Jump to content

Mission Idea: Emulating Real Life in Kerbal Space Program [WIP] [Submit a Payload] [Become a Launch or Payload Provider]

TheEpicSquared
 Share

Recommended Posts

TheEpicSquared

TheEpicSquared

Posted
  • Author
Posted
On 21/04/2017 at 9:12 PM, Skylon said:

Yes that is the plan

How much shielding is needed (if any) for an optimal kerbin orbit?

I put shielding on full, but that probably won't be necessary. :P I suggest you look around in the Kerbalism thread. :) 

On 22/04/2017 at 1:11 AM, icantmakemodels said:

1.875m?! That's not a size, in any mod (That I know of)

Tweakscale.

On 22/04/2017 at 1:14 PM, Skylon said:

I present:

MunDust-1:

This probe comes in two parts, an orbiter and a lander. They will be taken to LKO, where the orbiter's engines will transfer and circularise at the Mun. It has highly expensive sophisticated science equipment on board, so it will be launched on a high reliability version of the Arthur-1. However, because it is lighter than the rocket's max payload, an upper stage recovery will be attempted using parachutes.

V7LcC0P.jpg

Launch Instructions:

  Reveal hidden contents
  1. Launch to 80km at a 45% gravity turn when the Mun transfer window opens
  2. Transfer the lander and orbiter to the Mun under its own power
  3. Deorbit the second stage opposite the peninsula past KSC so that the trajectories mod says it will land just before that peninsula in the sea.
  4. On entry, burn remaining fuel so that 75m/s is left
  5. Hold radial out with RCS on
  6. If it starts to get very, VERY hot (it will get very hot anyway), burn off any remaining fuel.
  7. Arm the parachutes.

Here is the entire launch configuration: https://kerbalx.com/Skylon/MunDust-1

Oops,, wrong thread

You'll be added to the launch manifest. Do you need government funding, or can you manage to pay for both the launcher and the payload?

22 hours ago, Skylon said:

@TheEpicSquared Could you get this mod:

It adds a single part

Looks good.

15 hours ago, StupidAndy said:

@TheEpicSquared

have you hyperedited the station into orbit yet?

I have, but I didn't put enough batteries on it, so I'll have to change that. I'll get a screenshot of it soon. :) 

9 hours ago, Draconiator said:

I uhhh kind of accidentally made an amazing launcher that I am testing now, I love it when this happens...will test it out with my test payload now.

Oooh, I'm looking forward to it! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEpicSquared

TheEpicSquared

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Skylon said:

@TheEpicSquared I will need some money for the science done. The whole launch will cost roughly 75,000 which should be doable. What is my current budget?

Your current budget is 107,560.4 funds (keep in mind that it change due to monthly deductions, profits from the MunNet launch, etc).

How much money are you thinking for the science done? The government is prepared to give you an advance of 15,000, with an additional 60,000 if the mission is successful. This gives you back the 75,000 funds spent on the launch.

IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT

Will everyone who has a launch agreement please PM me, so I don't have to read through several pages of discussions. I'll update the launch manifest as PMs come in.

If you don't PM me your launch agreement, you might not launch! (If all of your launches are already on the manifest, ignore this message.)

Edited by TheEpicSquared
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEpicSquared

TheEpicSquared

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
On 4/24/2017 at 1:04 AM, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

Is this too clippy?

azEYrBX.jpg

Yeah, get half the sphere out of the tank and you'll be fine.

16 hours ago, StupidAndy said:

okay, I have officially decided the winner of my heliology probe

the winner is

DRUMROLL PLEASE!!!

@Skylon again! congratulations! (again)

(Probe Found Here: https://kerbalx.com/Stupidandy/Corrmes-CMES)

 

12 hours ago, Skylon said:

Where do you want it

The launch will be added to the manifest when you two have decided on all the particulars.

Edited by TheEpicSquared
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oliverm001x

Oliverm001x

Posted
Posted (edited)

MAJOR UPDATE!!!

 

TheEpicSquared and I have proudly concurred on the idea of the Youtube channel idea, and are in the process of revamping it. So ladies and gentlemen, prepare for a new medium, which is video. So you may be wondering, what is going to b on the channel? Well, we will be posting a video of each launch, along with a monthly update revolving around the participant's standings. Thank you for your continuous support! :) The link for the Youtube Channel is found here!

Edited by Oliverm001x
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skylon

Skylon

Posted
Posted (edited)

@TheEpicSquared I want to make a suborbital tourist plane, and I will do it in one of a few ways. Wondering which are valid, if any:

  1. Air launch a) with powered craft or b) with separate SRB
  2. SRB vertical launch a) with powered craft or b) with unpowered craft (larger SRB)
  3. Adapted Arthur-1 with or without a powered craft

It will have the standard escape systems and life support for at least a day. I may later develop it into a orbital craft with docking capability, but that will come with later rocket versions.

Edit: How much would it cost for me to buy a downrange (from KSC) runway?

