Dragon01

Members
  • Content Count

    4,350
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

657 Excellent

About Dragon01

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. They never do. Even during the Moon Race, the public had no understanding of how things actually move in space. Landing close to the recovery ship wouldn't be as much of a problem as it seems. The trajectory, even if the capsule is completely uncontrolled, can be tracked, extrapolated, and a recovery team sent into the general area (enough to pick the crew up by helicopter). Of course, if the landing site ended up being somewhere inconvenient, like in the middle of Sahara, Chinese waters or in the USSR, this would complicate things immensely.
  2. This is not true. You can very much have both high Isp and high thrust. It just results in a bigger (and heavier) engine. A J-2, for example, would handily solve the Centaur's TWR problems, if you can fit one inside the interstage. The "thrust versus Isp" misconception stems from the concept of thrust power, which is, well, thrust times Isp. For a constant thrust power, this is true, but nobody says you can't add more power if you need to (it just has its own costs).
  3. It is a myth. It's impossible to "bounce off" into solar orbit or indeed, into anything resembling a stable one. However, the Apollo capsule didn't have a whole lot of consumables (batteries, RCS prop, life support), and was designed for very specific reentry profile. It would eventually reenter, but it would likely be too late by that point, and even if it wasn't (Apollo crews could be quite resourceful), there's a good chance they'd end up over land, which is another thing Apollo wasn't designed to handle.
  4. Don't expect miracles out of this one's Centaur, though. This stage has weak thrust IRL and there's no way around it. You can use the two engine version for a bit of a kick, but it's just not very powerful. @CobaltWolf, what's the deal with Agena D's secondary engines? I can't seem to find them, neither in part list nor in the mod folder.
  5. You forgot to add Wolfy (CobaltWolf). Good quality, good quantity, and even a sense of humor, as a bonus.
  6. Come on, it's a frog. Frogs already have a lot of comedy value, nevermind space frogs. It could be less about doing anything with the frog, but rather about recording the frog's reactions to the situations.
  7. Yeah, old aero was a joke. At the time, you needed FAR to have anything approaching a realistic experience. RO with souposphere was completely unplayable due to the sheer dV requirements it resulted in. This stopped being the case with 1.0. FAR does a decent job if you're making planes with procedural wings. If you're mostly doing rockets, it just gives you a performance hit, and for shuttles, it only works properly with mods that have multipart wings. I hoped for a wing code rewrite, but I don't think that's going to happen.
  8. Wing glove is the first, highly swept part of the wing. You can't simulate single-piece Space Shuttle wings with FAR. That is a known and annoying limitation, and is why the wing is split into multiple pieces in some mods. Quite frankly, I stopped bothering with FAR a while ago. It's performance-heavy, voxelization can be glitchy, and its handling of wings is hopelessly limited. Back when it was being worked on, I hoped voxelization would be applied to wings (so the plugin could figure out their shape from the model), but since this turned out not to be the case, I've simply stuck with stock aerodynamics. They're not perfect, but they provide a surprisingly similar experience, you need either FAR's own graphing tools or a long experience with serious flightsims to notice the difference. TL;DR: Stick with stock aero, RO shouldn't really need FAR anymore.
  9. That'd be NSWR, possibly also some variant of flow-stabilized fusion drive. As a bonus, both of those provide steady acceleration, which can be problematic for crewed flights. However, total energy requirements are always at the root of the problem. If you demand both high thrust and Isp for a sustained period of time, the question quickly becomes where to get all that energy from in first place.
  10. Orion drive doesn't use fission fragments, it uses vaporized tungsten. It's also not particularly efficient, the main advantages are thrust and lack of containment issues, it's basically a thermal engine that runs at a ludicrously huge temperature. For true fission fragment propulsion, you're looking for an FFRE. Specific impulse is awesome, thrust sucks. Technically complex, but there are several concepts.
  11. Awesome. Though it seems that the Antares II motor uses a slightly different shade of white than the rest of the rocket. Could you look into it? That said, it was gray on the real thing: A pure white skin for the Redstone would be appreciated, if you've got some room left.
  12. Maybe you'll manage it later on. I love the new models. The Redstone was in dire need of a makeover. Are you also going to take a look at the Sparta? Ideally with WRESAT to go with it.
  13. Do note that space telescopes have their own limitations. For one, making them as big as the largest Earth-based ones would require the BFR just to fit the mirror assembly in. Adaptive optics practically eliminate the effects of atmosphere, so the only way of making a space telescope with the same capabilities as recent terrestrial ones would be to use a mirror of the same size. The largest telescope currently under construction will have a 30m mirror, even with a folding mechanism, that's a lot mirror for a rocket to carry. EDIT: Looks like the 40m one has already started and is actually further along. There was also a 100m diameter telescope under serious consideration. Matching that with a spaceborne telescope would be rather though.