magnemoe

Members
  • Content count

    6527
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

747 Excellent

1 Follower

About magnemoe

  • Rank
    Flight Director
  1. See it adds some benefits as you say, nose don't work manned. And I admit its an cool way to land, you would also use the large drag to get an lower landing speed saving fuel. You would obviously fire up the landing engine earlier but idle them until closer to ground.
  2. Agree on sideways for reentry but why land on the side and not rear or even nose as we discussed,
  3. Far to complex and second stage is only 4 ton and with an nose landing the legs don't have to be long. This would require landing wheels as it will rotate on landing Course correction for something rotating sounds complex but they aim smart artillery shells who move and rotate faster If its stupid and work its not stupid.
  4. I assumed it was space between the flat heatshield and the tank, if not they need to add space for it betwen tank and heat shield. Kestrels would still be overkill and you want an atmospheric version but sounds like an idea in that they are pressure feed, Retracting most of the engine bell and the long landing legs will also complicate things and add weight, It would also increase failure modes dunging launch. I think they will ditch the payload adapter, or rater redesign it so it fit on top of heat shield with structural elements below and just the interface you drop above. Splashdown just give you scrap metal however. Could an air capture work? dry mass is 4 ton. Doing this as an test like the first stage tests makes lots of sense however.
  5. True, however it would not be much fuel left, they could however add fins to the back who extends after separation, this would also increase control. The idea of nose landing start to grow on me, you would need pop out engines for landing, combine this with the landing legs. Could they used pressure feed engines? you don't need a lot of trust after all, think scaled down superdraco designed to run on RP1 and Ox, Benefit is no need to flip around, you don't need to change the main engine, short landing legs save weight. Downside is more piping as you need to drain fuel and ox from top, might also affect pressurization.
  6. Yes, KSP is CPU heavy because of lots of calculations. However 360 is probably better at single tread cpu load than One or PS4. It does not have to be memory heavy, that is just because of limitations of unity and probably non optimized code. Best way to solve this is to load and unload things on need.
  7. Like the Russian attack helicopter with ejection seats. the eject you first cut the rotor blades. I hope this system also eject the other crew member automatically afterwards
  8. Yes its probably possible, Skyrim is an 360 game after all. However ti would require an total rewrite of the game using an new engine and an overall focus in saving memory. In short making KSP2 would be easier.
  9. Yes, it depend on the objective, if its an one time mission like sending the first refueling station to Minmus, it just have to work and not be too expensive. For common missions like rescue, i use more time but also make the ship with some flexibility, deep rescue is something who can rescue an kerbal from anywhere in Kerbol SOI outside surface on Mun or Minmus. For Eve landing and escape you have to use plenty time testing. For challenges planning and testing is the purpose.
  10. Main issue is memory KSP tend to crash a lot if you have less than 4 GB memory. 360 has 512 MB total memory who includes both graphic and system memory. PC typicaly has 8 GB +1-4GB graphic memory. One and PS4 has 8 GB
  11. Not only intercept but low drag and high speed trough the atmosphere also increase accuracy. And yest the flat nose is a bit weird, as its an cover over docking interface why not make it rounded? I assumed it was because it had an LES but this was wrong.
  12. This, also setting this up would be mindbogglingly idiotic complex. Take an complex game like Skyrim or Fallout 4, (KSP for that sake but lacks an editor to easy do that I'm about to do) Now play for say 100 hours, or try to make an mod where you start an new character where it looks like you have played for 100 hours and make your mod so an experienced player will not notice any difference, yes this will take far longer than 100 hours. Create the world yesterday would face much as the same issues but in an somewhat larger degree Big bang is easy just getting the overall system right. Earth created 6000 years ago would also be way easier, yes you has to add lots of stuff including fossils and living creatures, but you don't have to deal with memories and data logs.
  13. Think its other factors to, some solid fuel icbm have lots of stages, even the abm version of the standard missile has 4 stages including warhead. Yes its probably to improve performance then size is fixed. Also it cost little to add stages to solid fuel rockets. Liquid fuel engines are expensive, bulky and having more stages increase the error rate.
  14. True, however lower stage mass don't hurt payload capacity much and after staging it has no effect. Using an solid first stage has the benefit that you can optimize upper stage for vacuum isp and don't need much twr.
  15. Interstage stays on first stage and it reused, they have even mounted the grind fins on it. Trunk is dropped. As I understand its needed during an abort to keep dragon aerodynamic stable, they will then drop it and bottom will point forward. Sounds a bit weird as the new shepard does not need an trunk for abort and it uses just an stupid solid fuel engine. I guess dragon 3 will have an integrated trunk, it will also give more flexibility as I assume you could have an hatch to the non-pressurized compartment letting you install an pressurized cargo module if needed or perhaps an air lock for eva