41Paddy

What do you think went wrong with the N-1 Program?

74 posts in this topic

14 minutes ago, radonek said:

Nonsense, there was no computer in N-1. Whole KORD was electronic control - sequencers, integrators, relays… that kind of thing. No software, no programming. And it worked pretty well, see my first post above.

Then you can say that the KORD's system settings were wrong. Which is what I meant by programming.

Quote

Again, this is nothing to do with programming, it was just gyroplatform that they forgot to disconnect from LES. It was a silly mistake, yes, but nothing to do with computers.

Or they could have set up the gyros to NOT send the LES activation signal under those circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:

And which one is still flying today? I suppose they should have kept building 1B's, with a smaller SM. But NASA wanted to go in a different direction. Hindsight is 20/20? Or was the Saturn 1B with Apollo CSM to expensive to be sustainable?

NASA moved on past one-off manned launches and onto the Space Shuttle after the Apollo CSM. The Soviets simply could not make anything better than the Soyuz, so they kept using it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, radonek said:

AFAIK first usable digital computer in soviet space was in Buran.

TKS used digital Argon-16 as its brain since 1976. Crew-rated, but used uncrewed, so it definitely worked fine.

9 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

Then you can say that the KORD's system settings were wrong. Which is what I meant by programming.

Not computers.

Like this, but electrical
 

Spoiler

289px-Centrifugal_governor.png

 

Edited by kerbiloid
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/04/2017 at 8:09 PM, Yobobhi said:

NASA moved on past one-off manned launches and onto the Space Shuttle after the Apollo CSM. The Soviets simply could not make anything better than the Soyuz, so they kept using it.

Except they made Buran, and never developed it further because Soyuz was a cheaper way of putting humans and cargo in space.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎4‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 2:09 PM, Yobobhi said:

NASA moved on past one-off manned launches and onto the Space Shuttle after the Apollo CSM. The Soviets simply could not make anything better than the Soyuz, so they kept using it.

The Soviets wondered why the Americans were building a spaceplane. So they built Buran. It was actually better than the Shuttle in some ways. But they realized that its cost is much higher than its benefit, and never pursued it further. Not to mention that they were building and operating space stations while the US was developing the Shuttle, most notably Salyut 6.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, peadar1987 said:

Except they made Buran, and never developed it further because Soyuz was a cheaper way of putting humans and cargo in space.

Except Buran was only tested once and was stopped not by lack of interest but by the actual collapse of the Soviet Union. If America collapsed I'm pretty sure we would not develop the Space Shuttle any further. The Space Shuttle may not be cheaper than the Soyuz, but it is BETTER. Crew of 7, AND a very heavy and irregularly shaped payload. That's like saying that the MiG-21 is better than the F-15 because it is cheaper and better to maintain. That may be true, but the F-15 is unarguably the better aircraft and can do things that the MiG-21 simply cannot do. Same with STS/Soyuz. Soyuz may be cheaper, maybe even cheaper per ton to orbit, but a Soyuz cannot carry ISS truss segments into orbit like the Space Shuttle did. The Soyuz cannot carry a full crew and heavy cargo like the Shuttle did. Cost is not the trump card. Effectiveness is. This is a government-funded space program.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

The Soviets wondered why the Americans were building a spaceplane. So they built Buran. It was actually better than the Shuttle in some ways. But they realized that its cost is much higher than its benefit, and never pursued it further. Not to mention that they were building and operating space stations while the US was developing the Shuttle, most notably Salyut 6.

