I missed that when it came out, and was mostly onboard with Wolfenstien, Doom and Quake. I played the hell out of the Skynet games a couple years ago to recap, and they were glorious, as well as gloriously overlooked. Amazing tech for their day.

Here are videos of the stage's first flight and landing:
https://videosift.com/video/First-Stage-Landing-of-Falcon-9-Onboard-Cam
https://videosift.com/video/Spacex-Successful-Dragon-orbit-Ocean-Landing-Stage-1

The only way I could see it working as described is if the Tesla really has that good of object-detection onboard, was already tracking all objects, and was just that accurate in determining the speed of the impacted SUV and the rate of decreasing distance between it and the car that hit it.
Even if that were the case, I suspect the sensors on these cars get exponentially fidgety at longer distances and with more extreme angles (like measuring changing distance between two 'overlapping' objects directly ahead), it's really unlikely it was predicting the collision.
All that to say: Yeah, I agree. You're most probably right.

Yep. I only had the recent SB sound cards because of their EAX support in games. Since I don't really game and don't have PCI slots to use my Audigy 2ZS, I just use the crappy onboard sound (e.g, RealTek).

If this is anything like the new Doom, then I am onboard the hype train!

*promote old school death match.

I don't know as much about this argument as I'd like, but my gripe with it is that it assumes that there is a more efficient way of modeling reality, with 100% fidelity, than reality itself. It seems a lot to implicitly take onboard. How could you model the exact position of some subatomic particle without involving at least one such subatomic particle?

Your video, First Stage Landing of Falcon 9 - Onboard Cam, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Nothing about this looks appealing. Jumping from "reconstructing ship" to "destroying recently reconstructed ship" does nothing for me. Clearly nothing is sacred and everything can be pooped back out brand-new, this incarnation already has its first resurrected character, so what's at stake here?

Ever since Wrath of Khan, Star Trek writers have been convinced they can only produce Khan-a-likes as a path to success. I was only partially onboard after the first film, I checked out completely after the last one, but I'm particularly surprised at the laziness of this one. The CG and action direction seem to be the only areas that are getting any creative engineering in any of these films.

Your video, Onboard view of SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket landing in high winds, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 4 Badge!

Here's the 2013 onboard they mention, the car certainly seems to be a bit of a handful:

As was mentioned above, the cost of the fuel is a non-starter. Currently SpaceX uses a Kerosene / Liquid Oxygen fuel mix.

After the anomaly (the space industries way of saying accident) in June SpaceX did a complete vehicle review. They are now using a more advanced technique to cool the LOX which means for a denser LOX liquid in their tanks, which ultimately means they have more oxidizer on board for their flights now.

Coupled with the LOX improvements they have made upgrades to the engines which means 30% greater efficiency. Basically the horsepower per engine has increased.

This means they can get their payloads to orbit plus have more then enough fuel left over in stage 1 to return it to land.

The greatest efficiency comes from returning the stage(s) and then reusing them in future launches (not proven yet). ALL launchers (u.s, soviet, indian, ESA, Japan, etc) ditch ALL of their hardware into the ocean when getting payload to orbit. Bye, bye multi million dollars worth of engines and hardware.

If SpaceX can turn that scenario on its head and reuse those stages and MORE importantly the engines they will cut their costs per launch by a substantial amount. Ultimately that means cheaper per pound cost to get material into orbit.

All of the media uses the word "explosion" when describing the June anomaly which is funny because there was never an ignition of onboard fuels.

The LOX tanks have smaller Helium tanks inside them. The helium is released during launch. The helium rises in the LOX quickly, expands and pressurizes the tank to ensure the LOX is "squeezed" into the pipes in order to keep up with the turbo pumps.

One of the struts holding a helium tank inside the LOX tank failed. The helium tank shot up and blew threw the top of the LOX tank and took a good part of the top of the stack off. The engines actually fired for a few seconds after the anomaly and then sputtered out. The rest of the vehicle at this point is still fairly intact.

Without proper structural integrity the vehicle started to veer off course, dynamic pressures built up and the vehicle was essentially ripped apart by those forces.

At 3:20 the Helium tank rips off its struts. At 3:27 the remainder of the vehicle disintegrates:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuNymhcTtSQ

SpaceX mentioned that in June, the dragon capsule continued to relay telemetry until it smacked into the ocean. If the Dragon had better software onboard it would have detected the anomaly and recovered with chutes. Elon said that software would be active on Dragons from now on.

Here's onboard from the same vehicle, not sure if it was the same run though:

The first Mass Effect game had a fantastic writeup on combat in space, and why it was supposed to be a more anti-hollywood, incredibly boring event in that universe.
Most encounters could be resolved in seconds from hundreds of thousands of kilometers (well outside visual range), and it only took a single shot to end the encounter, either through instantly disabling critical systems, or overheating the heatsinks onboard (which were constantly venting excess cosmic and solar radiation as it was), causing any sort of energy shielding to be impractical for similar reasons.
Nearly all military encounters in space were ultimately stalemates, because things could be resolved so immediately and with such deadly finality, it forced the space-faring civilizations to ask questions first and shoot as a last resort. I can't remember the exact description, but essentially a "fight" in space was two or more opposing ships simply showing up and sitting around doing nothing until the situation resolved itself, or one side had clearly more guns than the other (but there may have even been reasons for why the latter result wasn't common either, but it's been so long I can't recall).
Regardless, I love that vision of space travel and hypothetical military maneuvers because it portrayed the reality of such events from a really hardcore scientific approach. Obviously the rest of the writing team was unable to work around those limitations, since the rest of that game and the rest of the series pretty much resorted back to the Star Wars formula almost immediately. I wish their writers had been as talented as the guy who constructed the universe and it's laws, because it was an amazingly refreshing take on sci-fi space travel.

Yah, but for rescue work (ambulance) 30 mph with the patient already onboard in the water is a lot better than 5 mph, right?

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by eric3579.