CSA will do what they have done in all other industries: subsidize and dump their launch on foreign markets.

There are plenty of old oil platforms the to east of Florida as well.

Plenty of old stationary oil rigs are out there. Simply buy one out there. If none are in the area, then put one up.

Hmmm. Just re-read the MCT stuff. Yeah, I have to wonder where that will happen at, esp. since they are planning on multiple engines.

I am fully aware of where they are sending back the first stage for testing.
BUT, I suspect that it makes economic sense, to instead, land them on an oil rig and then barge them back, Since stopping their forward momentum will take a lot of fuel.

Seriously, wtf is up with people thinking that they should get everything they want all the time?

That's what we call 'entitlement'. It's the confusion of cause and effect when applied to societal systems.

I don't know if this is nuts. I'd have to see the full arguments on both sides, and so far what we have to go on is a one-sided summary.

If the *only* effect of the proposed regulation would be to increase beer prices, then sure, I agree with you 100%: government is being stupid. But if there's a good reason for the regulation, then I'd disagree with you.

Reading the article, it seems like the idea that this regulation will cause beer prices to spike dramatically seems a bit alarmist. The regulations would require brewers who send waste to farmers as animal feed to keep records. It seems hard to believe that this would significantly raise the price of beer or whiskey given that alcohol production is already highly regulated. On the other hand, it seems like there is no specific concern related to breweries. They were just caught up in a law that was meant to address animal feed.

If you want an example of a regulation free utopia, look no further than China, where adulteration of the food chain is a common problem. If the choice were a regulatory regime that slightly complicates brewers lives, and a regime that allows melamine and cyanuric acid into human food, I'd live with higher beer prices.

Fortunately, we don't have to live with either extreme. We can regulate food adulteration and write exceptions into the regulations for situations that pose little risk. Since presumably the ingredients used in brewing are regulated to be safe for human consumption, the byproducts of brewing are likely to pose no risk in the human food chain.

Can boken be overdone? Sure. A 1mm think depth of field is overdoing it, but so is shooting at f/16 everywhere. But even a thin DoF and the right can result in some magical results

Just because you know what you're talking about, and we're among friends:

It's bokeh, with an 'h'. And it refers to the character of the blur, not the blur itself. If you've got an image, say f/3.4, a hipster might say "nice bokeh" to you, but he means that you have a good lens, not that you've selected a good aperture. And then he might also suggest you make a "glisse" print. ;)

And, of course, shallow depth of field is a huge fad, and there's an entire generation of kids who won't ever be able to tell where they were in any of their childhood pictures. *That* will seem very "early 21st century" in a couple decades.

What you said doesn't contradict what I said. What you're actually asking is that Manning provide the evidence that Levin *should have had* when he was running off his mouth. This is punishing Manning for trying to defend himself through the only legal means available to him.

I say - if you're running off your mouth about lies for which you have no evidence then you're just as guilty of libel whether or not what you say is true. Or at least should be discouraged. Otherwise that gives me the ability to go running around slandering others as a way of forcing disclosure of whatever I want (transactions, proprietary data, sex tapes, etc.).

Referring to Tesla, not SpaceX.

And just like the German head of Airbus had it wrong about SpaceX, MB now has Tesla wrong.

cooler? Perhaps. Cheaper and more profitable? Not likely if they are getting only say 10 re-uses.

considering that fuel is less than 1/4 of a million $, if they can land the first stage, either on land or an old oil rig, AND can get 10 launches from it, they will save 1/3 of their costs. And that is just for the first stage.

Knowing SpaceX, they will cut their price by at least 1/6, so that they pick up just about everything flying, and make increased profits to put into more R&D.

Exactly right.

Hopefully, later on, they will put it on an oil rig, rather than taking it all the way back to land. That will allow a lot more payload.

Anybody that thinks that they will land this on a barge is kidding themselves. SpaceX has never said that, or hinted at that.

I seriously doubt that spaceX has ANY intention of landing on barges. They move too much. Instead, an old oil rig would make far more sense.