Brotoro

Yeah, yeah, SpaceX...very pretty. But if you want to impress me, show me your Bulgariasat landing videos.

How does the Falcon first stage know where the landing pad is? Specifically, how does it handle the terminal guidance? Is there an array of radio beacons located around the pad?

The booster shadow visible from the onboard camera during landing was very nice.

Nice booster shadow during landing.

Love the First Stage data display.

WooHoo! Launch day funtime. Weather looks great.

The power pack is murder to carry around.

An LES on the first stage interstage wouldn't have saved the capsule from the two Falcon 9 failures where the second stage exploded. So I'm confused.

The term did not originate with the Gemini prigram. In the book We Seven by the Mercury astronauts, one chapter about the Mercury capsule is titled "Seven Miles of Wire and a Swizzle Stick” that describes the use of a similar implement.

I'm still waiting on seeing the on-barge landing footage from the Bulgariasat flight. Come on, SpaceX.

And do they understand why they thought the problem had been fixed after lauch attempt 1, but were wrong?

Bugger all.

Light this candle.

Somebody realized they forgot to double check the staging?

Welllllll... l guess I'll watch the launch... But I just can't get too excited without a booster landing.

I wonder if the booster's onboard camera used to get gunked up from stuff burning off of the grid fins...because the view stayed clearer this time.

WooooHooooo!

I really want to see video of the landing taken from the barge.

WooHoo! Go Bulgariasat!

Why does the Space Shuttle show two launch failures? STS-51L was a launch failure, but all other STS flights successfuly placed their payloads into orbit. Or do all of the other failure numbers take into account failures of their payloads to complete their missions? If so...why does Buran show two flight successes...the first Energia mission failed to put its payload into orbit as planned.

They should have the second stage land onto a support cradle...no need for legs. They want to do that eventually with gigantic ITS boosters, so start small with the second stage landing that way.

My definition says nothing about what object exerts the greatest force on the Moon. Perhaps you are thinking of somebody else's definition. And I certainly never said that the Moon orbits around the Sun and NOT around the Earth (it moves around both). My definition has to do with what objects are gravitationally bound together. If you have a group of two or more objects that are gradationally bound together as that group moves around the Sun, and if one of those objects is a planet*...then the smaller objects in that bound collection get classified as moons (or moonlets, if smaller than some as yet undefined limit). So our Moon is a moon of Earth. It doesn't matter to my definition how strong the Sun pulls on the objects in the bound collection compared to how strong they pull on each other (as long as the Sun doesn't pull strong enough to disrupt the system). The fact that both the Earth and Moon move in wobbly paths around the Sun during the course of a year does not affect my definition. *...or dwarf planet, or minor planet...

I don't understand your point. Yes, the Earth and Moon and Jupiter and Charon and any other object that is in a planet/moon system follow paths with different degrees of wobble in their paths as they go around the Sun. Why would you think I claimed otherwise?

Why is this a problem? The Moon DOES go around the Sun. The moons of Jupiter DO go around the Sun. Apollo 8 was going around the Earth along with the Moon back in 1968. Charon goes around the Sun. BUT...these objects also go around other objects as they go around the Sun. So, in addition to going around the Sun, our Moon is gravitationally bound to the Earth and goes around the Earth (and would continue to do so if you remove the effects of the Sun). This is why our Moon is classified as a moon of a planet, even though it also is going around the Sun. Our Moon is also going around the center of mass of our Galaxy...but that doesn't affect the fact that it is a satellite of the Earth. MY point is not what happens to the Moon if you remove the Earth (YNM brought that up). My point is that the Moon would be going around the Earth whether the Sun was there or not. (But I certainly acknowlege the obvious fact that both the Earth and Moon are gravitationally bound to the Sun...it just doesn't matter to my point.)

That was the Welcome mat flying off.