Parachutes don't allow you to perform a precision landing. VTOL rocketry lets you go where you want when you're coming back. You can land in a patch a few square meters in size. Parachutes can only achieve a few hundred square meters accuracy at best.

There is a huge advantage to a VTOL rocket. Obviously the goal here is reusability, but imagine being able to land your rocket back at the very same launch pad it launched from. Do a quick inspection, refuel, launch again. Won't be that simple, but that's the idea. They are actively interested in VTOL, that's the goal of Grasshopper.

The reason this is so much more attractive than a lifting body is that you're taking a lot less extra weight with you every time. The space shuttle was extremely heavy empty, a fair chunk of launch thrust was just launching the shuttle itself, not payloads or the people. So, in short, landing legs and some extra control hardware weigh a lot less than aerobodies and control surfaces. You want to be spending your fuel and thrust on the payload, not the weight of the rocket itself.

I remember when Spore was supposed to be THE big game. I never played it, anyone know what happened (besides EA)?

Haha, pretty much. Wish I could mod/upvote your comment.

Really, do you have evidence for that, or are you just saying that because you don't like them for whatever reason?

Dragon capsules are reusable, however, NASA has specifically contracted new capsules for every resupply mission. There's nothing stopping SpaceX from reusing the capsules for other missions, however. I know the demo 1 capsule, that performed a few orbits before returning, and demo 2 capsule, the first to berth with ISS, are both hanging outside mission control at the SpaceX headquarters in Hawthorne, CA.

I've always referred to them as semi-trucks, I guess in this case I would mean the large 53ft trailer. Could argue the truck part (or lorry for the British), is the rocket.

If it's so insanely expensive and difficult, then why is SpaceX working on just that, a reusable rocket? The pie-in-the-sky has always been a readily reusable rocket. That was the idea behind the shuttle. Didn't work out so well, but that was the idea.

Why do you disagree? Not looking to argue, just curious.

Orbital Sciences' Cygnus freighter is one time use, so throwaway. Don't understand all the throwaway freighters, it's like throwing away your semi-truck after every shipment.

Do you really think that SpaceX developed all of Falcon 9 with just $248M? That also covers Falcon-1. SpaceX spent around $500 million through the first launch of Falcon 9. Rockets are expensive. I'm pretty sure if NASA could have developed a rocket for $250 million they would have done it a long time ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacex#Funding

You do realize that a fair chunk of the development cost was paid by SpaceX. NASA subsidized the development of Falcon 9 and Dragon, but only with set payments when set milestones had been achieved, they didn't just write a blank check and say 'go build us a rocket!'. Read up on the COTS (round 1 and round 2) and CCDev programs before spewing disinformation.

The $133.3M/flight also includes the cost of the Dragon capsule and associated services and whatnot. $54M for a Falcon 9 launch is only for the rocket and associated services. NASA is paying for a lot more than just a rocket launch. In the end it's still a lot cheaper than a shuttle launch.

DNA sequencing is becoming faster and cheaper at a pace far outstripping Moore's law.

Moore's law, or rather Moore's observation, has absolutely nothing to do with performance and everything to do with the number of transistors. For the love of deity of your choice, will they stop using it regarding performance? Simply mentioning something computer related doesn't make the writer look smarter. Yes, an increase in the number of transistors can see an increase in performance but it isn't guranteed. Eg. Bulldozer

Hey Tesla Tank, I raced on the Michigan team in the 2007 WSC, were you there?

I'd love to go back to Australia and follow the race...