Edited by Skylon
Link to comment
Share on other sites
StupidAndy

StupidAndy

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Skylon said:

 

@TheEpicSquared I want to make a suborbital tourist plane, and I will do it in one of a few ways. Wondering which are valid, if any:

  1. Air launch a) with powered craft or b) with separate SRB
  2. SRB vertical launch a) with powered craft or b) with unpowered craft (larger SRB)
  3. Adapted Arthur-1 with or without a powered craft

It will have the standard escape systems and life support for at least a day. I may later develop it into a orbital craft with docking capability, but that will come with later rocket versions.

Edit: How much would it cost for me to buy a downrange (from KSC) runway?

 

sorry, but due to the rules, spaceplanes are ruled "unrealistic"

a helpful thing to do would be to look over the rules a few times before starting, it really helps later :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skylon

Skylon

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, StupidAndy said:

sorry, but due to the rules, spaceplanes are ruled "unrealistic"

a helpful thing to do would be to look over the rules a few times before starting, it really helps later :)

I did look over the rules but I will look over them again now.

Plus, it wouldn't be an SSTO or anything with airbreathing engines on the craft going to space. Real world example: SpaceShipTwo

Concepts: Dreamer or DynaSoar

Link to comment
Share on other sites
StupidAndy

StupidAndy

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Skylon said:

I did look over the rules but I will look over them again now.

Plus, it wouldn't be an SSTO or anything with airbreathing engines on the craft going to space. Real world example: SpaceShipTwo

Concepts: Dreamer or DynaSoar

well I just re-read your post and found where I made my mistake, I thought that you were talking about a plane :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skylon

Skylon

Posted
Posted (edited)

Now testing the Vogon-1 plane atop the Whitewing carrier: P1pRANi.jpgLooks like it can manage >1000m/s before separation (not shown).

Apogee hits 98,000km after the high-g turn and rocket fire: 9s8npI7.jpgRe-entry was successful, though it requires use of ailerons at ~20km to prevent overheats (I will add a radiator for the final version.) Final conclusions on ascent/descent protocol:

Spoiler
  1. Take off at 75m/s (can be lower)
  2. Climb at 100 from horizontal
  3. When at 10km, level out, making sure you do not let vertical speed below -5m/s, trying to keep it above 5m/s
  4. As you gain speed, pull up, making sure speed isn't being sacrificed
  5. When you start losing speed (should be at around 17km) separate
  6. After you are a safe distance away (not too far), ignite Vogon-1's engine. Make sure not to lose too much speed here. igniting engine at the same time probably won't cause destruction of either vessel. Quick save before separation.
  7. With the engine on, pull up hard  (max 450) and burn until apoapsis is at 80km.
  8. Coast to apogee
  9. Turn RCS on for re-entry and keep a high (no more than 45 degree again) angle of attack for as long as possible
  10. When the heating starts to get dangerous, pull up to horizontal, then enter normal plane flight to the ground
  11. When close to the ground you can use 0 to deploy the flaps to slow down (these are the yaw flaps, probably not the best idea but oh well :P)

 

Edited by Skylon
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEpicSquared

TheEpicSquared

Posted
  • Author
Posted

LAUNCH REPORT

@Brent Kerman

Aquila 1, Garrob GCC x2

 

Launch Summary

Spoiler

The Aquila 1 lifted off from Baikerbanur (KSC2) at Y1 D50 4:07:31 UT. Ascent went nominally as the rocket turned directly east. Manual control was used since no MechJeb module was attached to the rocket. Stage separation occurred at roughly 29 kilometers ASL and the second stage continued to orbit.

An 80x111km parking orbit was established by the second stage. This was later extended to the final 159x153 inclined orbit. Both satellites were separated successfully, and went on to cancel out their orbital inclination on their own. However, after the second Garrob separation, control of the second stage was lost, due to the apparent lack of an antenna. It seems that the rocket was operating under the antenna link from the payload.

Because of the loss of control, a recovery of the second stage was impossible.

The same issue was present on the first stage. It did not have an antenna, and therefore the chutes could not be deployed. The first stage crashed into the ground and was destroyed. 

 

Pictures

Spoiler

Payload attached to rocket in VABdQkjyiO.png

LaunchHZDnlFn.png

AscentR00ulH4.png

Stage separationDQPBmxe.png

Circularization burnW4E3NLw.png

Parking orbit achievedPlj6Fni.png

Final orbit achievediKeAXTG.png

Garrob GCC 1 deployed93XHB8S.png

Garrob GCC 2 deployed, control lost on second stageeC15DJe.png

First stage after separationnchfvKR.png

Fist stage falling (chutes would have been deployed at this point if not for loss of control)jbQbm2U.png

Destructive impactRIHe70L.png

 

Mission status: SUCCESSFUL

- All satellites deployed in correct orbit

- Recovery failed

Aquila 1 is approved for further flights once it has fixed its antenna problem (@Brent Kerman you should probably take note :wink:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...