Pappystein

Members
  • Content count

    431
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

143 Excellent

About Pappystein

  • Rank
    OOBE Historian/Engineer
  1. Depending on the rocket and flight profile as much as 2 minutes... but yeah... Not much more than that. Except the landers (Apollo LEM etc...)
  2. I don't have any proof. I was just regurgitating several "studies" mentioned here in various forums for KSP. Ofcourse most of them are based on the Saturn V-C and V-D proposals but those were 5 F-1 engines with the S-ID Stage and a half first stage. The only positive is that the M-1 and the F-1 had somewhat similar LOX flow rates IIRC and thus maybe a 3 tank stage???
  3. RE 1.5 stage rockets. 1.5 Stage rockets are an efficent engineering solution to a problem of LOW thrust + High Desired payload to orbit mass. in KSP they don't make sense because well... MOAR Boosters! but IRL the 1.5 stage actually makes a lot of sense still today. Imagine a Saturn V rocket. Remove the 5 J-2 engines from Stage S-II, Remove the central F-1 engine. Replace the other 4 F-1 engines with F-1As or better yet F-1Bs (Thanks for that one @Shadowmage!) and insert an M-1 where the central F-1 existed. Now at Launch it is just the four F-1 variant rockets with a flight profile similar to an Apollo moon landing.... Once RP-1 is exhausted in the new super stage (remember I never said remove S-II's TANKAGE!) the 4x F-1 engines are jettisoned and can be recovered via Parachute. The Monster Hydrolox M-1 now engages..... and flys the Saturn V variant in a more efficient profile than the old S-II assembly could have. The results in this scenario are more money saved than a standard 5 F-1 5 J-2 engined Saturn V upgrade... For a similar payload to LEO. IRL this was one of the proposals to try to save the Saturn V from no longer being produced... Make it partially recoverable. Atlas D/E/F/F(Hypothetical) and II are my primary satellite launcher for KSP because I can stack some chutes on the booster assembly and thanks to STaged recovery can gain some currency back. Probably the best bang for the buck in Satellite launching. My least used launchers are Atlas-V (BDB) and Delta IV (SSTU.) Both are used but no where near as much as the older tech Atlas families. Probably because I have an Agena fixation right now (Agena is the satellite bus of choice for me.) Too much to mention quite frankly. SSTU is probably the most innovative single mod-group in KSP right now... Add the fact that Shadowmage has also created/edited/modified/continued KSPWheel and KSP now has a great wheel setup in game........ Why haven't you been playing with this!
  4. Ok so since we don't have any great pictures of it..... How about that Single thruster made in a 2x ROLL only RCS thruster for Centaur? The Marquardt R4D is likely NOT the "Hydrazine Roll Control Subsystem" used on Centaur for single engine flights but all the components are already or mostly made yes? Next to no texture involvement (just the 2x Fixture the engine bells are already done,) and you have stated a need for such a device. After all there really are no good pictures of the Centaur Roll Control System, correct?
  5. You mean I have to download this again? AWESOME! Thanks for the update Beale!
  6. Um, you could create a MM file that removes the gendered portion of the docking port nodes.... In THEORY the following would fix it.... But I am not going to guarantee this nor am I going to test it... that is 100% on you.
  7. Several Issues. Mostly due to my own fly by the seat of MY pants, not some physicist who never flew in space, Launch profile (YES I AM JOKING ABOUT THE PHYSICIST!) Also the lack of controlability of Solid upper stages (hence my initial Inquiry about the SRMs being "cut-able." I also had several other mods that WERE not 2.5 safe causing issues.... Also I just didn't like how 2.5 felt in the campaign. And the last is totally my opinion... The Rockets don''t feel right to me in 2.5... But Spaceplanes feel even more comfortable....... I tend to stick with Stock tech Tree due to the fact that none of the alternatives have "done in right" I have ideas for a new Tech Tree something akin to the Engineering Tech Tree but much more streamlined... But to see it to fruition would require a total rebuild of the Career/ Science game mechanics and THAT is WELL beyond my Kin.... I am lucky to be an ALMOST passable .cfg hakor....
