Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'rocket'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • General
    • Announcements
    • The Daily Kerbal
  • Kerbal Space Program 2
    • KSP 2 Discussion
  • General KSP
    • KSP Discussion
    • Suggestions & Development Discussion
    • Challenges & Mission ideas
    • The Spacecraft Exchange
    • KSP Fan Works
  • Gameplay and Technical Support
    • Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
    • Technical Support (PC, unmodded installs)
    • Technical Support (PC, modded installs)
    • Technical Support (PlayStation 4, XBox One)
  • Add-ons
    • Add-on Discussions
    • Add-on Releases
    • Add-on Development
  • Community
    • Welcome Aboard
    • Science & Spaceflight
    • Kerbal Network
    • The Lounge
  • Making History Expansion
    • Making History Missions
    • Making History Discussion
    • Making History Support
  • Breaking Ground Expansion
    • Breaking Ground Discussion
    • Breaking Ground Support
  • International
    • International
  • KerbalEDU Forums
    • KerbalEDU
    • KerbalEDU Website

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Website URL


Skype


Twitter


Location


Interests

Found 114 results

  1. Why do GPS IIFs fly with SRBs on Delta IV? I mean, Delta IV without any boosters + 4m diameter upper stage seem to be able to launch GPS sats just fine- The Atlas V 401, also used to launch GPS, only has marginally higher performance, (0.5-0.2 more T to LEO, and 0.05 more T to GTO), and the Centaur used on Atlas V GPS missions even has enough fuel to do a DEORBIT BURN. Also, both were made to launch GPS on their basic configurations. So...why are 2 SRBs used? Why waste money on SRBs when the rocket doesn't really need it to launch GPS? http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/delta4.html http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/atlas5.html http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/03/ula-delta-iv-gps-iif9/
  2. Hello all! Over the past year I've been part of an internship (sort of) that's hosted by my high school, in which we work with volunteers from Aerojet/Rocketdyne to develop a liquid fueled rocket that we're planning on launching as the IREC (InterCollegiate Engineering Competition) sponsored by ESRA in Utah this June. Last year we had our first engine test, but due to fuel/oxidizer ratio issues and combustion blowout (the propellent burned outside the nozzle), we only got fifteen of the expected hundred pounds of thrust. Discouraged and frustrated, we left the project over the summer and continued in October. Finally, this Saturday, after weeks of analysis, engineering, and assembling, we were ready for our second engine test. Here's the highlights: We replaced the solenoid valves with servo valves so they could open slowly to allow combustion to build up, and adjusted the propellent mixture, to glorious results! Unfortunately the avionics team had some trouble with the load cell data acquisition system, so we don't have thrust data for the engine as of now. Therefore we'll have another test in a few weeks, and hopefully we'll get the engine starting more reliably as well. Playing KSP, you don't always think about all the pieces that go into every component of a rocket, but this process has undeniably filled me with respect for NASA, SpaceX, Blue Origin, Aerojet, and everyone who works on these systems. Keep up the incredible work! -RixKillian
  3. Hello everyone, I have a rocket that can get me to duna and back and would like to ask everyone if you could help to improve it as it is a prototype. [imgUR]6YIvMqA[IMGUR] Thx in advance -Ribby Kerman
  4. If you are new to KSP or to Rocket Science in general, you might not know what all the different engines that the game offers do, or how they work, or why you would use one instead of the other. At it's most basic level, the engines in the game take some sort of fuel, and accelerate it out the back of the rocket/plane and, because of Newton's Third Law, this propels the craft forward. How the engine does this depends on the type of engine, and in KSP, at this time, there are five different types of engines. These are: Chemical Rockets, Jet Engines, Solid Rocket Boosters, Ion Thrusters, and Nuclear Thermal Rockets. (There is only one Ion Thruster and only one Nuclear Thermal Rocket) Quick Note: All engines have different characteristics, thrust, ISP a sea level, and ISP in vacuum. Thrust is how much force the engine exerts, and ISP measures how efficient the engine is, so an engine with an ISP of 400 will use half as much fuel to produce the same thrust as an engine with an ISP of 200. Chemical Rockets: Thrust: 2-4000, ISP ASL: 80-295, ISP Vacuum: 290-350 (Not including "Puff" Monopropellant Engine) Chemical Rockets (or Liquid Fuel Engines) require Liquid Fuel and Oxidizer, and is one of the most common engines that you will use in the game. The basic concept is that