Jump to content

Lukaszenko

Members
  • Posts

    357
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Lukaszenko

  1. If you have the engines that are capable of sending you fast and high enough, suborbital transportation would be the logical application. I actually made a drunken bet with a guy that we will be doing this in 20 years. Might be a tad optimistic, but one can only wish :P

  2. I just successfully tested a EVE descent/ ascent vehicle (using FAR and DRE) from around 1,500 meters. I used an MK1 lander can and no parts plug ins. I DID use reinforced joints but only because my computer couldn't handle the practically identical vehicle with all those struts.

    I gave it around 12,000 Dv, but to my surprise I had over 3000 left over when I reached orbit. The vehicle is large, but not absolutely monstrous. Apparently it could be much smaller, since how it has so much margin for error. I'll post up pictures at some point.

  3. I've also been working on an Eve return craft. I'm using FAR and deadly reentry...I'm sure the latter makes it harder but not sure about the former. Anyway, I've been tweaking and testing and keep getting closer to a perfect craft, but it got to the point where my computer can't handle it anymore while keeping it fun.

    I'm going to to try to break it apart and put the science on a whole separate craft for that reason.

  4. That's what I was saying. I'm pretty sure almost every rocket engine has some sort of turbine to draw power from the fuel. How else can you supply the stupid amount of horsepower needed to drive the pumps? Once you have such a configuration, attaching an alternator to it should be no biggie. But again, you're not going to carry with you and burn a 10000000000000000000000 lbf rocket engine just to run a few hundred watt dynamo.

  5. A rocket engine needs auxillary components to let it run, such as pumps for fuel and whatnot, and some of these pumps can require horsepower in the tens-of-thousands range. This is why I'd guess that most rocket engines would need some means of extracting shaft power from their fuel. If that’s the case, slapping an alternator on the shaft should be no big deal. I’ll surmise that the reason for using fuel cells is so you don’t have to run a whole rocket engine in order to power a hand warmer, and where RTGs would be inappropriate (due to mission length/ power requirements?/ weight?).

  6. I always felt uneasy with the struts. Not only do they look ugly and out of place (with no way to snap them to orderly locations), but I could never reconcile using them with decouplers. I mean, when the decoupler decouples, how do the struts know to break as well? Do they have small decouplers on their joints? Do they just tear out of the rocket?

    I've found myself lately using the small decouplers with 2.5 m rockets, strutting the joint to make up the strength defecit. It doesn't seem right that I can do that.

  7. Dont forget you can EVA and transfer the data from those science parts into the command module -- this way you only have to return the command module.

    I find that you can only store one of each experiment, even though you have to do them multiple times in order to get the full science. The result is that you have to fly multiple missions to get the full science. Did this make sense, or am I doing something wrong?

  8. They were left in a circular trajectory with a very small angular speed, which is, given the huge distance from the Soyuz enough to induce a considerable centrifugal force. And you can actually see they're still moving when you see Kowalski and the stars behind him.

    I baffles me how many people fail to realize this. It's obvious to the point I'm facepalming at some of the comments here. This is basic Newtonian physics.

    Shouldn't the "huge distance" REDUCE the centrifugal force?

×
×
  • Create New...