• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3740 Excellent


About Streetwind

  • Rank
    Talks To Boosters
  1. Were you continuing an existing save, or starting a new one? We've not had any mention of such issues, so this is quite unusual to hear. Also, the CTT patches should all be disclaimed with a NEEDS conditional, and shouldn't even fire if it is not installed.
  2. From the way the exhaust flame flickered during the landing burn, it was very windy indeed. The boostback burn doesn't arrest all velocity. It arrests (and reverses) the horizontal component. The rocket is still moving upwards at a good clip, therefore the speed indicator never reaches zero until the actual landing. They simply let gravity deal with vertical velocity. Here is an infographic showing the principle. As for exact values for altitude and downrange distance, that differes from launch to launch. Overall though, the Falcon 9 flies a steeper trajectory than traditional rockets, and has a larger part of its total dV shifted to the second stage. Both of these things make first stage recovery easier.
  3. Not an easy answer. First, it depends on the quality of your alcohol. 100% ethanol is physically impossible to produce, since it is extremely hygroscopic (water-loving), but you could get 99%. However, no ethanol-fuelled rocket has ever used this (...successfully, anyway). Most of them - from the V2 to Copenhagen Suborbitals' test rockets - run on a 75% alcohol/25% water mixture, chiefly to keep combustion temperatures in check. Next: do you want to run stoichiometric - in other words, do you want a one-to-one combustion, where you have exactly as much oxygen input as the given amount of fuel needs? Stoichiometric uses fuel most efficiently, but also burns the hottest, so again, it's a matter of how much heat your engine can handle. Running hotter and converting fuel more efficiently improves your Isp, but that's not the only way to do so. Sometimes, running off the stoichiometric ratio actually improves your performance, because the exhaust is comprised of a different mixture of different combustion products. Lighter exhaust has a higher vacuum Isp, but performs less well inside an atmosphere. So, you additionally need to ask yourself what purpose your engine should fulfill. I could go on. I recommend you look up Copenhagen Suborbitals and the data they make available for their engine tests. They do text different fuel/oxidizer ratios as well as chamber pressures, and record graphs of actual engine performance in those situations.
  4. @The-Doctor Honestly, if your ships are exploding under thrust, you have issues besides part count alone
  5. I also have a question. Can it remove atmospheres from those bodies that have them? Else the atmospheres aren't strictly speaking optional...
  6. As a side note: upon being asked about the excessive amounts of roll during the first launch, the Rocket Lab twitter spokesperson stated that it was within constraints for that launch. Future launches will have those constraints tightened. Next launch currently planned (and subject to change) for around two months from now.
  7. Contracts have a series of prerequisites that need to be fulfilled for them to show up. Whether it's a certain amount of gameplay progression, a certain set of parts unlocked, or even a certain amount of reputation - it varies from contract to contract. I don't know what the prerequisites for tourist missions are, but if they refuse to show up for you, then perhaps you're missing something?
  8. Perhaps they even could have gotten approval for a much higher altitude launch. I don't believe it is quite so difficult to get the okay - even student projects exceed this altitude relatively regularly. There may just have been good reasons why Vector opted to not go for such a thing. - They might have had to go to a different launch site, which could have been inconvenient - They might have had to wait longer, but wanted to launch now - They might simply not have needed it for the things they were testing yesterday Vector's model isn't like that of Rocket Lab, which built a single test vehicle and went straight for orbit with their first launch. Vector has been doing minor test launches in the past and will likely continue to do so until they're confident they have a good shot at orbit. EDIT: Here's a relevant quote.
  9. They are, I just used it earlier today...
  10. I could see a drone floating near the pad. Pretty sure it was taking video
  11. I like how they're calling it "Block 0.002"
  12. ^---- that was 15 minutes ago as of this posting...
  13. You misunderstood how inclination works Orbits are two-dimensional things; they exist in a "plane" on which the elliptical path is drawn. When you have two different orbits, there is two possible configurations: their orbital planes can be identical (the orbits are coplanar, like the orbit of the Mun around Kerbin and the orbit of Kerbin around the Sun in stock KSP), or they can intersect each other. Take a look at this picture. You have two orbital planes intersecting (the equatorial plane simply being an orbit that is coplanar with the planet's equator, which means it has zero inclination). Any intersection between two planes causes a virtual line to form. This "line of nodes" is where all possible intersection points are located - points where the actual orbital paths cross. These intersection points, of which there will always be exactly two - unless your orbit is coplanar, in which case they don't exist at all - are the ascending and descending nodes. In KSP, you may sometimes notice that when you match a target inclination very precisely, the info display on the AN/DN markers turns from 0° into NaN ("not a number"), which means the node ceased to exist within the scope of KSP's mathematical precision, and you are now considered coplanar. Now for the part that you misunderstood: The relative inclination between you and any given target is the angle between the two intersecting orbital planes. It is not the angle between your current position and the object's current position. (Current positions are meaningless in space anyway, since nothing ever stays where it currently is). Even though the Moon may coincidentally sit directly over Kourou at some point in time, you will never achieve a relative inclination of 0°. While your launch vehicle sits on the ground, it has an orbital plane with the inclination of the launch site, since you are basically riding the rotation of the Earth. This orbital plane will intersect with the orbital plane of the Moon, and if your launch site's inclination is not precisely the same as that of the Moon, you will never become coplanar with it without launching and performing a plane change. People wait for certain moments to launch not because they think they can achieve 0° relative inclination, but because they seek to minimize the dV spent on plane changes in other ways. Of which there are two. First, you can wait to match the longitude of ascending node of the target. This number describes how your orbit is oriented relative to the fixed backdrop of space. If yours and your target's LAN are identical, that means that your orbital planes are as closely aligned as they can ever get - the relative inclination is minimized. That happens when you see the 23° minimum inclination difference you report, or when a launch site with an inclination closer to that of the Moon, like Cape Canaveral, approaches 0°. With the differences between your orbits minimized, the cost to perform the plane change once in space is minimized. Also, because of how the geometry works out, you are pretty much on top of the ascending or descending node after you finish circularizing in low orbit, and thus you can proceed to orbit matching right away. Second, you can wait until the target orbit crosses over your launch site. At this point, the difference between your orbital plane and that of the target is maximized, which appears to be a bad idea... until you realize that in this configuration, either the ascending or the descending node is automatically on top of you. Which means that you can plane change right then and there - you can integrate it into your launch. And combining burns is the most efficient way to perform a plane change that there is. Ostensibly, you would use method one when the inclination difference is very small (a few degrees at most), because it is easy to fly. And you'd use method two when it is larger than that, because you have to manually steer into the right direction away from the optimal eastward trajectory the rocket naturally wants to fall into, which requires more piloting skill, and you'll likely end up a bit off anyway. However, you can pull off method two in KSP without any additional tools - you can just eyeball it effortlessly. Method one is much harder to eyeball. So people pretty much always use method two in KSP, and that is also the method I would recommend to you. Especially with an inclination difference as large as 23°
  14. They're planning on livestreaming a test launch today, if the weather holds. Peek at @vectorspacesys and/or @Nextlaunch on Twitter for more info.
  15. Sometimes I think @kerbiloid has also developed his own language, which relies primarily on a combination of various web-sourced blocks of tangentially related information to convey meaning... (In case this wasn't obvious, I'm making a joke. No insult meant.)