sojourner

Because the Pad abort was part of the CCdev program. And like I said, it's not a question of "can" but "will". NASA has no official stance on whether first stage recovery is successful. The broadcast is to follow the CRS-7 mission, not to highlight some side testing by SpaceX.

You misunderstand. Even if SpaceX made the video available to them during the launch, NASA TV would not air it. It would take the spotlight away from the NASA side of the mission.

Because the NASA part of the mission is the CRS-7. They won't let the first stage landing steal the limelight on their channel. If you watch all the previous NASA feeds of the Dragon launches you'll notice that the NASA announcer never acknowledges the landing attempts occurring on those missions.

Probably not on NASA Tv and probably not within 30 seconds. SpaceX doesn't have live feed of the landing attempts.

They'd have to develop a hydrolox engine and they'd have to redesign the tankage for the upper stage. Both of which would work against the common tooling approach they use for keeping manufacturing costs down.

The CRS7 launch will attempt another barge landing. The Jason 3 launch from VAFB has been rumored to attempt a kanding on shore, but the ASDS headed for the pacific would seem to contradict that.

Do I need to define the word "fund" for you?

Beale, Kistler, and Hannah had poor business plans and ran out of funds before they could make an impact.

That's the great thing about SpaceX's approach. They're just trying to get a few more uses out of the disposable cups.

How so? SpaceX's method only requires conditions to be right at the launch site (where they intend to land). If conditions aren't favorable the rocket won't be launching in the first place.

I don't know, it looks like they manage to add as much weight as the 4 legs used in the SpaceX approach but still don't get the entire stage back.

They can always fit it with a cargo pod and rent it out as a massive transport craft.

Pretty much. The weight of the chutes outweighed the weight of adding legs and reserving enough fuel for powered landing.

You are seriously under estimating how difficult it would be to hit a target with an srb using a parachute. Besides, SRB's are cheap because they are simple. The minute you start adding requirements you might as well stop using an SRB and move to something more versatile like a liquid booster.

Oh sure, take the fun out of the exercise...

Here's an interesting line of thought I had. Invariably when a new company comes in and shakes up a market successfully eventually other companies get started that try to mimic it's success by using similar processes. Now, I'm not sure that SpaceX is quite there for it to become a model for a wave of imitators yet. I think it needs another year or two of successful launches to establish it's cred, but just for fun, what do you think a "me too" company would be like? What kind of rocket would they build? Personally, I would imagine someone, learning from SpaceX's experience, going straight to a methane fueled deep throttle main engine in a cluster of 5 to 7 engines on the first stage. I think they would aim for a payload a little larger than F9 and plan for RTLS of the first stage from the beginning. I could see them maybe diverging from the SpaceX method by making the second stage aimed at re-usability from the beginning, maybe with a lifting body shape and internalized cargo. I think they would try and find a plant location suitable for water transport of stages to the launch site in order to avoid the size limits that SpaceX has had to deal with by transporting on trucks. Thoughts?

Get the latest dev version?

^There's actually more wrong* with the mod than the bottom attach nodes. The cfg's need quit a bit of finessing to get the engines to work properly. *And I only mean "wrong" in the sense that they are out of date. This is not a critique of the mod. 1.0.2 just broke it. Funnily enough, the older FTmN rockets work fine with just the node fix. 1.0.2 doesn't like moduleEnginesFX. At least from what I could tell.

What "new mod"? It hasn't been updated for 1.0.2 yet. Regardless, the engines should show up in the game if you installed to the gamedata directory correctly. You didn't just drop the zip file in gamedata did you? You know you have to extract the files first.

Depends on the mission.

Since I haven't said it in a while: Thanks for all the hard work sarbian. Because of you this is still the first mod I install with each new version of KSP.

Ok, the first idea here is a radial attached command pod. As you can see in the three views of my rough sketch. I picture this as holding two kerbals in tandem with an EVA hatch at the front. I think it would be great for rovers, landers, and space only craft. The second idea here is a "command Deck" module for those deep space interplanetary missions we all like to build. I've just become frustrated with the looks of using the cuppola or a capsule in this capacity. I think there should be a part that fits the end of a hitchhiker and gives the impression that the ship is run from there. You can see a rough idea for it in the image below. Anyway, just a couple of ideas for parts I thought I would throw out there for anyone of our talented modders to get ideas from. If someone does take these up, please just let me know so I can be the first in line to use them!

I'd recommend the ALCOR mod for a more "Apollo style" lander pod.

Then why are you complaining about "waiting until we can make it closed cycle" in post #29 ????

The Soyuz was part of the USSR's original moonlanding plans. It would work if needed. But yeah, you're correct on the other points.