Damien_The_Unbeliever

Members
  • Content Count

    194
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

121 Excellent

About Damien_The_Unbeliever

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Damien_The_Unbeliever

    SpaceX Discussion Thread

    Nope. I think they're still planning the "catchers mitt" net recovery. They're using a helicopter for the practice *drops*.
  2. Damien_The_Unbeliever

    SpaceX Discussion Thread

    I thought this was the Science and Spaceflight section of the forum. Where we'd only get reasoned opinions on things that can reasonably be specced out. Rather than people randomly speculating on future vessels. Why do I always have to wade through pages of people speculating about what SpaceX *might* do based on marketing materials rather than (as I'd expect here) people only talking about *proven* abilities. Seeing people randomly speculate at what SpaceX might do in the future is uninteresting to me. I want to find somewhere I can just find SpaceX **news** (and other providers) news. Where do I find that?
  3. Damien_The_Unbeliever

    SpaceX Discussion Thread

    You could read the article. This is discussed.
  4. Damien_The_Unbeliever

    SpaceX Discussion Thread

    back haul is the comms between the towers and the rest of the network. They're talking about being able to deploy cell towers to remote locations without having to get fibre to them or to arrange line-of-sight for microwave links.
  5. Damien_The_Unbeliever

    SpaceX Discussion Thread

    Space isn't cold. It's well insulated, since there's nothing to conduct or convect heat away. There's a reason why radiators on e.g. ISS are huge deals.
  6. Damien_The_Unbeliever

    SpaceX Discussion Thread

    But they need to stop making changes in order for it to get man-rated for Crew Dragon. So it's likely that this will be a stable design for some time, unless the early block 5 flights uncover some catastrophic unanticipated issues.
  7. Damien_The_Unbeliever

    SpaceX Discussion Thread

    I think you vastly overestimate how easy it is to make something waterproof when it's a complex piece of equipment that also has to deal with re-entry issues. As with most things discussed here, your everyday experiences are unlikely to be directly relatable to the issues experienced by aerospace equipment. Say we could make the fairing waterproof by spraying a thick layer of plastic over it - but now the outside layer doesn't have the characteristics required whilst it's still acting as a fairing during powered ascent and we can no longer mate the two halves of the fairing in the manner in which they need to work. Okay, so a thick layer of plastic won't work to make this thing waterproof. You have to come up with a design (as indicated above) that works *both* whilst in use during normal flight regime *and* works during re-entry *and* doesn't significantly degrade through all phases of use and means it's actually reusable. Do you have such a scheme in mind beyond believing that a lot of fairly smart people have ignored common everyday experiences?
  8. Damien_The_Unbeliever

    SpaceX Discussion Thread

    You're using you experience of mass production to try to think about bespoke products. All space launches are bespoke, even when they follow a recognizable pattern.
  9. Damien_The_Unbeliever

    SpaceX Discussion Thread

    What do you think their contract actually states? I'd almost guarantee that it's to deliver their space object safely into a particular orbital trajectory (with various particulars as to allowed variations) and not any particular launch vehicle. As has been established, fairings cost of the order of ~5m per piece. It's unlikely they have or need spares sitting around.
  10. Damien_The_Unbeliever

    SpaceX Discussion Thread

    Well, since up until now (and still now) there's been no real fairing recovery, if they've moved to building fairing 2.0, it's not likely that they *have* fairing 1.0s in stock.
  11. Damien_The_Unbeliever

    SpaceX Discussion Thread

    Whilst I agree with the general sentiment, this is actually untrue for SpaceX specifically. Getting the payload into the correct orbital position is the outcome that's required. Whether or not they get a flight-proven first stage back means that there are shades of good. (Still vastly outnumbered by the number of possible bad outcomes)
  12. Damien_The_Unbeliever

    [1.3.0] Launch Numbering 0.4.0

    Apologies. I don't think I've managed to open KSP for several weeks due to outside events. I hope I'll be able to look into this on Thursday (UK time). Apologies for the frustration.
  13. Damien_The_Unbeliever

    [1.3.0] Launch Numbering 0.4.0

    Sorry for not getting back sooner. A PR is of course welcome. I should be able to find time this weekend to look it over. It was only recently that more suggestions came forward - at the same time that 1.3.1 is also being beta'd. I wanted to wait for 1.3.1 to go live before putting out the next release.
  14. Damien_The_Unbeliever

    [1.3.0] Launch Numbering 0.4.0

    Well, I already try to assign launch numbers and bloc numbers (variants - not guaranteed to detect changes but seems to work most of the time). I want to try to keep the mod settings accessible for people who don't think like programmers. I could perhaps look at two modes for naming - one where I apply the current heuristics and the other to use some form of format string. I'll add it to this weekend's list :-). It's a long weekend here in the UK.
  15. Damien_The_Unbeliever

    [1.3.0] Launch Numbering 0.4.0

    At the moment, if you had a base name of "STS-" then it would still just append a space and sequential numbers. For what you're wanting, would we be looking for a few more options to tick/untick, along the lines of "Do not use space separator between name and number" and "pad number with <X> leading zeroes"? I could probably look at adding those next weekend, if that's what you're after. If not, could you try to describe what you're after in more detail please?