ZooNamedGames
-
Posts
5,149 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by ZooNamedGames
-
-
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!
-
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.
-
SLS has been lifted ahead of its mate to the SRBs.
-
2 hours ago, tater said:
That's called "pork." Stennis doesn't need government money at all. If their facilities are desirable, charge industry to use them. Figure out what it costs annually to maintain, and charge accordingly. If that is too expensive for customers? Close the test facility, or sell it.
How many tests do they do a week?
SpaceX has a test facility. BO has a test facility. Why doesn't AJR have their own facility? You'd think for 15X the cost of a Be-4 per RS-25 (being generous to AJR) AJR could afford to build their own test facility. If the money they have been paid over the years actually went into Stennis... sell it to AJR.
A rocket test facility requires rural real estate, and some water.
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.
-
7 hours ago, Beccab said:
...given that a single SLS takes one year to build, doesn't that mean Artemis II will be at least two years after Artemis I?
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.
6 hours ago, cubinator said:Pretty disappointing. At this point I feel like it's ~50% chance SLS ever flies crew, and if that it'll be just one cislunar flight...
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.
-
On 5/20/2021 at 10:53 AM, luisitoISS said:
For @ZooNamedGames I would ask for a little more respect with some of your questions and doubts; And if you are looking for a Buran mod that fits for Space Shuttle System's, @papasid just updated the Buran mod, and it will fit both Stock, RO and RSS. If you don't like Cormorant Aeronology for The Buran Orbiter, and Energia with AB-Launchers or Tantares.
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.
-
How about @tater
-
21 hours ago, tater said:
Since it is about crew spacecraft, I think it would be reasonable to subdivide "flights" such that you have actual crew flights separated.
Maybe:
Uncrewed test flights (various altitudes up to and including space)
Suborbital crew flights (suborbital in this case being specific to reaching space—might have to be <100km for Virgin though)
Orbital test flights
Orbital crew flights
At some point you'd need Lunar orbital flights.
Eh I guess it is time for some better formatting. Blasted I was wanting to delay that, such a pain.
12 hours ago, KSK said:The decision to include one rocket per company just looks odd to me. It also means that for two companies, you’ve prioritised boosters which are under development for which there’s currently very little data, over boosters which are actually flying.
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.
12 hours ago, KSK said:At the moment though, it’s rather like you’ve compiled a dataset for historical spacecraft but missed out STS or Soyuz.
Don't tempt me. I've been considering making a HADS.
-
1 hour ago, tater said:
Number of flights says 1.
Clearly an error, I'll fix that. Remember it's one guy running this thing.
1 hour ago, tater said:What about "captive carry" tests?
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.
2 hours ago, tater said:Dream Chaser is 2 words, BTW.
Noted, I'll fix that.
2 hours ago, tater said:You claim Orion has orbited. EFT-1 was not an actual spacecraft capable of carrying humans on any mission, of any duration.
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.
2 hours ago, tater said:Crew Dragon and CST-100 have both flown. NS has flown it's suborbital flight a bunch of times (14? You have 6), as has Spaceship/Spaceship2 as you have shown.
Error, lots of areas to update when something flies, sometimes something gets looked over. Again, one guy.
-
Just now, kerbiloid said:
Did you try?
I'll give it a look, seems promising for some numbers.
-
Just now, tater said:
Dream Chaser has done more than one drop test, too. One a long time ago had a gear failure to deploy, right?
Yes, I've listed both drops. The one with the landing gear failure & the successful landing in 2017.
-
Just now, tater said:
Ares 1X was not an Orion flight, again, if that counts the parachute sleds dropped by SpaceX count as Dragons, and I'm sure Boeing has done the same with CST-100. It's comical to have more Orion flights than Dragon which has flown all-up to ISS 3-4 times (depends on if you count the cargo version), not to mention the pad-abort article which was a real spacecraft on top of a real rocket.
Based on your loose "flight" definition, Crew Dragon has flown 5 times from KSC (pad abort) and numerous drop tests.
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.
Just now, tater said:Then how could you get 5 for Orion, which has flown exactly once as a not fully flight article (EFT-1)?
4? On what planet? Do "things shaped like Orion with the right mass" count? Them dummy capsules drop-tested also count.
You really need to count only "spacecraft" for flights, IMO. That or very separately list "test flight" maybe with a note that says it includes mass simulators, boilerplates, etc.
Each mission includes which vehicle is used. It says if its a boilerplate or not.
-
I've updated Orion's listing to 4 crew since I can't find what I found before but if I do, I'll relist it as such.