  8. Heck I am flying Mercury around the Mun with this in BluedogDB and a stock system. In a 2.5 scale system you ALMOST need 6K stage to get a reasonable payload to a "fair" LKO. A Baby payload (500kg range) might be possible without 6K but I had too many problems with other rockets so I discontinued 2.5x and switched to Galileo for Career. without SSTU I would not have made it as far as I have in the Galileo verse... I may import some photos of my Tinker-Toy interplanetary Space Cruiser when I get home tonight.
  9. Sorry that was a tongue in cheek joke... But you just made my point And Technically Vega was the Middle stage. Upper Stage was JunoIV-6K
  10. Err... Um Vega was to fly with a JPL 6K Hypergolic upper stage and an ATLAS-E lower stage... Where for are you finding Solid rockets Seriously why do countries re-use other countries rocket names?! Whats next, the replacement for SLS in 2055 is Soyuz? Ok ON Topic now. Shadowmage those SRB upper stages are awesome. Are they going to have any way to cut thrust? In real life Man rated SRMs have an explosive charge that shatters the upper portion of the rocket to neutralize thrust and almost immediately blow out the explosive fire within the SRM. The ALMOST part is why Saturn IN16 (between 2 and 7 UA-1205/1206/1207s under a Saturn IVB upper stage,) was a non starter. I BELIEVE that Upper stages have a similar device built into them (else precise orbital positioning would not be possible due to any fluctuation in lower portions of the flight. http://www.astronautix.com/s/saturnint-16.html Is it more involved than just cutting and pasting the Drogue chute data and tweaking it to my particular MM files? Either way I am sure such a document would be useful to myself or others. I really love the DP-1P family of ports but I have objects of other sizes so the ability to make my own ports to work the way I want is very VERY nice! Thanks In Advance (TIA!)
  11. Cobalt, Wanted to mention, flew the Bossart Rocket the other day. Flew like a Dream. I had a Vega-Excelsior-Vega upper stage (Blue Streak small balloon tank in lieu of Vega tankage...) Looked awesome and flew even better. Coloration was obviously similar but not exactly the same (the Bossart vs Blue-Streak.)
  12. Given statements from Cobaltwolf a few posts above... Please make, and Share via the Github (Pull request.) And THANK YOU in advance for doing so!
  13. Nightshade, It is Gael which is the home planet if you use the Galileo mod. It is analogous to Kerbin in most respects (it is arid vs lush for example.) I have not had issues with any other parachutes which is why I brought up my unfounded concern.
  14. Err, I think Sputnik 3 was Cobalt saying "Hmm I want to make something new to practice on." rather than... "I want to take over ALL of KSP and also make Russian stuff." Besides @Beale has a great mod with lots of R-7 stuff!
  15. First thanks for the quick and detailed replies. I ran 3 tests. Test 1) BDB Apollo Blk-IV. MM created DP-05P of 0.9375m Diameter. Single Deploy altitude in the right click menu (more on this in a bit)..... No mater what altitude I set it to, UNLESS I click Deploy BEFORE that altitude... I get a deployment starting around 200m. Test 2) SC-V VA capsule on TKS. (I needed to try this out since I haven't played with it yet.) inbuilt Dockingports have 2x deployment altitudes showing on the SC-V and 1x on the TKS... I discovered something... tragic here. The Chutes deploy over about 8 seconds..... 8 x220m/s = ~4000m traveled.... https://imgur.com/a/Se5yM Test 3) Final test... BDB Apollo Blk-IV with MM created DP-05P of 0.9375m again. This time setting deploy altitude to 5500m (Max allowed). Well you can see the results in the Imgur library. The Chute is deciding the speed is unsafe and not deploying. Cause is not my MM file as I initially surmised but the fact that SSTU built in ports have both a Drogue and a main chute whiles the add on ports only have the mains... Add the fact that the BDB Apollo has less intrinsic drag than the SSTU Apollo..... Yep 100% not an issue. So I did Test 4 before posting.... Same Atlas V launch vehicle... Launching the SC-B Apollo capsule. Interesting... On a rocket that could only get the SSTU SC-V to 453km and the BDB Apollo to 1.1Mm.... The SC-B went past escape velocity. Judicous use of the Hyperedit Thrust adjustment tool.... and I am ALMOST escape velocity.... Landed safely 28 days after launch. Sorry for raising this @Shadowmage Maybe I should play KSP more often so I can not make these....fun... mistakes. NOTE: The only reason the SSTU VA and Apollo capsules did not burn up was because of the drogue chutes.... I attached the 0.9375m docking port to both and they both crashed. This was in my sandbox game so I just reverted My Solution.... Add 4 Air-breaks to any capsule I am trying to land with the docking port serving as a parachute module.