sh1pman

Members
  • Content count

    562
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

209 Excellent

1 Follower

About sh1pman

  • Rank
    Disasteroid

Profile Information

  • Location Moscow, Russia
  1. [1.3] - Modular Kolonization System (MKS)

    I'm using 3.75m BFRs to drop anything anywhere.
  2. [1.3] - Modular Kolonization System (MKS)

    You can pre-attach them in VAB.
  3. [1.3] - Modular Kolonization System (MKS)

    Don't they've work without KIS?
  4. SpaceX Discussion Thread

    Maybe a launch escape system test at max-Q or something like that.
  5. Is it supposed to add lens flare to engine exhaust? In my game scatterer doesn't really do anything to engine effects.
  6. SpaceX Discussion Thread

    "The "vacuum" or high area ratio Raptors can operate at full thrust at sea level. Not recommended".
  7. SpaceX Discussion Thread

    I can't really see how it would give any yaw control.
  8. SpaceX Discussion Thread

    I've been launching 3.75m BFRs all day in KSP today. Man, they're great in career mode! Way easier to fly than SSTOs, easy to recover first stage with StageRecovery mod, lots and lots of delta-v with refueling (did a direct Moho transfer with 20t payload). I even managed to land a BF Ship on top of Mission Control. Don't know how BFR will work out in real life, but in KSP it rocks. UPD: Here's a few nice screenshots:
  9. SpaceX Discussion Thread

    >The engine thrust dropped roughly in proportion to the vehicle mass reduction from the first IAC talk. In order to be able to land the BF Ship with an engine failure at the worst possible moment, you have to have multiple engines. The difficulty of deep throttling an engine increases in a non-linear way, so 2:1 is fairly easy, but a deep 5:1 is very hard. Granularity is also a big factor. If you just have two engines that do everything, the engine complexity is much higher and, if one fails, you've lost half your power. Btw, we modified the BFS design since IAC to add a third medium area ratio Raptor engine partly for that reason (lose only 1/3 thrust in engine out) and allow landings with higher payload mass for the Earth to Earth transport function. Interesting. So looks like he went all in with this surface-to-surface idea.
  10. SpaceX Discussion Thread

    How do we know which ones he answers? There are thousands of questions, is there a filter by user or something?
  11. SpaceX Discussion Thread

    Not as bad as burning hydrocarbons for energy.
  12. SpaceX Discussion Thread

    They can also use wind or hydro power for electrolysis. 100% eco-friendly.
  13. Russian Launch Thread

    "Rockot", that's a cool name for a rocket.