically for the shuttle itself is equally silly. We've spent $150 billion on the shuttle program, and it's had 115 launches. That's $1.3 billion per mission. End of story.


I disagree, that's not a 'true cost' of anything. Furthermore, source much? You're getting these figures from where?

Oh wait, but your incorrect again ... It's actually 123 launches, and counting...
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/missi...
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/shuttleoperati...

I think I've even found the article your quoting from...
http://www.space.com/news/shuttle_cost_050211.html

But they get the launch count wrong too. Funny that.

quote:
Correct cost accounting was *not* done for major Soviet military projects. In fact, such accounting was essentially impossible, due to the command nature of the Soviet economy. Ask any economist or defense analyst specializing in Soviet-era information.


Yeah I can see your point there, it's still possible to account for labour, resources, and capital inputs in the form of hours and goods, and then to construct a cost structure for the equivalents in other economies, but I can see your point there.

quote:
Oops, in 1963, when NASA was as old as SpaceX is now, they hadn't launched a series of moon missions; they'd done nothing but launch a man into LEO for a day. Admittedly more than SpaceX has accomplished sure...


But Masher, I am simply responding to your response from before:

quote:
Quite obviously, the statement intended to suggest a substantial percentage of GDP. Apollo at its height was consuming 4% of the total federal budget. Compared to that, the funding a company like SpaceX receives is incomparably insignificant.


"The total cost of the Apollo Program was $25 billion, spent between 1962 and 1972. The program is generally agreed to have been the supreme technological achievement of a millennium now drawing to a close, a unifying experience for the human race, and the beginning of
humanity's expansion into the universe."
http://www.ccsn.nevada.edu/planetarium/apollo.html
(Dollar figures in in 1969 dollars)

In 2000, $25,000,000,000.00 from 1969 is worth:
$117,398,418,325.61 using the Consumer Price Index
$95,591,327,954.73 using the GDP deflator
$117,611,598,862.37 using the value of consumer bundle
$120,454,633,238.84 using the unskilled wage
$178,911,879,761.17 using the nominal GDP per capita
$249,263,660,369.69 using the relative share of GDP

US GDP of 1969 (2000 dollars): $3765.4 Billion
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/Macroeconomics/

Masher come on.. get your facts straight!

So lets say we use $200 Billion for total cost of Apollo Program in 2000 Dollars Hmm.. The ENTIRE Apollo Program cost 5% of just 1969's US GDP. Not quite 4% of GDP /yr as you are rambling on about... to be generous we could say 0.05% of GDP/yr over its course. But still that's how many successful launches? Of how many space craft? Including moon missions for that price. Sure, in 1963 not much yet... 1972, after the spending you allege to occur each year, "during the height of the Apollo program"... NASA's not quite 0 for 3.

EDIT:

You refer to 4% of Federal Budget (My bad)

Federal spending 1969: $183.64 billion

In 2000, $183,640,000,000.00 from 1969 is worth:

$862,361,821,652.58 using the Consumer Price Index
$702,175,658,624.25 using the GDP deflator
$863,927,760,603.44 using the value of consumer bundle
$884,811,553,919.21 using the unskilled wage
$1,314,215,103,973.65 using the nominal GDP per capita
$1,830,991,143,611.62 using the relative share of GDP

Lets use 1,100 Billion for Federal Spending.
$150-200 Billion Cost of Apollo ENTIRE / 10

15-20 Billion/yr (2000 dollars)

15/1,100 = 1.36% of Federal Budget
20/1,100 = 1.82% of Federal Budget

Granted, still a lot of money. However in no way comparable to SpaceX what so ever. The comparison you make is completely ludicrous.


RE: Leave it to the pros
By Darkskypoet on 8/5/2008 1:45:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And yet you're still missing the point. No one is trying to compare the achievements, the glory, or the relative difficulty of the two programs.


