Jump to content

zolotiyeruki

Members
  • Posts

    794
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by zolotiyeruki

  1. Yup, that'll do it. You need to put the second PilotAssistant folder (the one deeper in the file tree) into the KSP GameData folder.
  2. Hmmm, I don't know. Simple question, though: are you sure you installed it in the right folder?
  3. I finally got around to watching the stream. Right after SES, and during the boostback, those were some really cool exhaust interactions!
  4. Dang, color me impressed. What angle of incidence did you use on your wings? I've added you to the leaderboard. You've earned it.
  5. Where else would you propose? It's gotta be on an eastern shoreline, and as far south as possible, and be undeveloped, yet have a road to it. Florida's east coast is pretty much all taken up, which leaves Texas. There don't appear (to my unexpert eye) to be many options that meet those criteria. EDIT: Ninja'd by CatastrophicFailure.
  6. @mikegarrison your points are well taken. IMO, SpaceX gets all the love vs Boeing because: There's a bit of David-and-Goliath going on. Regardless of the reality, there's a perception that the government is putting its thumb on the scales in favor of Boeing (dollars awarded for comparable if not exactly similar objectives, for example). Regulators seem to turn a blind eye toward Boeing, while standing in SpaceX's way. Again, that's the perception, not necessarily the reality, but it's there. And when those legacy contractors appear to be throwing obstacles in SpaceX's path, it comes across as rent-seeking, whether those objections have merit or not. Boeing's been doing aerospace for a long, long time, so there's a expectation that stuff they make will Just Work. There's not much to show (again, for the average public) for the billions of dollars and years of work put into SLS. ("C'mon, you had a massive head start, with engines already built, and SRBs already developed and tested. What's taking you so freakin' long!? We went from nothing to landing on the moon in eight years!") There's a long-festering animosity toward government and military contractors who appear to consistently overpromise, underdeliver, overcharge, and underperform. A perception that their goal is to milk the taxpayer for as much money as possible, rather than deliver exciting, groundbreaking stuff. Whatever the actual engineering challenges, to the non-techy public, there's nothing exciting about Starliner or SLS. All of that stuff has been done before, and many times. It's Just Another Space Capsule and Just Another Big Rocket, doing the same kind of things we've already seen. To the uneducated, there's a perception of "we've been doing this for fifty years. Why are they having so much trouble with it?" On the other hand, SpaceX are doing something novel and exciting. If it were not for booster recovery, there'd be (from the public's perspective) not much interesting about the Falcon 9, because it'd be Just Another Big Rocket. But flipping your booster around after stage separation, and attempting to recover it by landing it on a barge in the middle of the ocean, while livestreaming it, is exciting and new. If/when SS/SH is ready, it is promising to cut launch costs by an order of magnitude. That's exciting. SpaceX have consistently set the bar low, so some level of success is guaranteed. SpaceX have something to show frequently. SpaceX show their failures, and their failures are benign, if not outright fun ("How not to launch an orbital class rocket booster") The frequency with which SpaceX "show" stuff gives assurance to the public, because we can witness the progress being made. "Whoops, we ran out of TEA-TEB. Easy fix." Rather than "It'll take us six months and umpteen million dollars to analyze this software glitch." On the other hand, (e.g. Starliner) when you don't see the progress along the way, you expect the finished product to be "just right." Again, a lot of this is just perception.
  7. Well, I think it'll certainly help they're using methane instead of RP-1. Even a giant spill of that will just evaporate quickly instead of running off and spreading into the environment. I mean, sure, there's still the explosion risk, and the whole greenhouse effect of a large plume of methane, but it won't stay in the water.