the fuel is burned inside a combustion chamber and then the heated exhaust expands through the nozzle and is shot out the back. These engines are somewhat efficient, and have pretty high thrust. There is a very large variety of these engines so each one is fit for a particular job. For instance there are some of them that are more efficient in the atmosphere than others and some might be very efficient in space. You're sure to find one that fits your needs. Jet Engines: Thrust (Mach 0): 20-360, ISP ASL: 3200-12600 Jet Engines only require Liquid Fuel, but they also need Intakes. These engines work by taking air from the atmosphere, compressing it, mixing it with the fuel and then burning it in the combustion chamber. They exhaust then shoots out the back, propelling the craft forward. They also only work in atmospheres with oxygen, (Kerbin and Laythe) and if they are deprived of air, (if you go too high) the engines will flame out and stop producing thrust. Like the Chemical Rockets there a different types of Jet Engines in the game. There are high efficiency, low thrust engines, and there are low efficiency, high thrust ones too. Solid Rocket Boosters: Thrust: 18-750, ISP ASL: 118-195, ISP Vacuum: 154-220 Solid Rocket Boosters (or SRBs for short) only need one fuel called Solid Fuel, which they carry themselves. These engines differ from other ones because, unlike the Jet Engines and the Chemical Rockets, all of their fuel is stored inside the combustion chamber. This means that when you start these engines (with an ignition charge at the top of the booster) they will continue to run until all their fuel is used up, so you can't shut them off. Solid Rocket Boosters are low efficiency, high thrust engines, and are best used during ascent. Ion Thrusters: Thrust: 2, ISP ASL: 100, ISP Vacuum: 4200 Ion Thrusters need a resource called Xenon Gas (pronounced Zee-non) and also require Electric Charge. These engines are very complicated, but basically they use electricity to ionize (charge by adding or removing an electron) particles and then shoot them out of the back at insanely high velocities. These engine are incredibly efficient in space (12 times more than the most efficient Chemical Rocket) but they produce practically no thrust. Because of their low thrust, they are best used on small crafts like probes. Nuclear Thermal Rockets: Thrust: 60, ISP ASL: 185, ISP Vacuum: 800 Nuclear Thermal Rockets only need Liquid Fuel. The concept of these engines is my favorite. They work by heating up the fuel with a small Nuclear Reactor and then shooting the fuel out the back. The Nuclear Reactor allows the fuel to get hotter than it does in a Chemical Rocket, which means that the fuel is more energetic, which then leads to it going faster out the nozzle of the engine, which means that the engine is more efficient. This engine is about two times more efficient than the most efficient Chemical Rocket, but the Nuclear Reactor can cause the engine to overheat, (so radiators are almost always required) and it doesn't produce much thrust. R.A.P.I.E.R Engine: Jet Engine: Thrust (Mach 0): 105, ISP ASL: 3200 Chemical Rocket: Thrust: 180, ISP ASL: 275, ISP Vacuum: 305 There is an engine in the game called the R.A.P.I.E.R, and that engine has two modes, Airbreathing (Jet Engine) and Closed Cycle. (Chemical Rocket) It is mainly used for a type of spaceplane called an SSTO. (Single Stage to Orbit) P.S: I got all the images from the KSP Wiki. P.P.S: If I missed anything or did something wrong, please tell me. Also, if you want more of this sort of stuff, say so.
  5. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Shepard#Propulsion_module https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Siddeley_Gamma In the late 1950s to 1960s, British companies experimented with RP-1/H2O2 engines. Burning an 86 Percent mixture of Hydrogen Peroxide and water onto RP-1, (the peroxide which was passed through a catalyst to first decompose it) the rocket engines managed to pull a 265s ISP, and lead to the Gamma Family of rocket engines, which powered the Black Knight and Black Arrow Launch Vehicles. Since RP-1/H2O2 is hypergolic, no ignition source was required, and the engines were very simple and reliable- there were no engine failures through the history of the Gamma family of engines. Additionally, H2O2 is non-toxic- thus the Gamma engines had most of the advantages of a Hypergolic engine without the toxic propellants and exhaust. This kind of make you wonder why this propellant combination was abandoned for the most part. Though there were revivals by companies like Beal Aerospace and now Blue Origin for use on the BE-2 engine, H2O2/RP-1 has remained largely unused. Yes, rocket engine development is expensive, and it is less efficient than cryogenic, or even the Titan IV's hypergolic propellants (302 s ISP for Titan IV, and 266s ISP for a Gamma 8 RP-1/Peroxide engine) but it would still make for a good throttlable cheap SRB alternative. Also, the good reliability records and experience with the Gamma engines made me wonder why they decided against a similar engine's use on say, the Ariane 1- or why Blue Origin decided against using it for New Shepard, and instead using H2LOX.
