Brotoro

I was concerned when I first heard that they were going to do an abort test off of their shiny new (relatively) booster...because it seemed sad to risk damaging the booster. But doing the burn 20 seconds after separation, and (it appeared from what I saw during the flight) aiming the capsule abort motor thrust away from the booster was a good move.

It is?

Doesn't sound like noise to me. I would expect the term 'Super Earth' to be reserved for rocky terrestrial planets, and not used for large icy planetoids of the type that formed out beyond the snow line and were involved in the forming of the Jovian planets.

Shouldn't we be able to send in a spacecraft with a counterweight on a super-strong tether for a near pass of the lunar black hole, and separate the spacecraft at periapsis to get a nice boost from the tidal effect?

So... they are just making panels that are thin film interference filters with high transmission in the 8 to 13 micrometer band, and very low transmission (high reflectivity) in at the optical wavelengths where the Sun has its peak intensity?

Successful deployment. Back to to sleep I go.

No booster recovery? Why am I awake?

Halley's Comet is probably the most famous object that revolves around the Sun in a retrograde orbit.

People in complicated areas that have special requirements should write appropriate contracts.

That would be Rocket Girls...but it's not the Japanese space program that uses them, it's the Solomon Space Association.

What is doing the maneuvering during these attempted catches? Does the boat just steer straight & steady and the fairing tries to land on it... or does the fairing just get itself in a steady glide near the ship and count on Mr Steven to maneuver underneath?

But what if he demands that it's an 'ideal' thread that always sinks faster than new messages can cause it to bump back up? Huh? Huh?

And it did...what?

Does seawater damage the composite structure of the fairing? If a fairing gets dunked in the sea, can SpaceX strip off and reinstall all the other systems, and at least save the cost of building a new shell?

When do we get to see the Bulgariasat landing video?

No landing attempt? Bored now.

There are much cheaper ways to destroy airplanes.

Zero meters. Just encase it in enough ablative material.

Mr. Steven.... close, but no cigar.

Lousy focus

The arrangement of the RCS thrusters intrigues me.

Mars' axial tilt is similar to Earth's, so the polar cap regions of Mars have very long nights during winter (and continuous darkness for half a Martian year at the poles).

Could you guys take a break from the arguing to state the problem for me? I want to be sure I understand the parameters here. Are we talking about a normal physically-possible airplane? Or something really unusual with frictionless parts, infinite thrust, vectoring jet nozzles, anti-gravity drive, or any other magic somebody would care to invoke? And for the conveyer belt, are we talking about something that could actually be engineered with a reasonable acceleration and top speed, or are we are we allowed to invoke unphysical speeds and accelerations, or other magic?

What's causing the weird halo around the sustainer nozzle?

It's like watching an inclination change maneuver in KSP. and a good final orbit!