The problem with the recovery of the boosters (for the Shuttle) was that it was almost as expensive to re-use them as to make new ones from scratch. By using a liquid fuel rocket and landing it on solid earth SpaceX will have a lot less work to do to refurbish the first stage of the Falcon 9.
In an area with good over the air reception the signal is not compressed heavily as it is over cable. Here, Comcast is the worst, followed by the satellite services. FIOS has the least compression but I still see it on some fast moving stuff.
Over the air can be as good (to me) as BluRay.
I think that is what needs to be worked out by testing.
While the FAA is probably not going to allow any of this, 300' would be too high as helicopters can be in that zone.
If the FAA were to approve it (which they wont), it would have to be at a low height like 50' or less, limited weight, lots of safety features, human observation, not allowed in winds and probably a ton of things I have not thought of.
One could make a foam covered, enclosed fan drone that could do the job that would do little (but not zero) damage if it failed. The problem is that it would still weigh something and could in a failure fall uncontrolled into anything.
Why is this at all surprising? We know how HIV works and that it can hide in cells. So when someone is 'cleared' of it you can never be sure. The longer the drugs are taken increases the chances of clearing any dormant HIV (when it emerges). One can statistically figure out the best time to stop the treatment and many people could be free from reinfection for life but it is not a 100% certainty.
The only news is that a mother stopped the drugs too early.
500 helicopters that are not quite as good as the cheaper ones we already had.
GM management wanted the closures, not the government because their business DID NOT SUPPORT all of the extra dealers. GM's sales were down to almost half of what they were and they still had almost all of the dealers. They definitely needed to downsize the network.
Basically you made the whole political angle up to serve your petty DEM vs REP crap.
The margins are huge. Part of the thing dealers love is preying on people who just don't know about buying a car. Either a full sticker priced sale, or dealer add ons that are insane such as $2000 running boards are a great way to make money off a sucker. Just one item like that can be much more then the normal profit made on a car.
It took me a week to buy my last vehicle. I felt dirty and angry after several of my purchase attempts because I was quite clear on the phone before visiting what I wanted and did not want to waste time going to a dealer who was not willing to do it. I wanted to pay invoice and get fair market value for my old vehicle. Some of the dealers tried to cheat (keeping rebates), others did a good deal but then offered be well below market for my old vehicle. It was a very frustrating process. In the end after failures at 4 dealers I found one that was at least honest. They still made dealer 'holdback' plus other incentives which is enough profit.
Shows my truck Ram 1500 with the same US Engine, US body, US transmission that I have.
The 2500's and up are made at that plant in Mexico. And the 1500 is most of the sales not the larger ones.
Yes. Actually it is and actually carries a 100% content label even though we know the sub components are not 100%. So I am not deluded at all but apparently my truck is not the normal for Dodge Ram. Many of the USA sold 1500's are made here at this plant:
but apparently the 2500's and up are made in Mexico. My engine is made here:
but apparently some of the engines are not. Finally the tranny is made in the USA as well:
to sum it up go below and see Dodge Ram 1500, backs it up:
And yet my Dodge Ram is US body, US engine, US transmission, US tires and made within the last three years.
Agreed about the expensive part. Not really gutless though, they have good low end torque and do give very good MPG for non-lead footed drivers.
I have looked at several hybrids and they are $10,000 more then the gassers such as the highlander. I am not paying that much for the hybrid option.
And if the government got over it's SpaceX fear, it could launch many of them on the Falcon 9 for much less money.
Except the Atlas, Falcon, Anartes all having good reliable launches.
Just to underscore how unreliable the Proton is you are referring to not even the latest failure, that was the 2013 failure. Just last month ANOTHER failed. Russian rockets are not super reliable.
Care to back that up with anything? The last engine test that blew up was a Russian one for a Antares rocket. The last rocket to fail with payload was a Russian proton.
Soyuz and space shuttle are almost identical for loss of crew rates. Russian rockets are not more reliable.