Jump to content

debaker02

Members
  • Posts

    113
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by debaker02

  1. Yeah, it was a good enough type program with schedule and cost constraints. It's a pretty clever design, they made something pretty capable with some tooling they already had. That is good design, they understood not only what to design, but what they could also build. To the point, all of the Saturn hardware had some room for both reliability and part count improvements. They had not actually optimized them fully. It's so hard to guess what would have happened. There were numerous options, and a few that seemed to stand out. The INT-20/21 seemed promising. AAP briefed Congress on updated stretches to S-1b as well. So if they kept flying it, they might have improved the engines and added more fuel or added titian iii srbs. The big item is that Saturn 1b is probably good enough, I mean the Russians flew/fly Proton as their heavy lift for a long time and it's comparable in performance. Then if you look at the cost numbers that were quoted to Congress in '67, if you manage to make a couple of INT-20s common enough with ~4 Saturn 5 rockets built in a year, it pushes the unit cost down considerably. 6 Saturn V in a year was sort of a knee in the curve. Or you can cut it all and focus on the future with a flexible space shuttle after massive budget cuts and loss of interest.
  2. It's all hypothetical, but it was proposed to launch a sm tug upside-down docked to the lander. Although a crew launch is doable, plenty to do for a crewed mission.
  3. Just a general question, is there any consensus on what would have been the replacement/upgrade for the Saturn 1 if we kept flying? Probably another upgrade for the H1? H2 was going to be basically a new engine? Does the E1 fit as an upgrade (I know the timelines were not right on that engine, but gameplay wise it is an upgrade right)? Then probably SRB on the side for heavy lift? What do the people think?
  4. Hmmm except the CMP did go on Eva in earlier fights. I thought the second set of ports were so they could share life support in emergency on the moon?
  5. If you do restock, then this tantares, near future, and a bunch more mods all go together great. They even matched off whites.....
  6. A common thing I do is use an bossart-inon to put a satellite into geo-transfer-orbit. Then I use the solid to move the Pe all the way out when the orbital requirements are meet. Then the spacecraft has a little attitude control system that can fix the orbit errors and kerbal-station-keep. -D
  7. Lol you are never to stupid my jokes are just that bad.
  8. We need a mechjeb patch to make it fly like the real thing!
  9. You might want to play with the mass of the payload or add ballast. It's not possible to fly every rocket to a circular orbit for every alt. E.g. may need like 120*250/350 if you are too light in jnsq. Pvg also allows you to set the pitch program rate, which will help you get higher before stable guidance is reached. Control systems are hard....
  10. I enjoy these. If you are worried about length you could put the post a spoiler type window. In either case the stuff is fun to read.
  11. Hey thanks! That will help my campaign along!
  12. Hey, Looking Good; is it possible for you to add a nose code that does not have the docking port built in? I use a CADS port from BDB. Thanks either way!
  13. Yeah I agree. TPS are complicated layers of all kinds of stuff. They don't melt away in the scale of ksp. It's more like the kerbal TPS is a model, and you are using it by bringing more or less ablator. They just set the max to a big number to make them enough to work at whatever use in kerbal. IMHO, is not a realistic enough simulation to care that much. It's your gaming experience, so go for whatever is the most fun to you. You might need to use the up-rated engines for more margins for now. Happy flying!
  14. Re Saturn 1b to orbit:. Take some of the heat shield off as well. You do not need it. You may also defuel a bit even in orbital, don't need that much dv anyway.
  15. Sorry I thought the spelling of more/moar and power/powa indicated the loss of isp at the higher thrust. Since this is kerbal I'd add more srbs lol
  16. The ATV is amazing, goodness I need a revamped Ariane 5. I'll trade snacks configs balanced to be a little better than the ETS aardv? Just kidding, but your modding is wonderful now.
  17. That is a good point Beal. It really would make the craft feel more Soviet with one fuel.
  18. Hey, What from this mod could work in 1.8? I ask vs. try because i know the dependency is not updated to 1.8, and i am not sure what to cut out (if possible)? Basically can the remaining parts work on 1.8 that needed the texture replacement mod? Cheers
  19. I actually like having one of each. However, the mod will still be amazing either way.
×
×
  • Create New...