Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ZooNamedGames

  1. I can't speak for rockets, but I do know that when mechanics in aviation want to lock out a part and or label it for "Do Not Operate" they attach a red REMOVE BEFORE FLIGHT tag that is commonly seen on aircraft and rockets. Often those tags actually plug into some piece of hardware like a joint or a pivot point (in aircraft, often the flaps, slats, spoilers, elevators, rudder, ailerons, landing gear, cockpit canopy... basically anything that moves). By plugging these in, they physically lock the parts movement, ensuring nobody could be injured by the accidental operation of that part. Sometimes it can even go so far as to disable the parts electrical system as well (cutting a break, circuit, etc). Though that's aircraft. I expect that it'd likely be more symbolic showing that the engine is not yet checked out for flight and will be checklist item #233 when they begin the green run at stennis. " #233 - Remove DO NOT OPERATE tags. "
  2. All of those involve crew onboard the vessel being docked. Progress docks to the crewed ISS, Apollo is obviously crewed. Hence why I said docking EU would be trickier than anything we've done before. And what's the acceleration of an ISS reboost? And what would EU experience when being accelerated by a FH upper stage after being docked together? Yes it can handle one thing, that doesn't make it universally capable of handling any and all forces thrown at it.
  3. Almost everything we’ve docked by has involved crew in some fashion onboard the vehicle. Soyuz to the ISS, shuttle to Mir, Apollo to Skylab, Gemini to Agena, CSM to LM. We’ve never built a rocket assembly in space. Docking adaptor would have to be new and strong enough to withstand the thrust generated, any slipping action, dampen any movement between the two vehicles- especially enough to protect the onboard instruments, and also devise a guidance system to handle two separate vehicles during burns and maneuvers. Until 2030 (at the soonest SpaceX can compete in lunar space) NASA’s SLS is the only vehicle ready for BEO flight.
  4. https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/multimedia/first-of-4-rs25-engines-attached-to-artemis-rocket-stage.html
  5. We already have a nuclear engine. If you want more nuclear engines, use Atomic Age or other similar mods. Honestly with the addition of the Wolfhound, I really don't see much benefit to using the nuclear engine anymore- that said. A new larger nuclear engine would probably be for the best. Since you lose it's benefit with larger payloads which are inevitably required for longer, more distant voyages. As a result, a more powerful engine would be beneficial. I also think a bimodal nuclear engine couldn't hurt, though both of these ideas have already been added as part of mods like Atomic Age and whatnot.
  6. I don't know if requesting 10 is a logical decision personally since by 2035 SLS, even with a new Block II version (or a Block III version) SLS will be entirely antiquated by other LVs. Maybe they intend on multi-launching SLS, otherwise the 1 launch a year rate will run SLS into NG&BFR/SS operation which almost entirely eclipses SLS offerings.
  7. I'm realistically expecting 2025/2026. But for a large part of SLS' lifetime, it has been meeting goals and progressing milestones. The vehicle itself was just there to buy NASA time- there was no interest or passion behind what it was for. Bridenstine has at least given the industry a passion, a focus and a drive beyond "let's meet X's timeline". Honestly if those building the rocket aren't hyped over their work, then I don't know how any other part would be worth any interest. So maybe 2024 is a bit optimistic but at least it's giving the right people a push in the right direction to make it 3 years late behind the 2024 goal, rather than 3 years late behind the 2028 goal. Which, knowing NASA, will be the case if we give them that much down time.
  8. Sadly I only draw the attention of the latter. Though you are right, both randos and congress members are a bit clueless on the subject sadly. I wish I could talk space to more reputable people.
  9. I'm seeing it a lot on Twitter. Though it's just a lot of mindless insanity there. I've tried to have KSP forum level discussions but that's just not feasible.
  10. I haven't been following too closely, but has the chutes ever been a point of issue for D2 (guess now D3)? According to these reports, it sounds like they found some serious flaw.
  11. I agree that there's shinanigans as the car appears where it vanished- not where it started moving initially.
  12. Can you allow it to be toggleable between versions with a top/bottom and ones that are hollow for those of us that want a 2.5 cargo bay door rather than this?
  13. There exists a mod (forget the name) that already does this, though an option for categorized view of contracts in stock would be an welcomed addition. Tapping . , (hotkeys for timewarp increase/decrease) repeatedly or clicking the lowest arrow on the timewarp UI typically comes to a halt much faster. Still isn't instanteous, but maybe this can help as I've made some sudden stops spamming the hoykeys and that almost always works. Again, I'm sure TweakableEverything (I think that's the mods name) allows this but if not, adding it into stock couldn't hurt though it should be under advanced tweakables regardless. This is a good idea. But I'd also just like a toggle to basically flip their responses. As I'm tired of having an entire wing sweep one way, but one control surface decides to be the black sheep and goes the opposite way. So annoying. You can focus on maneuver nodes by doubling clicking on them or switching through objects in map mode with [ and ] . If you don't get the control you want, you can jump from the SPH to the VAB or vice versa to get into a tight crevice the camera might not allow you to in one editor. Hope this helps. If it doesn't, consider getting HangerExtender. Makes it a lot easier if nothing else works. Yeah that is kind of an annoying problem. Honestly any sort of control over the rag doll would help. Even if it's just moving limbs or something. Friction as a whole for objects is also nonexistant (sleds don't really work since parts weigh too move to move but Kerbals are too light to get any compression between the ground and them). Addressed above. This option is available if activated as a custom game mode. I know since I keep trying to play revertless career runs, but keep needing to make tweaks and keep having to force returning to the editor. Note: this option is not available if you spawn the vessel, leave it (ie go to the Tracking Center, Space Center, etc). Weird request but I don't see any reason why this shouldn't be stock. You addressed improving EVA flight and I think the same comment I mentioned earlier applies here too. Needs improvement as a whole. I've never written novels in the vessel description but this seems to be a rather simplistic issue to rectify and really has no reason not to be.
