Jump to content

ZooNamedGames

Members
  • Posts

    5,149
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

3,090 Excellent

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • About me
    Aerospace Archivist
  • Location
    Leaning on the Flight Director's Console
  • Interests
    Space. Space History. Retro Gaming. Theme park history. Space Launch System. Getting into space. #TeamSpace

Recent Profile Visitors

16,704 profile views
  1. Hiya! I would advice using the 3.75m tanks for the SLS core stage & a 2.5m tank set for the ICPS & Orion stack. I would also use the largest 2.5m SRBs from the Making History pack, if available, so you can stretch the core stage as long as possible. I’d also use 4x KS-25s instead of the Mammoth engine part since they combined are lighter with similar thrust. To make them match SLS’ engine placement, try using 2x mirror symmetry. It’ll take some tries but eventually you’ll find the optimal spot to match SLS’ engine placement. For the ICPS engine, if available, I would use the Skiff engine; it’s supposed to be a J-2 engine-alike but I find it’s thrust/weight/efficiency to better mirror the real world RL-10, which is conveniently the engine the ICPS uses. For Orion’s engine, I would advise using either the Terrier engine, or the puff engine, if you feel brave enough to get it aligned through Orion’s (mk2-3 cockpit) CoM. Also, for Orion’s offset solar panels, use the earlier trick of using mirror symmetry to position the solar panels closer to Orion’s. For Orion’s tanks, use the 1.875m tanks, as that will give you a closer approximation to the size difference between the Orion capsule & the European Service Module. Use angle snap to make sure all of your placements match, & hold shift while placing or dragging parts via the translate tool. This will allow the part to shift *just* slightly left or right, depending on where your mouse is. This will allow you to get a better, finer positioning for parts. For the LAS Tower, I advise using a fairing for the blast protective cover, then a structural strut with 2 sets of 8x sepotrons. You can add cones where needed for aesethics. Note, to get the necessary offset thrust for it to torque the pod up *and away*- open the parts menu, pick any 1 sepotron, remove it from symmetry, & reduce its thrust from 100%, to 99.5%, that slight difference will be enough to create a higher thrust, slightly longer burning & more stable alternative to the stock LAS part which is frankly, awful in many ways as it can’t even do it’s listed job well at all, but that’s a separate subject. Also to create the LVSA, I would just use a fairing from the core stage that meets with the upper tank of the LVSA (covering the lower tank, engine & decoupler). Hope this helps! PS- I will upload my replica of SLS Block 1 tomorrow which shows all of this in detail.
  2. Long time no post. Just had to pop in & say the photos don’t do this girl justice! I got a selfie with her today ! She looked fantastic!
  3. Long time no post. Anyway I'm making a 1.12 RSS/RO install & I'm curious if there's any RO compatible mods that provides parts from SpaceX (Starship, Falcon 9*, Dragon 2), United Launch Alliance (ULA) (Vulcan), Blue Origin (New Glenn, Blue Moon), & A RSS/RO compatible Space Shuttle mod. *Note, I am aware that there is a Merlin in RO by default, but a better visual engine would be appreciated. Thank you for your help.
  4. You do realize it also employs many people, people who can turn around & spread their experience to groups like BO & SpaceX? Moreover, the reason why Stennis doesn't get companies to work there is precisely because it isn't modern enough to handle current vehicles. It'd be nice to welcome groups like SpaceX or Blue but they can't afford to make the upgrades to the facilities needed- NASA, who doesn't need to concern themselves over profits or expenditure v income- can. Plus going back to my earlier point- all this work will not only hire more people but open it up to not just the likes of Blue Origin, SpaceX, ULA or NASA but other new start ups too who need access to a test facility but might not be able to afford rural real estate & the equipment needed to fuel a rocket like that. Also there's more needed than just those 2 things. For one, permission from the government to do such testing as well as properly setup disposal procedures if there's toxic fuel included (which includes Kerosene), as well as the test stand itself which needs to be able to hand not just the thrust loads but also the sound & thermal dynamics of running a rocket engine near the ground. A complex setup which a simple bill to give Stennis a refurb could easily solve & thus- give smaller, newer startup companies making their rockets a government available, leg up in testing. Again- SLS staying there forever is stupid. The bill to upgrade Stennis is not. After all- if it didn't go to Stennis, then it likely wouldn't have fallen in the space sector at all. More likely to more military spending or some other use which we'd see far less of a return on.
  5. Its set to use a spare core stage which could be any. Regardless their getting pretty close to 1 a year anyway & with HLS related delays, SLS will be rapidly begin piling up unless that's sorted quickly. Artemis II is nearly complete with Artemis 3's core right behind it (as far as I'm aware *most* of the core stage hardware for it exists). At the end of the day as one of the few self reported SLS fanboys- even I agree this is stupid, I get why they're doing this (not just pork- there's other legitimate reasons like bringing the badly aging Stennis facilities to the 21st century) but there's a million simpler solutions like pushing ULA to hotfire their Vulcan boosters prior to flight there like they did with Delta IV RS-68 engines have been for decades. With the last RS-68 being hotfired there- there's little reason not to modify the other side of the B-2 test stand to support methalox rockets, especially as they're use is on the rise. Alas, I digress. Well considering Artemis 3's Orion is well underway with it's SLS core largely built (awaiting SOFI & stacking) & it's boosters are being fueled- there's a very high chance it'll fly crew as will later missions- especially given there's no viable alternative to SLS right now. FH can't throw Orion to TLI, using distributed launches won't work as the reversed thrust loads poses risks to the vehicle's structure. You can't use a modified D2 as it would also exceed FH's lift capabilities. There's just no alternative to Orion+SLS right now, regardless if you're happy with that or not.
  6. rip charmander