-
6 minutes ago, tater said:
You might want to standardize on how you rate things. You list 5 flights for Orion, even if you count boilerplate (EFT-1), it's 1 flight. If you count drop tests CST-100 and Crew Dragon must have dozens—unless you don't count non-flight article drop tests, and they are not dropping flight article, billion dollar Orions out of airplanes.
My suggestion would be "flights" that are flight article vehicles, and some other language for non-flight articles (flight articles being spacecraft actually capable of carrying humans in space).
Also, is there any talk of Orion post-Constellation ever holding 6 crew on a lunar flight? We know for a fact the unit cost on just the capsule is 900M$ in future production, so the cost per seat is nothing like 100M$, not even counting dev or ESM. Every single Artemis mission even penciled in (could it hold 6 to the Moon, vs short LEO flight?) is 4 crew. That's 225M/seat (not counting the SM, or any dev costs.
Again, it's coming up with a standard. The per seat costs of CST-100 and Crew Dragon are contractual, and accurate going forward. Total cost could amortize the dev cost over some number of flights, or could perhaps be tracked separately (as what the taxpayers paid in as dev)—2.XB$ for Crew Dragon and 4.XB$ for CST-100.
"Flights", according to my definition that I'll soon add to the MADS, is anything that includes rocket propulsion; exemption being SpaceShipTwo & DreamChaser. The former since its the same exact article as the rocket flying article, & DreamChaser as the two freeflights are the only ones it has thus far. Things like parachute tests, drop tests, splashdown tests, etc; are not included in any calculations or listings other than to report its status in the list.
I can't remember where but I did see data that suggested 6 for a short period (can't recall how long). If you can source a better number for that or costs, by all means hit the submission form. I'd love the help.
-
The Modern Aerospace Data Sheet (MADS) is a running project I've been making for over a year now where I've been collecting & compiling all data I can find about modern crew spacecraft (Orion, Dragon 2, Starliner, Starship, etc) & rockets (SLS, Super Heavy, New Glenn, Electron, etc). It's a small compilation of data, and a long running WORK IN PROGRESS. If you follow me on Twitter (please do, I post a lot of space related content!), you'll know I've been tracking the progress of modern spaceflight & the progress of all the vehicle's mentioned above, as well as others. It is a short list sadly, but I have expanded if I can get enough data to fill up most of the info on the data sheet.
I bring it to the forums since I'd like to get some help in filling out some of the blanks & open up discussion on it. Though I've been trying to be dedicated to it, help never hurts. As such, I've made a Google Form for people to submit info to- the only difficult requirement for a submission is a source for your information since I want reliable information as this is an unbiased, unopinionated project. All info on it is as neutral as I could possibly make it.
Currently the following vehicles are listed in the Spacecraft Section: Orion, Dragon 2, Starliner, Starship, New Shepard Crew Capsule, & SpaceShipTwo. Rocket Section: SLS Block I, Vulcan, Electron, Super Heavy, New Glenn. There is currently a slot open in the Rocket section, as I have not found enough info of a modern rocket. I am trying to keep company representation fair, & not include multiples of any one companies rocket's (New Shepard & New Glenn, Falcon 9 & Starship, SpaceShipOne & SpaceShipTwo, etc). However I am open to adding another vehicle should the data be sufficient; same goes for spacecraft (but would require reformatting the sheet again).
Again, as its a WIP, there are many gaps, "Unknowns", "???" & other blank info on the sheet. I've either not found a reliable piece of info on it, or the info has simply not been found, which is why I'd like help.
I post MADS updates on twitter semiregularly (given time for me to work on it), but I'll also post them here, should this post have enough activity to warrant it.
Link to the MADS: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tODJp9YheCIUGPmptWGfFZ7lY-Ew3FSa4T8t4H0f7IY/edit?usp=sharing
Link to the MADS Data Submission Form: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScRnyLdmvxPPNXjOX8gp_b6fPZDLRuy4PFFgelerm52MQd1Ow/viewform
-
Y’all do realize NASA said they have spare engines on site right? Set to take at most a week to perform a swap (if that’s even needed). Which currently does not appear to be the case.
Jim even said that a retest may not be necessary if they got the data they needed.
2 hours ago, YNM said:Yeah, if they ended up being chosen for HLS then I can see the Orion spacecraft being pushed back to Earth by Starship. That'd be even less propellant needed on the Orion SM.