  8. Bingo. Falcon 9 dropped launch costs by 2/3 to 3/4. A fully-laden SS/SH could drop it by another order of magnitude. If you're only paying $100/kg to get something into orbit, every high school in the developed world is gonna want to send up their own senior capstone project. Some brilliant, evil marketer is going to figure out how to get a constellation of satellites to fly in formation with bright LEDs and fill the night sky with advertisements. A gazillion satellite internet companies will spring up. NRO is going to launch ma-hoo-ssive spy satellites. There'll be a ton of new weather observation satellites, heck, even road-traffic-monitoring satellites. The economics of beamed power shift dramatically. Maybe we could even launch a pile of solar sails to shade the earth and regulate global warming. This is one of those "supply creates its own demand" situations IMO. Make something cheap, and people will find a use for it.
  9. Why would a LES require a heat shield? Are you expecting that it might be used all the way to near-orbit? My impression is that LES is jettisoned well before the craft gets up to the kind of velocities that would require a heat shield for re-entry.
  10. I'm sure the NRO would *love* the ability to put a spy satellite in orbit with an 8-meter primary mirror.
  11. If that's the case, though, then there'd be no need for hexagonal tiles at all--they could just use rows of rectangular tiles, and stagger the longitudinal gaps. Or used trapezoidal tiles, which could be used for both straight rows (alternate them up/down) and the nose cone (point all the trapezoids up).
  12. Even in that situation, though, both parties (buyer and seller) win--the buyer pays less than they otherwise would, and the seller gets more than they otherwise would.
  13. Uh, correct me if I'm wrong about this, but isn't the whole point of the sealed bid process to encourage the bidders to put forth their last, best offer? Is BO basically admitting they could have submitted a lower bid, but thought they could pad the cost and still win? If so, then they deserve a big fat Nelson "ha ha!" and a public shaming.
  14. Holy toledo, that looks like something out of The Expanse.
  15. Keep in mind there's a header tank in the nose of SS, which may explain why the door doesn't extend closer to the nose.
  16. I think the idea is that if you had a common shaft, you could accomplish different "gearing" by using one pitch for the fuel impeller and a different pitch for the oxidizer impeller
  17. I have to say that I'm extremely impressed with the packaging, i.e. how small they've been able to make the whole assembly. I say this because at my last job I dealt with moving fluids through pipes, measuring flow, actuating vales, etc. Valve actuators are big, and fast-acting actuators are really big. Accurately measuring steady state fluid flow through a long, straight pipe is more difficult than you'd expect, and measuring rapidly-changing fluid flow through curved pipes in close proximity to pumps and turbines is simply an absurd problem. And doing it in an extremely hot and violently vibrating tail end of a rocket? Fuggetaboutit. Seriously, my hat is off to those engine designers (and not just SpaceX's!)
  18. I suppose that shouldn't be a surprise. It doesn't need to get all the way into the corners. It only needs to get within 4.5 meters of each side.
  19. That was some awesome landing footage. Maybe I never noticed it before, but it was super easy to see what appeared to be a 1-3-1 entry burn. And dang, that is one sooty booster.
  20. Just a bump today: I've tested it in 1.12, and it works fine. When I get around to it, I'll get it updated for CKAN. Until then, you can still use the Github link in the first post.
  21. That's a good question, and I don't have any definitely-true answers, but a couple things come to mind: 1) the space shuttle was moved to the pad with two 300 Ton solid rocket boosters strapped to it. That's a lot of mass SH/SS won't have 2) as I understand it, SS/SH will be integrated on the pad, so you're only moving half the launch stack at a time 3) SS/SH are each tail-heavy when unfuelled (less tip-over risk) 4) normal semi trucks are limited to 40 tons for a full-length trailer (roughly 10T per axle, 2.5T/wheel). If SS is 100T dry, you'd only need 40 wheels to meet that same standard. SuperHeavy may be somewhat heavier, but in a similar ballpark.
  22. Realistically, I see Starship as a way to more economically implement Rods from the Gods.
  23. If raptor is only $250k apiece and all the tanks and plumbing are only a few tens of thousands, an emergency supply drop might well be a lot cheaper than one might expect. It makes SS almost disposable.
  24. I'm having trouble understanding what you're looking for here. Can you elaborate a bit more?
  25. Hard? Actually, no. It just takes beefier equipment. Really big hydraulic rams, with really big pumps behind them. I'm reminded of a job I had several years ago, where a large work barge (probably 100x250ft) was next to a big oil platform. The barge's thrusters kept it quite precisely aligned with the mostly-stationary oil platform, despite the motion of the waves.
×
×
  • Create New...