sevenperforce

Easily. Now, components will probably be reused in the same configuration at first, simply because that can be done at the launch site. But once a booster has been reused several times and needs to be shipped back to the factory for more extensive refurb, we will surely see reconfig.

A gradual decrease in gravity, even over the course of only a few weeks, should at least give the astronauts a better shot at getting used to moving around. Anyway this would be in the future, when we have high energy brachistochrone-capable engines.

Nuclear packages are not weapons unless they are intended for offensive use. Hydrazine could be an extremely effective biological WMD but that doesn't mean using it in an engine constitutes "putting a WMD in space". Likewise, the atmospheric test ban treaty does not prohibit peaceful use of nuclear explosives.

In practice, yes, but not in principle. For example, if you used a space elevator to lower something from orbit to the surface and back again, the total work done to it by the atmosphere would be effectively zero.

Yeah, total bunk. A significant portion of geothermal heat does come from radioactive decay, but not from chain reactions as in a nuclear reactor. You need a moderator for that.

Frictionless doesn't imply a lack of force interaction; it just specifies that all force interaction between the projectile and the surrounding medium is via conservative forces. Nothing physics-breaking about that, technically. You would still have compression and internal heating in the medium per the ideal gas law.

My ability to like posts was utterly trashed by the landing yesterday.

It will be a high-speed, low-margin barge landing attempt coming out of a GTO trajectory. And it will use a new booster; this one isn't slated for reuse until May at the earliest...June more likely. SES has expressed interest in purchasing the first launch on a reused booster. But SpaceX would probably want to use it on a lower-velocity mission so they can RTLS. First-attempt repeat reuse will be quite nice. Elon seemed pretty blunt about the recert process: wash it off, do ten test fires to make sure aerodynamic stresses didn't damage anything, then refuel and refly. All from the launch site. Not much more than what Blue Origin did.

I don't think they have any plans for developing second-stage reuse...at least, not for the Merlin engine class. I foresee them testing the Raptor engine as a BLEO Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy upper stage, but it's anybody's guess whether they'll explore direct reuse on that stage. Red Dragon was replaced with Dragon V2. The V2 platform is supposed to be customizable enough to serve as a lander for basically any destination in the solar system.

As far as possession/exploitation/resource acquisition is concerned, I think it is pretty clear that people will take what they are capable of taking. We do need to specify that the ban on weapons in space is about intent, not technical specifications. Project Orion does not fall foul of the ban because the use of nuclear explosives for propulsion is not the same as putting warheads in space for use against targets. Anything can be a weapon. SpaceX could very easily smash a Falcon 9 first stage into any spot on the globe with devastating effect. I do find it deeply amusing that the military capabilities of private peaceful spacelaunch corporations in the United States vastly exceed the launch capabilities of the entire state of North Korea.

Flea, hammer, basic stack decoupler, basic radial decoupler, RCS thruster pod and roundified monopropellant tank, small reaction wheel, basic landing legs, basic frame pieces, basic struts, capsule. At least that's all you need for this.

I am assuming that because the boostback burn takes place entirely outside of the atmosphere, it would be washed out by Rayleigh scattering and invisible from ground cameras. Already cracked the Basil Hayden's. The first one was not intended to be reused, simply due to its nostalgic value. This one, however, is absolutely slated for reuse. Gladly granted...'tis an honor.

I wonder what the earliest time we could see this booster being reused is.

I wish I could have seen the live reactions from the ISS. Where I am sure they must have been watching live.

Touche, but then again, I chose my words carefully too. SpaceX would never have gotten into the rocket launch business if not for the possibility of rapid reuse. Given that SpaceX is already way, way cheaper than the shuttle program was, it is already a success. To your other question, though, they were never planning on reusing the first recovered stage. Very high probability that they will reuse this one, though. SES already offered to buy it. Apparently the first recovered stage was virtually "refuel-and-relaunch" ready so there's no reason to expect anything different in this case.

Wait, I can only give twenty five likes per day? MADNESS! They need to relax that restriction on SpaceX launch days.

Buddy at work walked in while I was watching the replay for the 5th time. "What launch is that?" "It's not a launch. It's a landing."

It already is.

Then the barge whispered, "Of course I still love you." And the waves rocked the rocket to sleep.

Long legs.

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

It's twice the thickness of a soda can, so no wonder.

Gravity turn.

You beat me to it.

Propellant flowing.