On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 23:24:39 +0000, R2D2 wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 22:08:08 -0800, "Bob (not my real pseudonym)"
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 12:37:38 +0000, R2D2 wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 16:19:02 -0600, "Byker" wrote:

Odd. It worked just fine on dry land a few weeks ago

Hang on.. it has only 3 legs? That's a dangerously unstable
configuration...

Four legs, but it appears that as it tips on two, they collapse.

http://www.space.com/29770-spacex-ca...cket-test.html

They really should put 5 or 6. It would make it a lot easier to
compensate for any tiny movement...

I wonder how much cargo capacity is alrteady sacrificed with the extra
hardware and fuel to allow it to soft land?