Kryten

Biological definitions don't work like that. Consider myxozoans; they're parasitic worm-like organisms composed of only a few cells each. Morphologically they're very similar to protozoans, and that's what they were assumed to bebut genetic testing shows they're descended from cnidarians (jellyfish, hydra, et.c.) which secondarily lost most of their complexity. Therefore, they're cnidarians; because biological classifications are based on ancestry and relationships. You need to look at the genetic space around an animal to properly classify it, not the animal in isolation.

Yes, they had to move it to avoid conflict with the Delta launch on the 8th/9th.

Yes.

That's not how the parameters work, they just determine if a body is likely to be gravitationally dominant in it's area of the solar system. Neptune indisputably is, that's why it's forced Pluto into a resonance. At least in our solar system it doesn't really matter which definition is used, because there are no edge cases; the line between the eight planets (and planet nine, should it exist) is extremely stark, so the natural division is obvious. If we take Soter's version, for example, the lowest value for the eight planets is Mars' at 5.1 × 103; and the highest for a dwarf planet is Ceres at 0.33; four orders of magnitude difference.

There was a secondary on CRS-1. AFAICT, modern versions of the launch licence for CRS missions no longer authorise the carriage of secondary payloads, but this could change in future.

There was in fact a plan in case astronauts were stranded on the moon, but it wasn't exactly a 'rescue plan'. http://www.lettersofnote.com/2010/11/in-event-of-moon-disaster.htm

MR-1A was launched a month later, and using a different rocket. The rocket from MR-1 never flew again, so it's closer to a launch failure than an abort.

The generally accepted budget for developing an orbital rocket is about $20 million(John Carmack said as such, and it's roughly what both Rocketlab and Vector Space plan to put in before first flight). Do you have $20 million?

The FAA just issued the licence for CRS launches out of 39A, right in the nick of time; https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/licenses_permits/media/Falcon 9 CRS10 License and Orders.pdf

There were no other crew on the flights with the seats fitted.

There's still a bunch more tests to run before launch, but it should be a matter of weeks rather than months.

Full list of payloads here; https://www.reddit.com/r/ISRO/comments/5t7a75/pslvc37_cartosat2d_mission_updates_and_discussion/

http://asia.nikkei.com/Tech-Science/Tech/Japan-s-space-agency-to-try-again-with-minirocket-launch-in-2017 At least one more launch is now planned, and could take place before the end of the year. This report also gives us the price of a single launch; about $3-4 million. Cheapest launcher on the planet, but not by all that much...

They would die immediately; it'd like trying to create a race of super-tough humans by shooting people in the head.

Boeing is the customer, David Clark makes the suits.

Protocol for CST-100 is for astros to stay in the capsule in the event of a contingency ocean landing. Shuttle could've potentially had bailout over ocean, so they needed the extra visibility.

Sea Dragon was not a NASA project.

I really doubt you could land Shuttle practically without landing gear by any method, simply because of the relatively fragile tiles covering the lower surface and the high gross mass.

Multiple sources in Russia are reporting that Voronezh Machine Building Plant have replaced materials used in engine turbopumps with lower-quality alternatives, resulting in all Proton 2nd and 3rd stage engines being withdrawn; https://themoscowtimes.com/news/experts-check-russian-rocket-engines-for-low-quality-metal-56918 http://www.russianspaceweb.com/proton_2017.html Proton flights will now not be able to take place until at least June or July this year, meaning Proton will have been out of service for at least a year. The same plant also makes both models of Soyuz third stage engines, and it is suspected that the same switch is the cause for the Progress MS-4 failure last year. Flight preparations for a europeanised Soyuz are ongoing in Kourou, so it seems engines built for arianespace aren't affected.

It's not their fault, that's how the approachway was already set up. Part of the vagaries of converting a launch site from vertical to horizontal assembly LV.

LC-40 won't support FH, the flame trench isn't oriented the right way relative to the hangar. When they were planning to fly FH from there, they'd have had to build a new hangar and approachway.

The Indians have also so far failed in their attempt to produce a modern jet suitable for a fighter; despite working on it for over a decade now, pumping in half a billion dollars in funding, and multiple tech transfer agreements with western engine firms like SNECMA. It's simply a very hard thing to do.

Launch is back on, at the same time as the last attempt. It should be roughly three hours after I'm making this post;

They no longer call it an 'experimental landing' during the stream; it's just a landing now.