Everyone realizes the docking port on Orion can’t handle the forces of a tug in a reverse orientation (unless its extremely low thrust). Merlin (much less raptor) generates so much thrust that the docking port would be crushed, who knows what kind of damage the capsule itself would endure as it hasn’t been designed for that (abandoned when Orion become the MPCV in 2011).
-
No photos yet but there's now 2 sets of SRB segments on the launchpad.
Regardless of opinion- countdown to launch has begun with the stacking of these segments requiring them to launch within a ~year before they exceed their limits & need to be unstacked.
-
This is still a problem.
Is there any solution known up to this point? This issue is driving me mad.
Worst yet, all the encounters I'm getting are anywhere from 2,000 days in the future to 50,000 days. It makes no sense.
-
-
On 11/25/2020 at 4:54 AM, AeroSky said:
Hello!
I have a question about SLS. Why is Artemis I still scheduled for November 2021? I recently read that the booster segments are going to be stacked over the next couple of weeks, and that the core stage is going to undergo final tests in December before heading to Cape Canaveral for integration. What makes the integration and vehicle assembly take all the way until November 2021? Doesn't assembling a rocket take only a few months, not almost a whole year?
Thanks!
Despite the unavoidable delays imposed by COVID & the busiest hurricane season I’ve ever lived to see- SLS has only drifted 1 month off of the schedule I made back in July. I also ran the timeline past a Stennis SC worker & he agreed my timelines were close to what he expected based on their work.
The booster was predicted to arrive before the end of the year back in July. Now, I’m predicting arrival before the end of January.
Assembly & MLP integration by/before July. Testing close out by September, Wet Dress Rehearsal by or before November. Launch within that month is still possible, though likely early December for final prelaunch checks.
Many of these dates also assume delays, meaning this is closer to a “worst case scenario” timeline. Any improvements or meeting deadlines ahead of schedule would bring back any of these dates back. Remember prior to COVID & hurricanes, the green run was ahead of schedule. So them getting ahead of my schedule is very likely.
The biggest delay currently being Test 7 of the Green Run, something else I had predicted would be a cause of delay since this would be the first time the internal components of the vehicle such as valves & seals would be used. Not to mention I expected weather to have taken its toll on the vehicle considering its weathered (pun not intended) multiple hurricanes to this point. Especially given it’s a hydrolox fuel core, I knew that leaks (which is common with liquid hydrogen fuel tanks). So the news of the Test 7 delay isn’t all that surprising to me & only barely pushes the schedule I already have had planned for most of 2020.
On 11/25/2020 at 6:38 AM, YNM said:Given that we're not going to see an unmanned test, and the first one will involve direct moon-return trip, I could understand it takes them longer.
Though it does puzzle me why they would consider that rather than having one unmanned test beforehand. Probably having to do with the yet-unfinalized 2nd stage design, not even the interim 2nd stage they want to use...
EDIT : Come to think of it, has the DCSS (basis for ICPS) ever been man-rated ? I wonder if using Centaur might've been better, since the man-rating would've gone together with Starliner...
Artemis 1 is unmanned. Artemis 2 will be SLS’ first crewed flight.
ICPS is just a stretched DCSS, which as already considered for crewed flight for Orion Lite (before it was canceled) & Starliner.
Artemis 1 will certify both SLS’ crew readiness & ICPS. -
On 6/15/2020 at 1:50 AM, Dman979 said:
@ZooNamedGames made the
emote.
I just made it to match the rest of the emotes.
-
5 minutes ago, tater said:
Not actually a docking.
Well the first docking has always been slated for A3. I had been hearing that in light of Starliner’s issues that a similar docking test would be done on A2, however I hadn’t heard where in the mission it would be done.
I find this ironic since Starliner did test the docking system, just didn’t attempt to rendezvous & dock but whatever. Good to test beforehand anyway.
-
Just now, tater said:
Orion can hold up to 4 crew. In a smaller volume than both Crew Dragon, and Starliner.
Duration for those vehicles is related to expendables in the SM. Tiny SM for Starliner, virtually no SM for Dragon. Both could be easily increased in size, it's mostly more tanks.
Well while you work on that, Artemis 1 Orion is fully built & waiting at the ksc while it’s sisters, Artemis 2 & 3 Orion’s finish production. Those 2, actually supporting lunar missions from the outset- rather than retrofitting.
-
Also NASA saw that Ares 1 would be an expensive LEO vehicle (not to mention dangerous)- where a single vehicle would be cheaper to design than 2, 3 or however many you’d need to support LEO missions.
! She looked fantastic!
emote.
SlS replica
in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
Posted
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.