Yes in fact you are. You are trying to compare the cost structure of doing something first, with doing something after all the 'heavy lifting' has been done. You compare NASA during early Apollo with SpaceX now. That's doing it!
You compare an overly complex shuttle program with a yet to be successfully launched Falcon 9. That's Doing it.

quote:
We're simply pointing out that, once private enterprise matures a bit more, it will be able to operate at a far lower cost structure than a government bureacracy. That's it.


See, and that is just it... Private enterprise gets to go in after the major spending, risk, etc has already occurred (or when completely underwritten by government). Massive risk with little pay off but pride and scientific achievement is a Market Failure situation. Even though Nasa had the predominantly German research to utilize, it still had to do far more work then SpaceX will ever have to do. Real expensive, risky, unprofitable work. Work that has also enriched private corporations all across the United States immensely.

NASA budgets helped to build McDonnell Douglas, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, etc. W/o those massive expenditures, private space firms would be in their infancy in the U.S, and the global firms would be kicking their as*es.

Private firms also have entrenched bureaucracies, especially those that are protected by gravy train contracts like those handed out ad nauseum by the U.S Government. Most of Nasa's spending indeed went to these private firms. The problem is that NASA doesn't get the patent income that should be derived from their spending, they are forced to tender contracts to an oligopoly that has no fear of being throttled for collusion, as long as everyone gets a chunk. They are also forced to build low quantities, and never realize economies of scale.

If NASA was able to accept foreign bids, and build massive quantities of devices instead of essentially giving that business away to the private firms it essentially enriched; NASA would be in a much different situation then today, and though not in the black, would certainly be deriving a hell of a lot more income from all its efforts then it does today.

Private firms are more efficient in this case, because they can get away with a lot more then an entity like NASA can, but in many cases (Especially the very large aerospace firms) are as inefficient, they are just able to profit more from government handouts, then the government departments / agencies can.

Small firms and start ups, are far more nimble then both large Private and Public enterprise. However, they tend to be unable to mount enough capital to do really big, really hard things. SpaceX is having problems boosting 500kg to LEO, never mind a Falcon 9 launch, or a Falcon 9 heavy. Size is a detriment to efficiency... Private, or Public. Yet lack of size is a detriment to doing really large scale projects. Small payload launches are dropping down in complexity / difficulty /logistical requirements to where small start ups are going to be able to start doing them, this is occurring. However, they are not more efficient at this then the larger companies, yet. They also don't have millions of shareholders that will f***ing lynch them if the fail as spectacularly as SpaceX has.

SpaceX's launches are going for that cheap, because if they were within a stones throw of Boeing, Arianne (sp?), or other larger firms (public or private), no one would risk their payload with them.

I don't know if you really know whether or not SpaceX actually could be making a profit on these first few launches, I seriously doubt they are. Perhaps on cost averaging after a few years consisting of many, many successful launches, they might start too. But I bet they are losing money on each launch (even if successful) and won't break even until their marginal costs drop via production increases in engines, and other components. Which means that their pricing for such an early stage is artificially low, and they are relying on debt financing, or long term investors to foot the initial losses. This of course is SOP, but bottom line is they have to get something into space for cash before they are a competitor to anyone.


RE: Leave it to the pros
By masher2 (blog) on 8/5/2008 2:24:31 PM , Rating: 2
> "They are not cost competitive, as no launch of Falcon 9 has occurred, and no successful launch of Falcon 1 with a payload has either..."

Are you willing to bet that none will? I'm willing to wager any sum you wish up to $1000 of my own money that SpaceX will succeed with Falcon 1 in two years time or less. How about it?

> " they too virtually received a free design"

Err, no. Falcon deviates in several ways from any previous launch platform. Arianespace's launches of Soyuz, on the other hand, are using a perfect clone of the old Soviet design.

> "I disagree, that's not a 'true cost' of anything"

Total costs / total missions = cost per mission. Nothing could possible be simpler. That's standard cost accounting, used by every major government and corporate body in the world.

