They are required to get the landing at sea done first, prior to being allowed to land back at kennedy.
Most likely, NASA will require at least several sea landings.

In addition, the FH will likely land at sea with most of their center core. That one will be pretty far out there.

Here is a guy that says that he wants to attack America, and then goes on to plan it, including buying the goods and then finally down to the wire.
And yet, you say that he was entrapped. Seriously?

IF the FBI surrounded him with ppl that told him what to do and how to do it, and encouraged him, THAT IS ENTRAPMENT.
But, it remains to be seen as to whether that was the case. And to be fair, I suspect that the FBI KNOWS the difference between entrapment and simply following what a home-grown terrorists is up to.

who said that he was an internet tough guy?
If he was pushing for attacks on America/the west, then he was a terrorists, which he has proven just that.

I am guessing that you are calling Dragon Apollo, and not comparing F9/FH to Saturn.
So, when did Apollo Capsule ever land on land without parachutes?
When did Apollo Capsule every land on the moon or mars?
Dragon V2 will be doing all 3 within another 7 years.

Actually, they do.
Until Bruno came along, ULA was ran like a normal DOD-funded company. Top heavy, with loads of profits going up the ladder.
And yes, corners WERE cut. That is why both Boeing and L-Mart had real partial failures on Delta, and Atlas.

In fact, Musk has said numerous times that it is not worth going after the second stage, at least at this time.
He is focused on F9R/Grasshopper, FH, Dragon V2, MCT, along with the new satellite system.

I have to wonder what would happen if a launch fails at this moment. I suspect that with so many pokers in the fire, he would have a difficult time recovering.
OTOH, if SpaceX can get up to 12 launches this year, and get FH, along with F9R successful, I suspect that it is all blue sky from here on in.

Note that the software to make F9R work will be the same software, with a little bit different parms, for the Dragon V2.
Basically, the V2's testings for landing will happen quickly and I would guess smoothly after F9R.

Actually, it costs 125 million JUST FOR EACH SRB.
The last just launch costs of the shuttle was over .5B, which did not include the checks and re-work that was needed after each flight (which was NOT minor), nor the fixed costs. With fixed costs, along with the prep works, each shuttle was over 1.5B.

Derek, it is NOT unknown as to what it will cost them to refurbish. As it is, SpaceX has been re-flying first stage for a long time already. It is called the grasshopper. The reason why it took so long between flights is that they were looking at various parts, disassembling, etc.

Note that when Musk talked about landing with parachutes he had not tested anything. With this, he has tested ALL OF IT, except for the fact that he has not gone to 60 miles on each of the grasshoppers. With SpacePort America, he is allowed to go a great ways up there.

ULA has multiple projects going on. That includes they are working on developing re-use, which includes landing the first stage.
Bruno's ideal goal is to not change things, but he is keeping options open on the future. Interestingly, he is working hard to CLOSE the use of delta since Atlas makes more profits for them. Of course, he is fighting for the 1B/year subsidy as well. Hopefully, that is stopped, and ULA is forced to simply go with delta until their new launch system is developed. That will encourage Bruno to go with re-usable, and not EELVs.

The only way for ULA to drop their prices is to move away from EELVs to reusable. The good news is that Bruno is pushing EELVs but leaving backdoors for otherwise. ULA is quietly working on developing the same tech as SpaceX.

actually, skylon is too late to the party. The reason is that the FASTEST that it will be available would be another 10 years, or 2025. By then, MCT will be flying regularly.
OTOH, Dream Chaser, combined with a reusable lift vehicle, does make sense for simple human transport.

Your approach did NOT work for us. That is why we lost 2 shuttles and it was so expensive.
I will say that SNC's DC makes good sense for transporting humans to/from earth's surface (lower Gs), but for cargo? Nope.
However, the real drawback is that not only must you take up extra weight for wings, landing gears, etc., but these will not work on the moon or mars and Musk wants this to work on all of these locations. And in the end, as musk is showing, these can land just fine on Earth. In addition, it can do it cheaply.

Fair enough.
I will agree that there will be some issues on how to charge. However, I have NO doubt that it will be solved within a year after the Model 3 is out. The reason is that Model 3 will force ALL major car makers to jump on EVs. In addition, I suspect that the Tesla's SC network, combined with the battery swap, will suddenly look pretty good to them. But, all of the car makers, along with utilities, will want night-time charging so that they do not have to compete directly against Tesla.

In general, those that live in the cities either have garage parking or do not have cars.
Now, there is curb parking but again, not a big deal. All new homes are typically required by state laws to have parking for at least 1 car, if not several. It is trivial to plug-in to the house with a 240 v.
And at some point, charging companies are going to get smart and put more electrical hookups at restaurants instead of hotels.

How do you get electric costing $10?
First, Tesla gets 250 MPC for the 85 KWH pack. Assuming that you fully charge it, it will be around 100KWH to do so (efficiency losts).
So, here in America, nighttime electric costs is around .06 / kwh. As such, this is less than $6 to go 250 Miles.

Now, gas costs 2/gal today but will go up. However, that means that you pay $25/for the 250 miles. However, note that it does not include oil, gas car maintenance, etc. So, that is minor, however, over 2 years, and at least 25,000 miles, the electricity will be 600, while the gas will be 2500. Starts to add up and that was with gas at 2/gas. Within a year, we will be back to 3 or 4. At that point, gas for the 2 years, will be 3800-5000, which is quite the uptick vs. the 600.

Finally, coal is currently 36% of America's electricity. Due to W's mercury regulations, coal will be below 33, probably 30% by 2018. Now, add on the push to drop emissions, esp. CO2, and I think that we will see coal be less than 25% of America's electricity by 2020.