The Buran was not stopped by lack of cost/benefit. They had a second test flight planned for 1993, but something happened before 1993, known as the collapse of the Soviet Union, that kinda put a damper on Buran tests. And anyway, the Buran was destroyed in a hangar collapse in 2002. I think elements other than "Cost is much higher than benefit" were what stopped that program. And....... Skylab? A bit more advanced than the Salyut series, I would say. We kind of built and operated that BEFORE Salyut 6. I really don't see how basically docking together 2 Soyuzes and sticking a living space in the middle is "Notable" (Yes, I know that the unmanned supply craft was called a Progress, "Soyuzes" used for mocking of the USSR) And the Shuttle, although expensive, was extremely capable. I'll use the analogy I used in my other response:

It's like saying that the MiG-21 is better than the F-15 because it is cheaper and better to maintain. That may be true, but the F-15 is unarguably the better aircraft in every way but cost and can do things that the MiG-21 simply cannot do. Same with STS/Soyuz. Soyuz may be cheaper, maybe even cheaper per ton to orbit, but a Soyuz cannot carry ISS truss segments into orbit like the Space Shuttle did. The Soyuz cannot carry a full crew and heavy cargo like the Shuttle did.

So many people think that cost is the trump card. But if I make a rocket that has 1 cent per ton to orbit capability, would that be amazing? Sure, but what if the rocket could only carry 10 pounds per launch? There are some jobs that you need capability. The Shuttle's other advantage was YUGE payload bay and being able to carry crew to maintain and deploy what it did send up. It's not always about cost.

Also, in what ways was the Buran better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Yobobhi said:

The Buran was not stopped by lack of cost/benefit. They had a second test flight planned for 1993, but something happened before 1993, known as the collapse of the Soviet Union, that kinda put a damper on Buran tests. And anyway, the Buran was destroyed in a hangar collapse in 2002. I think elements other than "Cost is much higher than benefit" were what stopped that program. And....... Skylab? A bit more advanced than the Salyut series, I would say. We kind of built and operated that BEFORE Salyut 6. I really don't see how basically docking together 2 Soyuzes and sticking a living space in the middle is "Notable" (Yes, I know that the unmanned supply craft was called a Progress, "Soyuzes" used for mocking of the USSR) And the Shuttle, although expensive, was extremely capable. I'll use the analogy I used in my other response:

It's like saying that the MiG-21 is better than the F-15 because it is cheaper and better to maintain. That may be true, but the F-15 is unarguably the better aircraft in every way but cost and can do things that the MiG-21 simply cannot do. Same with STS/Soyuz. Soyuz may be cheaper, maybe even cheaper per ton to orbit, but a Soyuz cannot carry ISS truss segments into orbit like the Space Shuttle did. The Soyuz cannot carry a full crew and heavy cargo like the Shuttle did.

So many people think that cost is the trump card. But if I make a rocket that has 1 cent per ton to orbit capability, would that be amazing? Sure, but what if the rocket could only carry 10 pounds per launch? There are some jobs that you need capability. The Shuttle's other advantage was YUGE payload bay and being able to carry crew to maintain and deploy what it did send up. It's not always about cost.

Also, in what ways was the Buran better?

It took them 8 years to get the a single orbiter up. In that 8 years they had more than one space station with the Soyuz/Proton launchers. Hell, they launched the first module of Mir before Buran went up... It was taking too long, and the only benefit was down mass capability, and that's an awful lot of money just for down mass.

Skylab was ONE space station, and it couldn't even be resupplied. It was only occupied for 171 days, out of 2249 days in orbit. Salyut 6, by comparison, was occupied for 683 days out of 1764 days in orbit. It was also designed to be resupplied.

Salyut 6 is notable because it could be resupplied, crews could hand over the station, and it helped establish many different techniques for long term station operations. Skylab may have been more advanced with its scientific instruments, but it was barely occupied and was using left over Apollo hardware. Salyut 6 was purpose built.

We're not comparing two fighter aircraft here. Neither are we comparing the Shuttle to Soyuz. We're comparing two methods of station building. One uses small capsules for crew and supplies, and a larger launcher for individual modules. The other does it all in one spacecraft, with the added ability of bringing stuff down from space. This ability, however, is the only advantage offered by a spaceplane like the Shuttle. And it wasn't used very often.