> "Oh wait, but your incorrect again ... It's actually 123 launches, and counting...But they get the launch count wrong too."

Now you're just being childish again. The costs and launch count I quoted was current as of the end of 2006. The figures are not "wrong".



RE: Leave it to the pros
By Darkskypoet on 8/5/2008 3:54:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Are you willing to bet that none will? I'm willing to wager any sum you wish up to $1000 of my own money that SpaceX will succeed


Ok.. So they'll be cost competitive in a couple years then? Oh wait, for Falcon 1... No what about Falcon 9? Falcon 9 competes with Soyuz variants in use, Falcon 1 does not. What time frame for falcon 9?

I am not betting on anything. You stated they ARE cost competitive. Which they ARE NOT. In a few years time? Maybe, but in a few years time will Arianespace, having to compete in an already crowded market, shave costs? Yes. Considerably? Who knows... The Russian Space program, and resultant vehicles, are still well behind where they should of been, had it not been for the lost decade. They too will become cheaper, and offer heavier payload capacity.

So will Falcon 9 be Cost Competitive whenever they can actually use it to generate revenue? Maybe. We don't know.

quote:
Err, no. Falcon deviates in several ways from any previous launch platform. Arianespace's launches of Soyuz, on the other hand, are using a perfect clone of the old Soviet design.


Arianespace buys versions of the Soyuz platform from the Russians, as such they act as a middle man / front company (in a good way). Arianespace is in no way using a perfect clone of anything old. They buy / are supplied CURRENT Soyuz 2-1-a and 2-1-b launch platforms.

Really... Please look this crap up!

Falcon may deviate some, however again the majority of the work has been done for them.

"The pintle style injector at the heart of Merlin was first used in the Apollo Moon program for the lunar module landing engine, one of the most critical phases of the mission."

"The SpaceX nine engine architecture is an improved version of the architecture employed by the Saturn V and Saturn I rockets of the Apollo Program"

"BNI designed and manufactured the Merlin Turbopump for the SpaceX Falcon Launch Vehicle. The Merlin Engine produces more than 100,000 pounds of thrust at sea level and the turbopump is the lightest in its thrust class. Barber-Nichols used its experience gained on the Fastrac and Bantam projects to rapidly develop the Merlin Turbopump."

(Both Bantam and Fastrac were for NASA projects.)

You seriously must not get just how much of the ability for any small firm to build a rocket rests on the fact that these parts / technologies are now commoditized.

quote:
Total costs / total missions = cost per mission. Nothing could possible be simpler. That's standard cost accounting, used by every major government and corporate body in the world.


I still disagree that you are factoring anythings total cost in here. The equation is fine, but we fundamentally disagree on the nature of these projects total costs. That's ok too.

quote:
Now you're just being childish again. The costs and launch count I quoted was current as of the end of 2006. The figures are not "wrong".


Again? ok.. So you spout figures off without sources, they are incorrect as of the time you post them, you don't specify anything about current as of this date, or anything of that nature. Perhaps that is somewhat important to disclose...

However, yes. The figures are wrong, if not accurate, nor marked as only accurate up to x date. Besides, the amount you site for shuttle costs includes equipment not at all necessary for the lifting missions which was your original comparison. As we already agree that the comparison was ludicrous when you made it, it hardly matters now that you stacked the figures in your favour... Does it? Besides, we've also already agreed that the shuttle was a hugely expensive project, and a drain on Nasa's budget. However, I think perhaps we can agree that as a technical achievement, its still pretty f***ing neat, and not at all comparable in anyway shape or form with Falcon launch vehicles.


RE: Leave it to the pros
By masher2 (blog) on 8/5/2008 4:24:14 PM , Rating: 2
> "I still disagree that you are factoring anythings total cost in here. The equation is fine, but we fundamentally disagree on the nature of these projects total costs."

Disagree all you want; the figures are from NASA's own official budget requests.

> "Again? ok.. So you spout figures off without sources..."

