• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

436 Excellent

About Rakaydos

  • Rank
    Senior Rocket Scientist

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. It's nothing that couldnt be done with lots of pencil and paper (Or more cheat menu orbit testing) but Jool mission grind is already bad enough. Since my tech tree is full already, this isnt even the challange proper anymore, "just" an Order of the Trilobite. If it's still a problem, I can uninstall it and go back to orbital tests.
  2. Redesigned the Tylo lander again. The tylo lifter is still a single assembly that has to go up on a build-a-rocket, but the lander has been broken into 3 parts that should be assemble-able without cosign losses. Taking the Jool 5 Infinity video as inspiriation, I would also need an additional 1250 DV to go from a highly eliptical mothership parking orbit to low Tylo, with enough residuals to give the returning can 1250 DV back to the mothership and redevous. And Cavemen cant do bump-rendevus. That's managable. So I've started to look at what's needed to take the empty landercan to other jool moons and back. (using kerbal engineer for ship design) Turns out 2 of my "fuel pods" can get me Val and back with good flying. 1 pod each for Bop and Pol, with something like 300 m/s reserve for intercept, docking, and poor mission planning. Laythe will probably take an independant lander, and of course Kerbin requires at least 1 2.5m heat shield to protect the lander can from jool intercept velocity at kerbin, though I only need 1 more fuel pod if Ionly have 1 heat shield. A heatshield, probecore, battery, parachutes, 2 baguete tanks and solar panels gives a healthy margin and should have enough utility to return to kerbin. Masses: 2.25 tons for heat shield/parachute assembly, 2.176 tons per fuel pod (5 for Val, Bop, Pol and Kerbin), whatever the Layth lander ends up looking like, the Tylo lifter (2.753 tons), the 3 parts of the tylo lander(2.356 tons each), and the tylo orbit tanks (4 more fuel tanks). That's what a mothership needs to bring to Tylo eliptical orbit.
  3. Redesigned a tylo lander stage that can carry the tylo lifter, but now I need a kerbin lifter that can manage 7.5 tons to kerbin orbit. Looks like I need some horizontal assembily.
  4. damit, I add 8 moduels to my prototype to give it the DV it needs, and now it consistantly krakens when cheat menued to orbit.
  5. Rakaydos

    SpaceX Discussion Thread

    ...you guys should see the whole video. it's even better.
  6. If the treadmill cannot create enough force on the plane through the landing gear bearing to oppose the plane's jet propulsion, the plane takes off. For there to be any debate at all, the landing gear has to be basically locked up to generate enough drag- and even then, it may well not be enough.
  7. So as I understand this topic, the premice is nonsensical- A plane on a treadmill that exactly matches the airplane wheel's dynamic friction with the foward prupulsion of at least one jet engine. The first reason this is impossible, is that airplanes are, by design, extremely light, and friction (dynamic or otherwise) is dependant on weight. The treadmill could be going fast enough to melt the wheels, and it still wouldnt stop the plane from moving foreward. But for the sake of the argument, lets skip that. Treadmill moving at trillions of miles per hour, plane stationary. The treadmill's friction with the air at that speed is remarkable, creating a blower. The exact effects on the plane depend on the size of the treadmill, but the moment the plane lifts from the ground, our nonsensical super-friction landing gear/treadmill combo doesnt work anymore, and the plane can acelerate normally into the headwind created by the treadmill.
  8. I've just about got my earth orbit->tylo planned out, DV wise, and I'm going to need to "simulate" it to make sure, before starting the actual orbital assembily. However, other things have picked up, and this project is on the back burner recently.
  9. So, simply as a matter of ridiculusness, lets say 9000 HG5s will allow comunication to Jool. A reasonable low- part launcher might have 6 components, with a hard- attached payload. (Reliant, 2 large tanks, decoupler, Terrier, 1 large tank) It is possible, then, to send up 20 antennas, a pair of docking ports, a probe core and a solar panel. You would need to grind 450 launches and rendevuses to assemble that relay... but it COuld be done.
  10. https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/HG-5_High_Gain_Antenna
  11. You'll note that I'm throwing together designs and doing empirical testing of DV ratings, rather than taking a calculator to it. I'm referencing those numbers against DV charts. My orbial assemily technique sacrifices module size for a guarntee of full fuel loads for the component- residual fuel in the booster is used for docking and discarded. I missed not being able to transfer crew in caveman- that would have been a nasty suprise, as I was optimizing my design for airless lift from tylo. I do have a docking port, so I may be able to get away with a "recovery package" I attach to the capsule before it comes home. (Service bay, parachutes, extra battery for SAS), though I dont think I can spare the mass for any science beyond crew reports.
  12. Rocket math isnt my strong suit.
  13. Assembily was finniky, but I put the tylo lifter into orbit for some DV testing. I ran into some fuel flow bugs (the tank the fairing was attached to wanted to drain last), but with tanks opened manually per stage, the lifter was able to achieve approximately 2560 DV above orbital velocity. That should give me 350 DV for gravity losses on tylo... at least once I sort out the fuel flow bug.
  14. Ok, so if I havnt missed something, this module has both the wet TWR and the DV rating to go from the surface of Tylo to a low tylo orbit. The part count requires a build-a-rocket to get it into orbit. Kerbin ground tests says the TWR=1 at about 2 tons, which accounting for atmospheric thrust of the primary engine(16 vs 20) and Tylo's lighter gravity, gives it a tylo TWR just over 1 after it ditches the landing shocks. The Ant engines have a bigger atmo/vac performance gap than the primary engine, so the TWR should be semi reasonable. Gravity losses may still kill the idea, but I dont have hyperedit to conduct simulations.
  15. Rakaydos

    SpaceX Discussion Thread

    "Using the setup you describe (compressed air gas thrusters) makes sence, but we're going a lot farther." Calling it now, minaturized Sabatier methane reactor and BFR RCS-based thrusters, for carbon neutral rockets that run on water. (plus atmosphere Co2)