Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by saabstory88

  1. The developers should do their moral duty and release the game in early access this coming week to encourage more people to self quarantine.
  2. I originally bough KSP through the KSP store, and I think I clicked on the wrong button when buying Making History, and got the Steam version. Now that I see that there is no refund option, do I have to buy the expansion again to get the store version?
  3. Quick question. I want to setup a UI_FloatEdit with values from the config file. When attempting to pass another field as the arguments for minValue, or maxValue, I get the following error: An object reference is required for the non-static field, method, or property At the moment, the only way it compiles is if I hard code the values: [KSPField(isPersistant = true, guiName = "Length", guiFormat = "F3", guiUnits = "m"), UI_FloatEdit(scene = UI_Scene.Editor, minValue = 0.25f, incrementLarge = 2.0f, incrementSmall = 0.25f, incrementSlide = 0.001f)] public float tankLength = 1.0f; What is the proper way to make this work?
  4. Well, I certainly can't wait to see it. Looking very cool so far!
  5. Better reason not to put too much detail in into it: Raptors turbomachinery is contained within a casing. The render that SpaceX showed clearly just has half of the cover shell removed. In flight, obviously, it will be fully covered. The main ITS CAD model makes this clear.
  6. To put the Hydrazine issue to bed. The payload uses a Hydrazine powered orbital insertion motor. The payload is fueled well in advance of the launch. If the vehicle is destroyed, the payload and its propellant will not remain intact.
  7. Just like you're amazing work, SpaceX just can't stop trying to improve their creations
  8. In the case of the Merlin Vacuum, the extension was lengthened which caused changes to the interstage to be nessesary between the various models. Below is a link discussing this change in the upgrade from v1.1 to full thrust. The change from v1.0 to v1.1 is more externally obvious when looking at the M1C vac vs standard M1D. http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/falcon9ft.html Maybe more detail than you wish to add, but I thought I'd mention it. It really is a different length.
  9. As a note, not all of the Merlin Vacuum engines have the same nozzle extension expansion ratio. M1C vac: 117:1 M1D vac: 117 < x < 165 M1D+ vac: 165
  10. I'd hardly call mine a "Remix". Just a crappy hotfix. @pingopete are you going to keep pushing stuff to github in the near future? If not, ill take a look at downscaling slme textures and keeping my repo more up to date.
  11. Yes. I have been continuing to work on a number of things. I'll post some more progress later this week.
  12. That's okay. No plans to mess with IVA's at this point. Well, if there is going to be some interest, I'll have to get a battle plan together.
  13. What parts of the workflow do you enjoy?
  14. Do you have a link to the original post by Baldusi? Also, 14,400kn? Really? That means a vehicle with a lift-off mass of between 850,000 - 950,000 kilograms. Not sure they are going to try for a ULA killer while still supplying them engines.
  15. It's because Ohio is aweful, and they want to get as far away as physically possible I live in Pittsburgh, and can confirm that Ohio is the worst.
  16. I'm referring to the article " As their next development Blue Origin intends to make a several million pound thrust rocket capable of sending 25 metric tons to LEO." @Exoscientist I want to know the source of that knowledge, as in, where and in what context did Blue Origin say that? I'm thirsty for details about their orbital launcher.
  17. RL-10 is an expander cycle engine with a very high ISP. Blue Origin has not released the exact ISP of the BE-3, but it is likely closer to the 436s predicted on the J2-S engine. This would seriously reduce the performance of something like a Centaur upper stage, not increase it.
  18. Where did you get your 25,000kg payload number for their orbital launcher?
  19. Well, that is exactly what the Russians plan on doing, the Proton is even on the way out. That is also why the ULA is going to move to only producing the Vulcan. That is why Arianespace is going to retire the Ariane 5, and move to a common SRB shared between Vega and Ariane 6. That is why Ariane 6 will only have a single kind of upper stage vs the 3 types on the Ariane 5. Reduction in the diversity of vehicles is the way that the industry is moving. The primary reason that the Russians are going to keep hanging on to the Soyuz is to not have to man-rate the Angara until absolutely necessary. Once their next generation capsule is online, the Soyuz is finally dead.
  20. SpaceX's goal is to make launches less expensive. Having more kinds of rockets massively increases costs, because if things they can't control. New kind of booster? Tens of millions in certification, testing, and GSE. And that's not just something they can engineer around, because you can't engineer around the FAA.
  21. That is 25,000kg on the payload adapter, which has nothing to do with capability to any particular orbit. As I mentioned earlier, the GTO capability of the Falcon Heavy is probably around 11,000kg - 11,500kg. The 25,000kg max payload is going to be LEO only sort of thing. They only need to max out their payload adapters for NRO/DOD LEO missions. As I've said before, the Falcon Heavy is going to be used as something to try to put things like the Proton, Ariane 5, Atlas V 500 series, and Delta IV-H out of business. It doesn't need to get anywhere near the payload cap on the SLS. As we have learned, SpaceX doesn't do intermediary boosters. They canned the F1e and F5 because they wanted to go straight for the F9. They didn't need training wheels. They won't bother trying to get the FH to throw anything bigger than what it needs to make money, it makes way more sense to just build the BFR, and be done with it.
  22. Delta V = change in velocity That is, unless you are referencing a Typo I made several posts back and haven't noticed. Also, the limiting factor on the Falcon Heavy is the Maximum Payload System Weight rating. As it stands, they have only rated the Falcon Heavy for its max payload in the RTLS/ASDS mode. It's not as simple as saying "Hey, we're going to throw this one away, let's max it out!". They will likely have to go through another process of certifying the upper stage for anything more than about 25,000kg, which is the max payload they need for DoD missions. The payload weight of dual comm-sat stacks vs a Red Dragon to mars is similar, so they don't need to be able to throw anything more than their customers need. When / If something as specialized as a fully fledged Bigelow module comes around, they contract will be lucrative enough that extra certification / integration is a given.
  23. I wouldn't be suprised if we see a SuperDraco powered third stage similar to Fregat, that's a really good point. I think that sort of thing is much more likely than SpaceX going backwards towards expendable flight, and is sort of low threshold/high profitability.
  • Create New...