Here you go:

http://www.space.com/news/shuttle_cost_050211.html

> "...are incorrect as of the time you post them."

Again, you're being rather childish here. Any program which has ongoing costs will have its values continually changing. The figures I gave were correct through the end of 2006.

Feel free to toss in the 2007 and 6 months of 2008 data....the per-mission cost isn't going to change appreciably. This is all just a smokescreen for you to avoid addressing the real point here, which is the space shuttle has been a extraordinarily costly boondoggle that never lived up to its original design goals.

> " Arianespace is in no way using a perfect clone of anything old. They buy / are supplied CURRENT Soyuz "

You misunderstand my statement Arianespace is using a clone of the Soyuz launch system, which is based on a decades-old Soviet ICBM design. They aren't modifying the design in any way.

SpaceX, on the other hand, is developing new rocket, fairings, and even engine/nozzle designs. They're springboarding off existing knowledge, yes, but they're adding substantially to it.

> "I am not betting on anything"

Doesn't sound like you have a lot of faith in your position.


RE: Leave it to the pros
By Darkskypoet on 8/5/2008 5:25:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Disagree all you want; the figures are from NASA's own official budget requests.


Actually this is not in any way what relevant to the discussion of any projects total costs. The shuttle project could not have occurred for its cost without Apollo, which in turn is not really happening without other space projects, etc.

The idea of 'Total Cost' is a philosophical difference of opinion, I don't dispute NASA's figures on what is line item attributed to the shuttle program. Get over it.

quote:
Here you go: http://www.space.com/news/shuttle_cost_050211.html


Yeah, I know... I actually supplied your source a few posts higher. As well, in my last post I also stated that we could agree the shuttle was exceptionally expensive. However, it also does what no other space craft can do. sometimes that's expensive. Necessary? Probably not. Pretty f***ing cool? Yeah, yeah it is.

quote:
You misunderstand my statement Arianespace is using a clone of the Soyuz launch system, which is based on a decades-old Soviet ICBM design. They aren't modifying the design in any way.


No.. actually I do not... They are buying said platform from the creators of said platform. Further it is based on a decades old ICBM design in much the same way that a current Ford Sedan is based on the Model T.

The Soyuz platform to be used by Arianespace is the latest edition of the Soyuz platform which easily differs from many of the older variants in as much as the SpaceX falcon differs from many of its forerunners. Hell most of the design is based off of modified parts funded by NASA. Yes Merlin is 'new', but is based off Apollo parts and other previously built and utilized components.

Clone implies that Ariennespace is building a copy of the Russian Soyuz, it is not a clone when its the actual product, still built by the original manufacturers. Albeit under a different name, in the post soviet Russian space apparatus.

quote:
> "I am not betting on anything" Doesn't sound like you have a lot of faith in your position.


Wow... Just wow... That's all you can come back with? Masher you went from stating so bluntly that SpaceX is cost competitive to this tripe? Obviously they are not cost competitive, and haven't delivered a single payload period.

Why would I bet you anything based on them becoming cost competitive within 2 years, when your claim was them being cost competitive now?

A Falcon 9 is supposed to launch with a paying customer's payload sometime in Q4 2008 / Q1 2009. Considering they haven't gotten a Falcon 1 into LEO with a payload, how confident do you think that customer is that their payload will make it?

You say maybe up to 2 years for Falcon 1, what bout Falcon 9? 6 months enough time? And if it blows to pieces, while the other private firms continue to launch with a much higher success rate, what then? How many more failures before they lose even more customers? How much higher do you think their insurance costs are now? We both know insurance isn't charity Masher.


RE: Leave it to the pros
By masher2 (blog) on 8/5/2008 6:14:47 PM , Rating: 1
> "The idea of 'Total Cost' is a philosophical difference of opinion"

Shuck and jive all you want: when you spend $150 billion to pay for 113 launches, the per-launch cost is roughly $1.3B.

