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.

At the point of separation, the booster has jettisoned its entire payload and most of its fuel, so the energy required for the return leg should be significantly less than the initial burn.

As far as I know boosters would normally have some fuel left at separation, so the question is really how much more fuel is required for the return than the normal safety margin?

If the answer is "none" then you get your booster back almost for free... any higher amount is a tradeoff of cost of booster vs reduced payload.

Every account I've read suggests that if it can be made to work then it's a large cost saving, but then they said that about the Space Shuttle too.

By the way, a Tornado doesn't have the range to reach Russia, especially not with a B61-12 as payload. So it doesn't really come as a surprise that our Eastern European neighbours are not particularly pleased either, given how it would be either them or us who this shit would be dropped upon when zealots in uniforms get up on the wrong side of the bed.

Nuclear proliferation, the cornerstone of future Fallout LARPs.

Still STOVL - they were going to put in EM CATs but that would have meant interrupting the build programme on boat 2 and retro-fitting boat 1 so deemed too expensive. STOVL probably not good due to reduced range and payload.

That would explain the need to nose down and then pitch up just after dropping payload.

I don't knock Bliz for trying to give their characters some character, I knock them for doing it badly.

As for gameplay, the information I've heard so far is that the gameplay modes will include payload and control point maps.... hardly ground breaking.

but you're right, I was unfairly dismissive and I hereby amend my comment:

it's TF2 and DOTA/LOL without the humour and style.

Besides, I think you're reading too much into what I said.
First, it was an obviously flippant comment, not an in-depth analysis of the game.

Second, if you read the whole comment it was

My first thought was "so it's TF2 without the humour and style"

(emphasis mine). So I was literally describing my very first impression, and I stand by that comment.

I will say that after more consideration, the concept of a team based FPS with moba-style heroes could be interesting. I suspect it won't be for me though, for the same reasons I don't play DOTA or LOL; I simply don't have the time to learn all the characters and their counters.

Someone who knows verify something for me; by definition, a catapult-less launched aircraft must have less payload/weapons/fuel than a catapult-launched aircraft? Or does making an aircraft robust enough to catapult launch wash out that difference?

I had sort of assumed 1) that catapults allowed a higher weight aircraft and 2) that all aircraft had to be robust enough to plop down on a deck and that was the limiting step...

yes, he is comparing only against manned space craft.

Even though this test flight will be unmanned, Orion is meant to take astronauts into space - a replacement for the retired Shuttle program.

2 things that weren't clear from this video - 1) can it take large payloads, or only what can fit into the capsule? 2) can it dock to the ISS ?

Minor (admittedly pedantic) nit: the plane on display on the Intrepid is an A-12, not an SR-71 Blackbird. The SR-71 is slightly longer and heavier, and can carry a larger sensor payload while the A-12 can fly faster and higher, but they are otherwise fairly similar (the Blackbird is a refinement of the A-12).

Still the closest many of us are ever going to get to a real SR-71 though.

And I second ChaosEngine's recommendation: if you are an aviation buff, the Intrepid is definitely worth a visit. The shuttle is really impressive up close too; it's amazing they got something so big and truck-like off the ground.

Pretty cool. I don't see it being too useful, but it's a very cool plane. It has nothing like the payload of an A-10, so the big question I'd have is what sort of endurance does it have? Given that they're planning on replacing A-10's that can stay on station for hours with F-35's that will only be able to for a matter of minutes, I guess it isn't considered a priority anymore (which could be right... might be better to get there fast, expend your weapons, then leave to rearm and come back fast). And then there are drones, of course, cheaper and with better endurance yet to back that up. Meh.

Anyways, it's always interesting to see the clever designs that never panned out. I wonder what this was developed for. The A-10 was already in service by then, so there is probably an interesting story behind it. Although, at the time I think the A-10 was intended as an anti-tank weapon and it wasn't until later (maybe when this was developed), that they figured out it could be good for close support too.

Lol, that's a pretty flaccid attempt at selective quotation...

"I had a good laugh at the "50% of the kids have PTSD. Oh the poor dears, perhaps their government shouldn't have zoned their houses in a fucking warzone. At least they have bomb shelters, a warning system, Iron Dome ffs..."

Whereas Palestinian kids have... Oh right, a mortar shell knock minutes before the explosive payload arrives.

I feel pity for innocents on both sides of the line, but I feel more pity for the hundreds of targets of high precision directed artillery/guided missiles and bombs as opposed to the handful of victims of random chance dumbfire rockets...

I don't applaud Hamas, I think their actions are as deplorable.

But I understand them.

Similarly, I understand the French Resistance. Or the American "terrorists" (Son's of Liberty) that started the resistance against the British which eventually led to the War of Independence... Of course, those are terrorists that we agree with because they were on the side of good. So we call them a resistance or patriots. The people they killed were obviously all evil ne'er-do-wells who deserved it, innocents were never harmed... /eyeroll

I had a good laugh at the "50% of the kids have PTSD". Oh the poor dears, perhaps their government shouldn't have zoned their houses in a fucking warzone. At least they have bomb shelters, a warning system, Iron Dome ffs...

But you'll have to remind me, where are the bomb shelters in Gaza when Israeli artillery and guided munitions come a knocking? Where's the automated missile defense system shooting down incoming strikes, or the warning system to tell people an attack is imminent? Who's supplying them with first class military equipment?

Have you ever seen one of Hamas' vaunted "rockets"? A home built, hand machined dumbfire which uses ammonium nitrate and sugar as it's propellant, and mostly low grade explosives as it's payload. No guidance, just launch and hope it hits something. Yup, it'll kill you if it lands on you, but they are weapons of desperation, not a serious threat. The 600 to 30 kill ratio at the moment speaks to that.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Slingotrons don't decimate cities with ballistic payloads - people do. ;-)

I don't know that I really want this built...that's a damned powerful suborbital cannon, when (not if) it falls into the wrong hands.

At least a skyhook doesn't fire off orbital speed payloads.

The helicopter may have been carrying a lot of explosives (missiles, rockets, ammunition, whatever), which detonated. I can imagine a full payload going up at once might blow it to bits.