The Soyuz could carry a full crew of the stations it serviced. And you wouldn't need a Shuttle sized vehicle to carry 7 people up, either. The Soyuz wasn't designed to carry heavy cargo, for good reason. If all you're going to do is send crew, why waste a huge rocket? That's inefficient. So, they had two rockets for their station programs. Proton, which does the heavy lifting, and Soyuz, which brings up the crew, and Progress, which flies on the same rocket as Soyuz, would resupply the stations. The Soyuz designs serviced 9 space stations. The Shuttle? Only two. And one of those it barely did anything to actually service (Mir). I'd say the Soyuz-Progress-Proton system was far more effective and successful at maintaining/building stations. They even used this system for the beginning of the ISS, and still use Soyuz and Progress.

Cost is the trump card. Why make one vehicle that can do it all when you already have two that can do almost the exact same thing? The only thing you lack is down mass capability. But that's much too large a cost just for that. They already had a system which was in use.

The issue with the Shuttle, by and large, wasn't how badly designed it was or its cost. It was that it A: had to launch with crew, and B: only had a payload in the 20 tonne range, while being over a hundred tonnes itself. What they needed was a payload only variant. No orbiter. No crew. Just a hundred tonnes of payload.

The Shuttle's only benefit over a capsule system that uses other rockets for bigger payloads is down-mass. But that shouldn't be the only thing you can do with what amounts to a Saturn V. It shouldn't be the only payload. That's all the Shuttle was, payload. It could carry other payloads with it, but those were far less massive.

The Buran was better in a couple of ways: it could fly unmanned, did not use solid rockets, and it wasn't the only Energia payload.

The Soyuz is much better in at least one category: It has a launch escape system.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

Cost is the trump card. Why make one vehicle that can do it all when you already have two that can do almost the exact same thing? The only thing you lack is down mass capability. But that's much too large a cost just for that. They already had a system which was in use.

Building a "one launcher does it all" isn't about costs, it's about politics.  If NASA tried to build the Shuttle and Shuttle-C at the same time, Congress would simply kill the shuttle, as the DoD (and commercial satellite owner/users) absolutely needed a launch platform (they didn't need astronauts).  NASA had an entire plan of how to use the shuttle sanely, but the whole thing cost Apollo money and Congress wasn't remotely interested so they pretty much left a single program (for apparences of keeping up with the Soviets) and cut anything else they could.  If they split the shuttle in half (or more) there's no way Congress would fund both (even if the end result was cheaper).

As mentioned above "what went wrong with N-1" was largely politics.  The shuttle may well be an ideal design for the requirements Congress foisted on it, but much of "what went wrong with the shuttle" was the politics of crafting those requirements.

Only Bezos can [largely] ignore politics.  Even Spacex has the US government as its biggest customer (but at least is much more at arms length than ULA).  At the design levels visible to the public, managing funding sources are often as important as the rocket equation in the design of a rocket program.

Edited by wumpus
s/and/as
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

It took them 8 years to get the a single orbiter up. In that 8 years they had more than one space station with the Soyuz/Proton launchers. Hell, they launched the first module of Mir before Buran went up... It was taking too long, and the only benefit was down mass capability, and that's an awful lot of money just for down mass.

Skylab was ONE space station, and it couldn't even be resupplied. It was only occupied for 171 days, out of 2249 days in orbit. Salyut 6, by comparison, was occupied for 683 days out of 1764 days in orbit. It was also designed to be resupplied.

Salyut 6 is notable because it could be resupplied, crews could hand over the station, and it helped establish many different techniques for long term station operations. Skylab may have been more advanced with its scientific instruments, but it was barely occupied and was using left over Apollo hardware. Salyut 6 was purpose built.

We're not comparing two fighter aircraft here. Neither are we comparing the Shuttle to Soyuz. We're comparing two methods of station building. One uses small capsules for crew and supplies, and a larger launcher for individual modules. The other does it all in one spacecraft, with the added ability of bringing stuff down from space. This ability, however, is the only advantage offered by a spaceplane like the Shuttle. And it wasn't used very often.