> "No.. actually I do not... They are buying said platform from the creators of said platform. "

You're still trying to claim some sort of parity between what Ariane has done -- which is buy a completed launch system from someone else -- to SpaceX, who has designed their own rocket, using both existing and new technology. The two cases aren't comparable, plain and simple.

> "A Falcon 9 is supposed to launch with a paying customer's payload sometime in Q4 2008 / Q1 2009...how confident do you think that customer is that their payload will make it?"

It doesn't matter. If they don't make the deadline, the customer will be reimbursed costs plus damages. SpaceX is still selling a service that is cost-competitive with other launch services.

> "How much higher do you think their insurance costs are now? We both know insurance isn't charity Masher"

What does this have to do with anything? SpaceX is bearing those costs. Until and unless they begin to raise their rates beyond those of other launch services, the issue of how much they pay for insurance is moot.


RE: Leave it to the pros
By Darkskypoet on 8/5/2008 6:49:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Shuck and jive all you want: when you spend $150 billion to pay for 113 launches, the per-launch cost is roughly $1.3B.


Yes, for launches, launch pads, robotics, airframes, manufacturing facilities, all related technology, etc, etc, etc. Something to ponder here, as this technology gets reused, spun off, sold, etc do we then get to start reducing the cost per launch? Or do you simply close it off and disregard future benefits outside the realm of 'just x launches'?? I am curious, as they got far more then 'just x launches' for their money. (And for the 4th or 5th time, yes it was a lot of f***ing money. Most going to fund domestic private aerospace firms.)

quote:
You're still trying to claim some sort of parity between what Ariane has done -- which is buy a completed launch system from someone else -- to SpaceX, who has designed their own rocket, using both existing and new technology. The two cases aren't comparable, plain and simple.


No I am not. In fact I started talking about Soyuz, you started talking about Arianespace. Arianespace is a consortium and as such is much more like the massive American firms in nature, then a small start up like SpaceX.

I am comparing a suitable competitor to SpaceX's lifting platform... One that works. At least in my comparison of Falcon 9 and Soyuz 2 launch platforms, they are both privately for hire, and more comparable then NASA, SpaceX, the shuttle or Falcon anything. Besides, again, Soyuz 2 works, falcon 1 and 9 do not as of yet. I also mentioned the Delta platform, another competitor to Falcon 9, however you seem to like strategically ignoring things like that I've noticed.

quote:
It doesn't matter. If they don't make the deadline, the customer will be reimbursed costs plus damages. SpaceX is still selling a service that is cost-competitive with other launch services.


No they aren't as they have been unable to provide the service even once. Sorry, but its not a cost competitive offering of a service until they actually provide said service. Heck, even if they succeeded once, I'd totally grant you that it was a cost competitive offering. But they haven't, so its merely somewhat false advertising at this point. They have no proof that they can successfully deliver a payload as of yet. You know this as well as I do. Will they one day? Sure as long as people keep up with the huge 'investments'.

quote:
What does this have to do with anything? SpaceX is bearing those costs. Until and unless they begin to raise their rates beyond those of other launch services, the issue of how much they pay for insurance is moot.


It isn't moot, because it directly impacts their bottom line, which with a private firm completely impacts their ability to operate, eventually fulfill launch contracts, and survive. Also, just curious as I don't feel like digging for it, but do you have source that indicates who pays for payload insurance? Or is it just SOP that once safely delivered to SpaceX their insurance takes over? I mean its not as if launches aren't exceptionally risky. Further, is it even insured for full value? or does SpaceX cover a fairly large portion of the cost of payload if things go bad? I am sure it makes a car insurance deductible look tiny.

Even worse then rising insurance costs, is the inability to find a firm that will underwrite the endeavour, this would be a far greater concern, and is a definite possibility if they don't enjoy regular successes soon.


"I f***ing cannot play Halo 2 multiplayer. I cannot do it." -- Bungie Technical Lead Chris Butcher

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki