In the F9R test videos they catch some of the backscatter from the engine and seem to catch fire. Maybe they were trying to avoid that. They are very light carbon composite. Or perhaps they mess up the airstream for precision navigation, or they don't like the 250 m/s wind.

It looked to me that the barge was structurally undamaged but that some heavy equipment on the deck was forcibly ejected. It's clear to see in the HD version. Those 1000 HP thrusters are expensive, and it looked to me like one of them going overboard. But I suspect they were prepared to lose more than one vessel in testing this.

And I bet there was a range safety self-destruct charge onboard. F9R blew itself up with one. But it was probably so safe that it didn't go off.

I understand the logic though whether or not it is a sensible decision depends heavily on how much you paid.

That is actually quite sensible. 2% interest is darn close to free money so I think that is a smart decision to finance given that you didn't actually have to. I would have strongly considered doing the same thing.

True but a lot of people buy far more expensive cars than they really can justify if they are being objective about it. A good example is pickup trucks. Ford and GM make the majority of their profits from large trucks with terrible gas mileage. The prices for these vehicles is much higher than their utility to the buyers would justify AND very few of the buyers actually utilize the full capabilities of the vehicle. Yet people buy droves of $30-50K+ F150 pickups. They do it for self image and because they can rather than because it is an objectively sensible decision.

Remember the reporters asking what was holding DC-X up? They couldn't see the rocket exhaust.

I sneaked inside of the Rotary Rocket the last time I was in Mojave. Someone left the bottom hatch ajar. But there wasn't a way to climb up to the cockpit from in there. Lots of pigeon droppings and it's used to hold the equipment for the multimedia kiosk nearby. Sad to see.

Which is the exception that proves the rule. How many CEOs do you see arguing FOR an increase in minimum wage? They could voluntarily do it but very few actually do. CEO pay has increased FAR more than the average pay of the workers lower down so any argument that CEOs will decide to en-mass increase wages is pretty much delusional.

And most will choose not to of their own free will. That's the problem. If we made taxes optional, how many people do you think would pay? If we eliminated work safety rules do you think best practices would be followed? Real freedom isn't the absence of rules and obligations because society cannot function without them. Real freedom is being able to have a meaningful say in what those rules and obligations are and should be. Real freedom isn't depending on the beneficence of a single CEO deciding one day to be a nice guy.

Tell you what. Take a trip to Europe sometime. The EU is by many measures the largest economy in the world. The standard of living in most of the EU is quite high compared to much of the rest of the world. Most governments in the EU have what is generally acknowledged to be a somewhat socialist ideology - certainly in comparison to the USA. And yet they have good health care, good GDP per-capita, world class businesses and manufacturing and art and sport, and are among the most successful societies on the globe politically, economically, militarily and socially. All while "socializing" certain aspects of their society and what do you know, it works if you don't take it to the extreme of communism.

Here's the point of all that. We ALL depend on each other. You can argue about how much sharing is a good thing but you cannot argue that all sharing can be optional. It simply will not work. Some folks simply are more willing to acknowledge this fact than others. You can argue about how much sharing is a net benefit to society but the argument Socialism = Bad is just stupid. EVERY society has some amount of socialism to it and it cannot be otherwise.

I learned an important lesson from Open Source, and it applies to SpaceX too: Things work a lot better if you just give the engineers the freedom to do engineering.

I think that in government projects and in most larger companies we tend to devalue the technical people in favor of the nontechnical. And we don't give them much power to actually run things. And then we wonder why efficiency is so low.

It has certainly given me ideas for how to run my own company.

Every civilized country engages in socialism. The only difference is in the degree to which they do it. A society which does not will rapidly fall apart. If you have a job it is because a lot of other people worked very hard to make it possible - even if you work for yourself. We require people pay taxes and minimum wages and other things because it benefits us all. While you can take it too far, we're certainly in no danger of that here in the US.

Liberals understand that the real world isn't a place where we can afford to pretend we don't depend on each other. Share a little and everyone benefits. It is possible to both share too little and share too much. Personally I think the sharing too little is the worse of the two options.

Yes, but what engine were they flying in F9R and Grasshopper? Both of those were lighted up for the entire flight and didn't bounce around.

I guess that's fine as long as you know your car is badly under-performing what is possible.

Could not disagree more. I've owned cars from that era and grew up driving cars from the 70s and 80s, both foreign and domestic. They were mostly total crap compared to what is available today. If you got 100,000 miles out of a car from the early 80s you were doing well. American cars in particular from that time were almost universally crap with terrible reliability, terrible fuel economy, poor handling and ridiculously poor construction and build quality. "Knew how to make good cars in 1982"? Don't make me laugh.

That mostly means that people are buying high priced cars that they cannot actually afford and probably don't actually need. There is seldom any reason for most people to actually buy a new car. They depreciate like milk and mostly what you get for a new car is pride of new ownership. 60 months financing? That means you should be buying something else. Personally I haven't financed a car purchase in the last 15 years and baring economic catastrophe I don't plan to start. Financing a car (new or used) should be a last resort. It's a terrible use of money. Anyone who finances a car with 60+ month terms is almost certainly making a dumb financial decision.

The reason car electronics cost so much is that they don't sell very many of them, relatively speaking. Even cars that sell very well will only sell a few hundred thousand units per year and the design cycles are at least for a 4-8 year production run minimum. Electronics advances WAY faster than car companies can keep up with. The GPS in my truck (a 2009 model) is laughably obsolete albeit still useful. My company makes a part for a backup camera for one of the big US auto makers and the volumes simply aren't enough to get huge economies of scale even at a few hundred thousand a year. Plus they often do stupid stuff like design the parts to use custom connectors instead of off the shelf ones that would cost far less.

Frankly the auto makers should let the consumer electronics firms integrate their stuff into cars to handle the GPS, entertainment, telephony, etc. The car should provide the screen and an interface but let people bring their own electronics to the party. The auto makers just aren't good at it and don't do enough of it to ever realize economies of scale AND their design/production cycles are far too long. What should happen is that I should be able to take my phone into any car and have to car and the phone work together seamlessly.

Debt is a bit like nuclear power. It can be a powerful force for good or evil and you don't want to get any on you if you can avoid it. Some debt is fine and potentially very useful but that doesn't mean one should use debt financing just because one can. I could go out and finance a Tesla Model S tomorrow but that doesn't make it a good idea. Debt is a powerful tool and like most powerful tools if you don't know how to handle it then you are likely to get yourself in trouble.

The data isn't backing you up on a macro-economic level. Unemployment right now is around 5-6% in most of the US which is historically a pretty normal amount. While there is some nuance to that number the facts don't bear out your assertion that "jobs are going oversease" any more than they ever have. As for jobs not being created fast enough here, that's a reasonable assertion to a degree but how fast is "fast enough" for you?

The final approach is at 250 m/s. If I have this right, they'd be going about that fast if they started falling from zero velocity at 3 KM, ignoring air resistance. So, whatever parachute you use has to get you much lower and slower than that, and so precisely positioned above the barge that you can do the rest on the rocket.

Now, ULA plans to revive the Rogalo Wing from Gemini and combine it with the mid-air retreival from Corona, so this might not be completely absurd.

Sorry.

I guess then you were not so lucky as to have rocket scientists in the family. I guess I'm not unlike many techies my age, whose dads worked in aerospace. My dad worked on the lunar module at Grumman. My father in law worked in the blue cube for Lockheed.

People think of me an the Open Source guy. But I have been getting space spoon-fed to me since before first grade.

It's still slowing down during the last rocket length. That is really cutting it close, yes. I think the goal is to use an absolutely minimal fuel expenditure. The current configuration is not capable of landing after a GTO insertion. When they were considering doing the test for the DISCOVR flight, they were not going to have enough fuel for the normal recovery sequence, and were planning to delete the subsonic decel burn and come up to the barge at 1 KPS rather than the leisurely 250 m/s.