no, that comes later, just before MECO, and it's not to reduce dynamic pressure, it's to keep the G-forces on the payload from getting too high as the rocket loses weight (by burning fuel/oxidizer) and accelerates faster. the new F9 1.1 (yet to fly) has engine throttling capability and is supposed to throttle down around Max-Q (F9 v1 can't do that, no throttle capability) and before MECO, instead of shutting down engines.

this was definitely an unexpected problem with either the engine or the fairing around it.

that said, the rocket coped amazingly well given the spectacular loss of an engine... adjusted and compensated in real time and ended up dropping Dragon off within 2km of the target.

no, it's exactly the same size capsule. just replaced cargo racks with seats, controls, windows, environmental controls.

all that information is from a presentation by a (now) former SpaceX employee which was disavowed by the company as 'paper plans'. there's no evidence either way that any of that stuff is in progress.

the 'failed Soyuz docking attempts' (there was only one) was a result of the cash strapped Russians trying to dock *without* the automated systems (actually - they were turned off, as a test, to see if they could save money in future by not having them).

docking is easier because (a) the vehicle approaches along the V-bar and (b) the vehicle is aiming to contact a target, with some tolerance.

berthing requires (for the ISS) approaching from the R-bar, which is much harder, and also must rendezvous with a precise point in free space, ready to be grappled. it also requires a skilled robot arm operator, and doesn't allow the vehicle to be used for crew, because it cannot unberth itself without robot arm assistance.

berthing is *harder* than docking. they are doing it this way because it is a cargo transport, and the berthing ports are much larger than the docking ports.

if/when Dragon starts carrying people, it will dock.

the problem is you can't just 'fix' TCP. even if you make it work with both IPv4 TCP and IPv6 TCP, you're still missing the other protocols out there (SCTP, UDP, etc, etc), and more importantly, can NEVER fix protocols that are being encrypted (ie TCP inside VPN packets). the protocols that you aren't 'fixing' will just continue barging their way through.

the only workable solution is to drop packets and assume the protocols themselves will adjust (which they will, if they are working correctly, and if they're not working correctly.. they'll be penalized with a lot of dropped packets).

dropping packets is unpleasant, because it is wasting bandwidth, and causing TCP stalls.. but ECN barely works because half the routers out there drop or mangle it, so it's the only solution.

no, it's specifically aimed at conventional weapons, not nuclear. the point is NOT to send an ICBM, because doing so tends to make our Russian or Chinese friends get all retaliatory (even if it's not nuclear tipped.. how do they know?) - instead this thing would fly through the atmosphere and deliver a conventional payload.

it's intended to be a very, very fast cruise missile, with the objective of being able to hit any point on the planet in an hour or less.

that video is over three years old, and quite a lot has changed since then.

for example: they show an escape tower being jettisoned - there isn't going to be one now, SpaceX are working through NASA sponsored milestones to design and build a 'built in' launch abort system, which they also plan on using for landing at a later date (ie: no dunking in the sea).

they are also working on designs for crew cabin (again, part sponsored by NASA). that's what the original posting is talking about - a step in that process.

I definitely wouldn't take that video as gospel for how the piloting systems will look.

the major reason none of the web servers support multiplexed fastcgi is that none of the fastcgi servers support it (ie PHP etc).

that said, there is a third party module for nginx to provide multiplexed fastcgi.. ie comes with demo fastcgi servers to test with.

https://github.com/rsms/afcgi

that site seems to be getting hammered... try this cached copy:

http://www.free-photos.biz/photographs/science/astronomy/67895_c_venera09_processed.php

I have a counterpoint:

http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/J2X/posts/post_1297869180794.html

this is a duct for the J2-X rocket engine, produced using Direct Metal Laser Sintering (3D printed metal, in other words). it has to operate at insane temperatures and pressures... and it does, perfectly.

they are cleaned, polished, given a new coat of paint and some new gaskets. a new wiring harness and modern electronics.. fired on a test stand to make sure they don't explode (and apparently a third of the NK-33s WILL explode when used.. without some fixes. that's why Taurus is delayed). but they are definitely not 'brand new'. none of those engines has been built new in decades.

the whole topic of discussion was about the price of *fuel*. which is insignificant compared to the rocket, engines, electronics, and payload. of course the cost of the engines makes a difference. a single engine costs ten or more times the fuel and oxidizer..

this would be the (one of) the reasons SpaceX designed a relatively simple, cheap to make, engine. it's not as efficient as the Soviet-era engines, but it's just as cheap, and can be mass produced now. that means you need to use more fuel. but guess what? the cost of the extra fuel is basically a rounding error.

for the upper stage, I absolutely agree with you - efficiency is king. but Soviet-era engines are not the best choice for that... a super high ISP kerolox engine is still 30% worse than an average hydrolox engine.

because they are cheap? they were built with Soviet labor, then left in warehouses to rot. found and sold to the US in the 90s for pennies on the dollar. they are VERY good engines.. but that's NOT why they're being used.

efficiency is only terribly useful for a rocket in a vacuum. that's why they're rebuilding the J2 for upper stage work (and even it's not particularly good).for first stages you need thrust. that's why the shuttle and the proposed Aries-V (cough) SLS needs expensive, dangerous solid rocket boosters strapped to it, because it's using hydrogen fueled engines which are good at ISP but not as good at thrust. Saturn-V used kerolox for the first stage for a very good reason. high thrust, not so good ISP.

fuel (and oxidizer) is a TINY percentage of the cost of a rocket launch - usually less than 1% of the cost of the launch. launch vehicles are never optimized for fuel economy - they are optimized for performance above all else.

they are reusing components from the shuttle because they are still (just) available. components from Saturn V (engines, mostly) would do a far better job, but they haven't been built in decades and couldn't be reproduced for a sensible amount of money. NASA is half way through a project to reproduce a J-2 engine for the new vehicle's upper stage (the same engine was used for Saturn V upper stages 50 years ago), and it's cost a VERY large amount of money to get as far as they have.

there is also a huge dollop of politics and pork involved. re-using shuttle components keeps existing contractors (and jobs), rather than causing uncomfortable restructuring and job losses right before an election year.