The Soyuz could carry a full crew of the stations it serviced. And you wouldn't need a Shuttle sized vehicle to carry 7 people up, either. The Soyuz wasn't designed to carry heavy cargo, for good reason. If all you're going to do is send crew, why waste a huge rocket? That's inefficient. So, they had two rockets for their station programs. Proton, which does the heavy lifting, and Soyuz, which brings up the crew, and Progress, which flies on the same rocket as Soyuz, would resupply the stations. The Soyuz designs serviced 9 space stations. The Shuttle? Only two. And one of those it barely did anything to actually service (Mir). I'd say the Soyuz-Progress-Proton system was far more effective and successful at maintaining/building stations. They even used this system for the beginning of the ISS, and still use Soyuz and Progress.

Cost is the trump card. Why make one vehicle that can do it all when you already have two that can do almost the exact same thing? The only thing you lack is down mass capability. But that's much too large a cost just for that. They already had a system which was in use.

The issue with the Shuttle, by and large, wasn't how badly designed it was or its cost. It was that it A: had to launch with crew, and B: only had a payload in the 20 tonne range, while being over a hundred tonnes itself. What they needed was a payload only variant. No orbiter. No crew. Just a hundred tonnes of payload.

The Shuttle's only benefit over a capsule system that uses other rockets for bigger payloads is down-mass. But that shouldn't be the only thing you can do with what amounts to a Saturn V. It shouldn't be the only payload. That's all the Shuttle was, payload. It could carry other payloads with it, but those were far less massive.

The Buran was better in a couple of ways: it could fly unmanned, did not use solid rockets, and it wasn't the only Energia payload.

The Soyuz is much better in at least one category: It has a launch escape system.

Down-mass? That's not the only advantage of the Shuttle. It had huge up-mass AND crew capabilities. What do you have against solid rockets? Why does not being "the only Energia payload" make the Buran itself better? And the Shuttle could have if that was the way the US went with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Yobobhi said:

Down-mass? That's not the only advantage of the Shuttle. It had huge up-mass AND crew capabilities.

A 1% payload fraction is pretty terrible, even for real rockets. And you don't need 2000t of rocket to send 7 people. Soyuz can do it in 900t, and that's using 3 different rocket, with one almost empty. Dragon v2 is designed to be launched on a Falcon 9, 4 times lighter than the Space Shuttle, and a lot more than 4 times cheaper.

Falcon 9 can also bring its 20t payload to orbits other than 28° LEO.

Quote

What do you have against solid rockets?

cf Challenger.

Quote

Why does not being "the only Energia payload" make the Buran itself better?

Energia-Buran was a single program. Being able to use Energia for something else means better commercial possibilities, and acquiring more experience on the launcher, overall helping the program as a whole. The impact on the Buran itself might have been rather limiter though.

Quote

And the Shuttle could have if that was the way the US went with it.

It could have but it didn't. Regular expandable launchers remained better for the role over the 30 years of the Shuttle.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gaarst said:

A 1% payload fraction is pretty terrible, even for real rockets. And you don't need 2000t of rocket to send 7 people. Soyuz can do it in 900t, and that's using 3 different rocket, with one almost empty. Dragon v2 is designed to be launched on a Falcon 9, 4 times lighter than the Space Shuttle, and a lot more than 4 times cheaper.

Falcon 9 can also bring its 20t payload to orbits other than 28° LEO.

cf Challenger.

Energia-Buran was a single program. Being able to use Energia for something else means better commercial possibilities, and acquiring more experience on the launcher, overall helping the program as a whole. The impact on the Buran itself might have been rather limiter though.

It could have but it didn't. Regular expandable launchers remained better for the role over the 30 years of the Shuttle.

WHY AM I OUT OF LIKES

Although I must say I prefer expendable launchers to expandable ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sevenperforce said:

I prefer expendable launchers to expandable ones.

Yes.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gaarst said:

A 1% payload fraction is pretty terrible, even for real rockets. And you don't need 2000t of rocket to send 7 people. Soyuz can do it in 900t, and that's using 3 different rocket, with one almost empty. Dragon v2 is designed to be launched on a Falcon 9, 4 times lighter than the Space Shuttle, and a lot more than 4 times cheaper.

Falcon 9 can also bring its 20t payload to orbits other than 28° LEO.

cf Challenger.