    1. ZooNamedGames

      ZooNamedGames

      He was loved but he was nothing compared to the wiggle.

      though given the forums limitations on profile pic size he may see a reappearance since he was much- much- nicer to look at.

  7. Thanks for the answer. I wasn’t in a good place emotionally in 2017 (nearly 5 years ago now, wow), so take my hostility back then with a grain of salt.
  8. Someone should really bring the glory of the Space Launch System to the forums. America's going back to the moon, & SLS is gonna be the rocket to do it.

    1. Show previous comments  2 more
    2. Rhode_Enterprise_By-Matt

      Rhode_Enterprise_By-Matt

      Tell that to SN15 who I watched land a few days ago. (I don’t want this to be an argument by the way.)

    3. ZooNamedGames

      ZooNamedGames

      SN15’s success is great (I was watching the NSF stream), but sadly it’s a drop in the bucket for what’s needed for starship to be ready to replace SLS.

      I said it best here.

    4. Rhode_Enterprise_By-Matt

      Rhode_Enterprise_By-Matt

      I agree with that tweet... it couldn’t have explained it better.

  9. Eh I guess it is time for some better formatting. Blasted I was wanting to delay that, such a pain. The intention was to provide data for upcoming vehicles. If you notice, all spacecraft are from 2010 & later (Orion is apparently up for debate). All rockets are from 2020 onwards with the exception of Electron which is an extremely sore thumb the more I look at it, so I may remove it, maybe not. If I can get enough data for things like F9 B5 (or previous blocks), I'll add it. As I said to tater, its about time for an update to the format. (Ugh). So adding more vehicles may be an option. I already have a blank slot on the rocket section anyway so adding just 1 won't be an issue, but I'd likely add more than just one from SpaceX. Again the reason for the 1 per company rule, is that I want to be unbiased, which on Twitter can massively affect your credibility which for a project like this, is all I have. But if I can get enough data for a new rocket, then perhaps I'll add it anyway. Don't tempt me. I've been considering making a HADS.
  10. Clearly an error, I'll fix that. Remember it's one guy running this thing. Its already iffy if I should've even included the free flight tests, but captive carry seems to be more like capsule drop tests to me, hence their omission. I just wanted DC to have something on the list. Noted, I'll fix that. Starship can't carry humans either in it's current form, but if it flies in July as Musk claims, I'm adding that to the "orbit" milestone for Starship despite SN2X being the Starship equivalent of Orion's EFT-1. Error, lots of areas to update when something flies, sometimes something gets looked over. Again, one guy.
  11. I'll give it a look, seems promising for some numbers.
  12. Yes, I've listed both drops. The one with the landing gear failure & the successful landing in 2017.
  13. It had an Orion boilerplate, so just as much in common with the Ascent Abort-2 Orion. The Ares 1X was a rocket, while rocketsleds are more assists to throw it out of a plane- not quite the same & thus far, you're the only one to make this complaint. Cargo is not included as that's following the crew variant (its in the crewed spacecraft section). Also I've included the pad abort test, IFA & other Dragon 2 flights. Cells K63-K68. Each mission includes which vehicle is used. It says if its a boilerplate or not.
×
×
  • Create New...