  14. Well I assume using these kinds of ‘budget’ engines, the limiters would be fixed.
  15. Parts like engines should have their costs scaled as you adjust whether they have gimballing (or how little compared to 100% gimbal), or reduce the cost as you reduce the thrust. This comes from me using some Vector engines today on an expendable rocket (in sandbox) and this got me wondering, could there ever be anyway that I could use these engines small size and exceptionally high thrust without launching this rocket and breaking the bank doing so. This is the answer I came to. What do you all think?
  16. I figured that wasn't meant badly . Very true. I would love to have like an early morning livestream talking about stuff like this over coffee like you said because I'm sure people would watch it as much as we enjoy talking about it.
  17. One of the main reasons I come back to this thread is because of users like @tater . We've probably tossed hundreds of messages back and forth to each other over SLS- and despite being polar opposites on the spectrum of ideology- We've never (that I'm aware of) made any personal remarks. We know it's just opinion and forum talk. It's a fun way to actually dissect what you think and try to rationally and logically defend it. So I definitely give a round of applause to tater and everyone else who's kept their heads about them and kept cool talking here. You honestly make this discussion the best I can possibly find on the internet. Never said it wouldn't take SpaceX's help- they just wouldn't perform such an endeavor singlehandedly. It would be a cooperative effort across multiple agencies and corporations to make happen.
  18. Perhaps- but yet even with the worst circumstances it still succeeds. Yes costly- but we can blame politics. If Starship were to be put through the same political hurdles and delays SLS has- it'd evolve into a nasty beast just like SLS. SLS is more a product of it's leadership than engineering design. That said- it still offers something that no other agency can offer. Manned capacity to the moon and the possibility of a landing by 2025. Something SpaceX and no other agency can do.
  19. My issue is with those who basically proclaim SpaceX to be the savior of space exploration- when they ignore major hurdles SpaceX hasn't yet overcome and yet NASA has literally accomplished with their latest spacecraft. People for example, proclaiming that SpaceX will beat NASA to the moon when SpaceX has no way to accomplish such a goal. SpaceX is good as a company. Issue is the aspirations (admittedly set by Musk and not the company- and if you wish to argue the company I'd like to see an employ led project/development rather than a project initiated by Musk). People love to claim Musk meets his mark- but the Falcon Heavy was 5-8 years late to fly (depending on your source), now yes, SLS has been slow- but that's to be expected for NASA. The pace has been slow but at least constant- even when there was political resistance, the project continued development. The engines continued to be worked on, working to use cheaper more efficient materials in assembly of the RS-25s. Working to test every aspect of the two massive fuel tanks for the core stage. Despite not flying, the vehicle in testing, has never stopped moving forward. It has been proving itself ready and we've got nearly a decade's worth of tests to prove that. People forget that politically- just about everyone who could make a roadblock has made roadblocks. Commercial has always been appealing politically since you get the shine and appeal from the public. No one cares about normal flight anymore (see how many people watched Starman get launched by Falcon Heavy vs the next/last Soyuz flight to the ISS). Yes NASA is as slow as a turtle to SpaceX's hare's pace- but I can't see it any differently than the turtle beating the hare in this footrace to the moon and perhaps beyond. Which reminds of me of Musk's goal of sending colony hardware to Mars starting last year. That's why I don't like SpaceX. Less disliking the company, but more the people who overestimate it's ability and it's actual non-rose tinted glasses view on things.
  20. Consider this a like. More likely than Starship right now and it's ever shrinking design. I'd actually like to see a graph that shows how much Starship has downgraded since ITS in 2015.
  21. A bomber is using hardware and parts that are a lot more common (a typical artificial horizon goes for anywhere from $750-$2,000). Capsules, especially newer ones- have to use vastly more complicated systems. Though I can't speak for Soyuz- but I know older iterations of American crewed spacecraft used star trackers to identify orientation (I know Apollo astronauts had to confirm the computer's alignment by using a star tracker in the LM)- with each star tracker on a spacecraft basically being a camera linked to a computer which tries to compute- "Is this a star? If no, go back to start- If yes, is this the right star? If no, go back to start- if yes, move to next star tracking system (rinse and repeat)". An artificial horizon is largely powered by gravity, a force that (basically) doesn't apply so they won't work. Not to mention spacecraft are pressure vessels and are more akin to a inverted submarine- where instead of surviving intense pressures on it- the vehicle has to survive immense pressures pressing outwards. Not to mention they also have to handle unique heating and cooling that's unlike any other place on Earth. As well as dealing with the challenges of the exceptional speed and forces during launch and re-entry. Don't forget anti-debris protection and radiation shielding. That adds extra cost since they are expensive and require multiple tests through the installation and assembly process, which in turn continues to add to the cost. Then we should mention this is the first capsule of it's kind, capable of carrying this many crew, with this modern of a spacecraft system. The last time we went to the moon, we had 3 crew, in a more analogue than digital spacecraft. Now Orion is the polar opposite in that it's more digital than analogue- and can carry 4 crew, maybe more. So context matters.
  22. It likely is a full order of full spacecraft as even if they wanted to make it reusable- it’s too early in the vehicles development to make that jump. Especially with the weight of a lunar landing. No one wants to be responsible for risking astronauts lives just to save a few bucks. Though eventually, the vehicle would likely make that shift. Just not for a while.
  23. I think they just need to make the 2.5m part variants for Titan and Saturn IVB sizes.
  • Create New...