Energia-Buran was a single program. Being able to use Energia for something else means better commercial possibilities, and acquiring more experience on the launcher, overall helping the program as a whole. The impact on the Buran itself might have been rather limiter though.

It could have but it didn't. Regular expandable launchers remained better for the role over the 30 years of the Shuttle.

I have something against liquid fuel rockets: the N1

The Shuttle could just bring an orbit booster stage for its payloads to allow smaller payloads to reach higher altitudes

But the thing is that 2000t of rocket can bring 7 people AND cargo

The single-launch capability is a great one, and the added bonus of bringing stuff back too doesn't hurt.

Heyyyyyy guess what the Shuttle's engines, SRBs (Modified) and other booster type things are being used in the SLS. Kinda like the whole "Energia as a seperate rocket"

So you're telling me that regular expendable rockets were better for the role of crew and heavy payload at the same time AND mass return in the same mission for the 30 years of the shuttle? Which ones, exactly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Yobobhi said:

I have something against liquid fuel rockets: the N1

The N1 didn't kill anyone. And even if there was people in it it had an LES. Part of a rocket's standard abort procedure is to terminate all propulsion, which has to be done explosively on SRBs, there was no way for the crew of the Space Shuttle to survive a SRB failure.

Quote

The Shuttle could just bring an orbit booster stage for its payloads to allow smaller payloads to reach higher altitudes

Bringing an upper stage to LEO and lighting it there is less efficient than launching straight for an higher orbit. Besides a conventional launcher doesn't require a crew and 70t of dead mass for a few tons of satellites.

Quote

But the thing is that 2000t of rocket can bring 7 people AND cargo

Meaning that you need to bring crew on any commercial flight, and that you bring 70t of dead mass each time you get people to space. Being able to do the two is a good thing for particular situations, but doesn't make up for the constraints.

Quote

The single-launch capability is a great one, and the added bonus of bringing stuff back too doesn't hurt.

Yes.

Quote

Heyyyyyy guess what the Shuttle's engines, SRBs (Modified) and other booster type things are being used in the SLS. Kinda like the whole "Energia as a seperate rocket"

They are being adapted, because the Space Shuttle program was terminated. At no point during the Space Shuttle program was it planned to use hardware for another launch system. This allowed the components of the Shuttle to be more specific in their roles, and more efficient: but reduced the possibilities for alternative use. For example the SSMEs are the most complex rocket engines ever created in order to be reusable over dozens of missions, and they worked fine in that role, but using them for single launches is simply a waste of money.

Energia's adaptation for alternative payloads was to be much more simple, because it was designed for it. No engine or boosters upgrades were needed, and no additional components were to be manufactured: quite like a regular rocket, you would have been able to strap a payload to the launcher and launch it.

Quote

So you're telling me that regular expendable rockets were better for the role of crew and heavy payload at the same time AND mass return in the same mission for the 30 years of the shuttle? Which ones, exactly?

Regular expendable rockets are better for the role of crew transportation.

Regular expandable rockets are better for the role of heavy payloads transportation.

The Space Shuttle was better for the role of crew and heavy payload transportation at the same time, but it's a niche use, besides SpaceLab missions and Hubble servicing, this combined capacity was never required. The ISS could have been built by regular unmanned rockets, just like MIR was by Protons.

The Space Shuttle was better for the role of mass returns. In my opinion it's the only effective advantage, with in orbit servicing, of the Shuttle over regular rockets. Being able to bring back large objects protected from reentry is a real asset, but it doesn't justify the entirety Space Shuttle program, especially the parts were it was to be the only US launch system to try to make it economically viable.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Shuttle were designed without crew cabin, just with cargo bay, with possibility to install a passengers' cabin inside, it would be much more efficient.
No crew, only pax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Soviets were so kerbal that they added 6 too many boosters.

 

Although if the Soviets didn't shut the program down, the Soviets could've landed on the moon, first cosmonaut on the Lunar surface.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Happily N-1 was cancelled before somebody tried to ride on it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Gaarst said:

The N1 didn't kill anyone. And even if there was people in it it had an LES. Part of a rocket's standard abort procedure is to terminate all propulsion, which has to be done explosively on SRBs, there was no way for the crew of the Space Shuttle to survive a SRB failure.

