sojourner

Yeah, I saw something earlier in the thread about launch clamps, so I have tried them as a separate staging event and as part of the first stage engines staging. It didn't make any difference. ETA: Ah, now I see the issue. If the launch clamps are part of the first staging event it messes up the staging somehow. If you place them in the second staging event it seems to go away. Hmmm, odd. It's only an issue with radial decouplers.

Been a while since I have played the game, so this might be an issue with me doing it wrong, but.. I have a rocket with two liquid boosters attached with radial decouplers. The booster's engines and the first stage's engine are set to fire in in stage one. Stage two has only the decouplers for the boosters. Stage three detaches the first stage and fires the second stage up to continue on it's way to orbit. My problem is I thought when the boosters run out of fuel that mechjeb would fire the decouplers and drop the boosters using autostaging. At least that's how I remember it working last time I played. Instead I have to hit the space bar or it will continue flying the rocket carrying the boosters until the main stage is spent and then it auto stages to the next stage with fuel in the sequence. What am I doing wrong? Stock KSP 1.0.2 and the latest dev mechjeb .dll. No other mods installed yet.

Gold that can only be destroyed in the fires of Mt. Doom.

You might want to do some more background research into the subject in general. A good resource page for writers is Atomic Rocket.

It's not fiction.

I think sub-orbital space tourism has a much shorter life span than orbit and beyond space tourism does. It's a thrill ride, not a destination. To have any lasting market it will have to come down to thrill ride prices.

It's great - fpr a carnival ride.

They aren't suing. They filed a complaint using the built in procedures for contesting the outcome.

You're going to have to point out where he did that. I've only seen him correct misconceptions about Dreamchaser.

A wrench has a better glide ratio than the shuttle.

So, a spaceplane requiring a runway to land is somehow more robust than a capsule that can land on either sea or any patch of land? Yeah, not buying that bit of logic.

^Get the latest mechjeb2.dll and try again.

1. It's been less than 24 hours since the launch. 2. It's a Sunday. Give'em a break.

With the Texas launch site under construction.

yes. yes yes

Or be barred by Blue Origin from doing it. Assuming of course that the patent holds, which it won't.

Patent law doesn't work that way. SpaceX can test barge landing all they want. They only run afoul of the patent if they try to make a profit from barge landings.

"Effectively"? It won't have them, period.

The first stage on this launch does not have legs. The previous stage wasn't destroyed by the rocket "tumbling". It landed on the ocean then broke apart when it fell over in the water. Chance of launching tonight is only %50 due to weather. Massive weather system in the gulf that could move over the state. http://www.wunderground.com/radar/radblast.asp?ID=TBW

The pdf linked above doesn't mention the engine being ready in 2017. It only states that testing would begin in 2016. Also, don't confuse the engine being ready in 2017 with the rocket it goes on being ready by that time.

Huh, 2019, same year as the ULA/Blue Origin announcement regarding a new rocket. Interesting.

Been reading the thread and thought of a scenario that might work. The most costly failure (besides total launch failure) is a launch that results in the incorrect orbit being achieved. You end up with a brand new satellite in a totally unworkable location. So this is where the strength of a totally reusable launch system comes into play. Say we have the F9R at it's operational peak design intention of 1st and 2nd stage re-usability. What if SpaceX developed a "rescue" craft payload? Basically an engine with good DV, tankage, throw it in a reusable bus based on Dragon and a way to grab our errant satellite and move it to it's intended orbit. . Keep the whole setup on standby at one of their launch facilities. Now they are in a position to save someone's 200million dollar comsat for the minimal cost of a Falcon9 launch (which they are hoping to be less than $10mil in this configuration) and a reusable payload that needed minimal development. How many comsat owners would pay for that service? Would be a great service to offer from a PR viewpoint even if it never actually gets used. "You launched with another provider and the rocket failed? No problem, we can fix that for you. Next time just consider using us in the first place" Heck, they could even offer it as a free service on their own launches. further reducing risk. "Well, our rocket didn't quite do it's job. No problem, we're warming up Thunderbird 1 to make the correction now. No charge, of course".

The multipiece command probe your refering to hasn't been part of MJ since before Mechjeb 2.0.

What's wrong with marginalizing the LV-N's (to a point)? higher tech is higher tech after all.

Can it be done in the game currently? No. Would a mod allow it to be done? Depends on how the mod is written. You'd be best off asking the writer of the mod.