softweir

Members
  • Content count

    2934
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

344 Excellent

About softweir

  • Rank
    Capsule Communicator
  1. Agreed. Getting started would be a huge effort, and a lot of machines and essential components would need to be sent to whichever body one is talking about. One might be able to build some simple machines on the moon by sending the electronics and other precision components, along with a small robot to assemble them and a small oven to construct larger components by fusing regolith. The fused regolith wouldn't be very strong, but in that low gravity strength is much less of an issue than on Earth so it might be sufficient. Building a rocket... Nope. Not without many, many billions of dollars and many, many decades, even centuries of effort. We would have to start by sending a huge amount of startup infrastructure, and it would take a lot of trial and error to build new machines from scratch using the materials available. It is quite likely that a rocket manufactury on the moon would never be completely self-sufficient, and would depend on some refined materials being sent from Earth: the infrastructure needed for producing the dopes used in semiconductor manufacture (for instance) is huge! Considering the very unlikely hypothesis that we could do it, then there would be advantages. There is no ecology on the moon to destroy, so we could mine and plunder what we needed without any concerns for the morality of wiping out species or fears for poisoning ourselves. Without a rain cycle, waste would stay where it was dumped. Solar power would be available in huge amounts, just by laying out large arrays of solar panels. And the products of a moon-based infrastructure would be in an ideal gravitational situation to be sent to much of the rest of the solar system, helping to start infrastructures elsewhere.
  2. It is rather counterintuitive!
  3. What are you trying to achieve? Wheels that lock a craft down while landed?
  4. The advantage of using a mini-cfg is that it will stay even if a new version of RealChute is downloaded, saving effort repeatedly! A neat trick is to put any such cfg's in a separate folder within gamedata, where it is easier to keep track of them.
  5. Since it has to be robust enough to provide more acceleration during an emergency than it carries during launch, then it would inevitably be at least robust enough to survive. But why put it in the first stage interstage? Why try to save the second stage? The second stage has no facilities that would be useful during a launch emergency, and during an emergency is just dead weight, making a ring LES needlessly heavy to launch every time. Why not have it as part of the second stage interstage, just below the capsule?
  6. NASA are concerned about hypergolics - the safety procedures surrounding them are complex, detailed, and rigorously documented and adhered to. But there are no reliable alternatives.
  7. (My emphasis.) Unfortunately, the problem with the idea lies right there in the bolded phrase. If the nozzle extension improves ISP, then the upward acceleration it experiences due to the pressure of gasses inside it will prevent it dropping - would have to be forced down. If it is inert enough to drop, then it "weighs" more than the extra force it returns from the gas stream. I like the idea of a "collapsible cup", but some other mechanism would be needed to extend the nozzle! I have no idea if there are any mechanisms that could do that and deal with the extremes of heat, vibration and pressure experienced by rocket nozzles.
  8. I watched it, a few hours after the launch. Have another look?
  9. IIRC, HarvesteR once mentioned that "Kerman" is an honorific, like "mister" or "san".
  10. It's a ring of stiffening material that keeps the second-stage engine bell in shape during launch. The engine bell is made of very thin, high-temperature alloy that could fold up under launch accelerations. Once the S2 engine is lit the pressure of expanding gasses holds it in shape, while it is coasting there are no vibrations or acceleration to damage the bell. Fun fact: they glue the stiffener on with a material that melts when the engine bell heats up, releasing the stiffener.
  11. No, the legs lock once the pneumatics have extended them. This is because the pneumatics have only just enough pressure to extend the legs and no more (because high-pressure pneumatics are too heavy), so they don't have the force to keep them extended during touchdown. It was failure of one of the leg-locks which caused one booster to fall over after landing. I am sure somebody will remind me which one!
  12. The MechJeb pod has been deprecated. The collision mesh needs updating to reflect changes to KSP: if you use it in flight then it will cause severe internal forces within your vessel leading to its destruction. Its creator is no longer active, and the original files used in its creation are no longer available, so it can't be fixed! The MechJeb pod still exists within the MechJeb files so old vessels can be loaded into the VAB in order that the pod can be removed (which is why it appears in the tech tree), but the pod itself has been removed from the parts list so it can't be used by mistake. The proper solution would be for some fine modeller to create a new one!
  13. Exactly so. Think of it as running a simulation before the launch. Very rarely, a third launch attempt will get it even closer - though I am not sure why! It helps to make sure the target is in as near an exactly circular orbit as possible - it's no good aiming for a 100km orbit if the target has periapsis of 98 and apoapsis of 115.
  14. This mod has not been updated for 1.3 yet! e-dog hasn't been active for a while, and he hasn't even visited the forums this year. However, if you read the dozen posts above yours you will see that @rsparkyc is discussing updating it and perhaps taking over maintenance. I suggest you follow him for updates!
  15. That is a two-year-old comment, and MechJeb 2 is now no longer needed, nor has been for... a year or more?