Bringing an upper stage to LEO and lighting it there is less efficient than launching straight for an higher orbit. Besides a conventional launcher doesn't require a crew and 70t of dead mass for a few tons of satellites.

Meaning that you need to bring crew on any commercial flight, and that you bring 70t of dead mass each time you get people to space. Being able to do the two is a good thing for particular situations, but doesn't make up for the constraints.

Yes.

They are being adapted, because the Space Shuttle program was terminated. At no point during the Space Shuttle program was it planned to use hardware for another launch system. This allowed the components of the Shuttle to be more specific in their roles, and more efficient: but reduced the possibilities for alternative use. For example the SSMEs are the most complex rocket engines ever created in order to be reusable over dozens of missions, and they worked fine in that role, but using them for single launches is simply a waste of money.

Energia's adaptation for alternative payloads was to be much more simple, because it was designed for it. No engine or boosters upgrades were needed, and no additional components were to be manufactured: quite like a regular rocket, you would have been able to strap a payload to the launcher and launch it.

Regular expendable rockets are better for the role of crew transportation.

Regular expandable rockets are better for the role of heavy payloads transportation.

The Space Shuttle was better for the role of crew and heavy payload transportation at the same time, but it's a niche use, besides SpaceLab missions and Hubble servicing, this combined capacity was never required. The ISS could have been built by regular unmanned rockets, just like MIR was by Protons.

The Space Shuttle was better for the role of mass returns. In my opinion it's the only effective advantage, with in orbit servicing, of the Shuttle over regular rockets. Being able to bring back large objects protected from reentry is a real asset, but it doesn't justify the entirety Space Shuttle program, especially the parts were it was to be the only US launch system to try to make it economically viable.

Which regular rocket exactly could have carried ISS truss segments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Gaarst said:

The N1 didn't kill anyone. And even if there was people in it it had an LES. Part of a rocket's standard abort procedure is to terminate all propulsion, which has to be done explosively on SRBs, there was no way for the crew of the Space Shuttle to survive a SRB failure.

Considering the thing landed hard on the pad (launch 2), there were many ways for that thing to kill people that an LES couldn't fix (especially coming down on a nearby town).  Apparently it landed close enough to the pad that nobody was there (I've always heard the story that the director and anybody who couldn't get out of it was in the blast zone, but that seems to be a myth).

When you are playing with millions of pounds of explosives, there are *many* ways for those things to kill lots of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, wumpus said:

I've always heard the story that the director and anybody who couldn't get out of it was in the blast zone, but that seems to be a myth

You may be thinking of a different accident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Yobobhi said:

Which regular rocket exactly could have carried ISS truss segments?

14..15 t heavy, 4.5 meters wide?

Any.
Proton. ~22 t of payload allows to attach 7 t tug.
Mechanical arm of the space station will finish the berthing. For example, Dragon still doesn't dock.

(See any TKS-based ISS/Mir module)

Edited by kerbiloid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Yobobhi said:

Which regular rocket exactly could have carried ISS truss segments?

Much of the ISS was designed for the STS to put in orbit, mainly because STS was there, not because STS was inherently a better way of putting them up. Most sections could have been redesigned for Proton without any loss in functionality.

The only thing I can think of that only the STS could have done was the Hubble repair. And this is coming from a massive, posters-on-the-wall fan of the STS.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, peadar1987 said:

Much of the ISS was designed for the STS to put in orbit, mainly because STS was there, not because STS was inherently a better way of putting them up. Most sections could have been redesigned for Proton without any loss in functionality.

The only thing I can think of that only the STS could have done was the Hubble repair. And this is coming from a massive, posters-on-the-wall fan of the STS.

The truss assembly required the arm, without it you would had to do with something more like MIR or gone kerbal as in launch an structure with an arm who you docked to station. 

The shuttle's arm made the assembly much easier. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now