  6. Hello, KSP forum members! I have the demo (want to buy the full game soon) and I want to land on the mun, and I've gotten pretty close, but never quite landed there. The demo rockets I found online all have parts that I don't have on the demo. Does anyone have a demo mun rocket they can show? I would appreciate it.
  7. I have Two liter familys for your enjoyment! All stock and ready to fly. Hope you like them. All of these Dv readouts are at empty. Jupiter 1 This has 28 parts, costs $170,501 and has 8,188 Dv. craft file here Jupiter 2 This has 162 parts, costs $243,051 and has 9,011 Dv. craft file here Jupiter 3 This has 347 parts, costs $897,552 and has 16,084 Dv. craft file here Jupiter 4 This has 273 parts, costs $277,981 and has 20,505 Dv. craft file here Saturn 1 This has 77 parts, costs $147,222 and has 10,440 Dv. craft file here Saturn 2 This has 80 parts, costs $155,022 and has 10,984 Dv. craft file here Saturn 3 This has 189 parts, costs $208,586 and has 16,971 Dv. craft file here
  8. The ISS is a space station complex that has conducted significant research. However, with the expiration date set to 2024 (possibly, and preferably to 2028), NASA will be left without a space-based research lab to work from. However, as NASA's budget is limited, how would such a LEO space station look like? (Cost estimates are based off of released figures on making those modules) V1: Basic, 3-man Version: Primary module: EUS H2 tank-based Skylab-2 Orbital Workshop. A 32-Ton "Dry Workshop" space station module, it contains its own life support and power systems (including solar panels and radiators. It uses its robotic arm, placed on its aft, to dock the other space station modules to it. It is primarily used as a lab and a storage area. Cost: $2 Billion. Permanent BEAM-Derived Inflatable Airlock: A 2 T module, this module can also be adapted for use in Bigelow's own space station. It is large enough to support 3 astronauts inside, and is based off of the ISS' Quest Airlock for its functionality, and BEAM for its structure. US airlock Cost: 17.8 Million (cost of what it took to make the 1st BEAM), possibly more. Modified PMA: Allows crew to dock to this space station, and is designed to connect to commercial crew vehicles. It is 1.6 T in mass, and there are two of these aboard the station. The other space station modules are built from leftover ISS hardware: Node 4: A 12 Tons Module, Node 4 creates extra docking ports, along with a crew habitat for this space station. It also connects this station to other modules (if using the extended version) and commercial cargo and crew spacecraft (two crew spacecraft is left docked, one (at the Starboard port) as a backup, and the other (Forward) as the primary. It's aft port is used to connect the space station on Skylab II. Its nadir docking port is used as a cargo berthing port (a second is not needed, due to its lower cargo requirements. The Port docking port is used for the BEAM-Derived Airlock. Node 4 is built from the Node 1 STA. PMM-2: A 10 tons module, the Pernament Multipurpose Module-2 is located on the space station's Zenith port, and is a life sciences lab. It is built from MPLM-2, used for Suttle logistics missions to the ISS. Interim Control Module (modified to be a 6T permanent module): This module is not designed to be refuelled (except maybe by EVA?), so it is only intended for emergency burns. It is located on the space stations' forward port. The basic version also adds 9T of Solar panel and radiator assembly onto Skylab II's aft. The basic version uses one SLS Block IB launch to launch itself (along with a partially-fuelled Orion) into LEO. Extended Version: The extended version would add another Node (Node V), attached to the station by its aft side, and built completely new (which is attached to the forward side of the node). The airlock is moved to the port side of Node V), another berthing port (at Node V's nadir) is also added. Port port of Node V have PMM 3, built from a leftover Shuttle Multi-purpose logistics module and used as a lab (though PMM-3 is also used for some storage). The Starboard port is attached with either a BA-330 (launched separately on a Falcon Heavy) or a refurbrished, completed Centrifuge Accomodations Module, a life sciences lab with a centrifuge. CAM and PMM-3 are both 10 tons in mass. BA-330, is 20 T in mass. The Zenith port of Node V is used for a backup docking port. The extended version also adds another 9T of Solar Panel and radiator assembly, from the basic version, onto Skylab II's aft, nearly identical the the first attached. The extensions are launched by a single SLS Block I (without a upper stage- it also cannot be launched on a Falcon Heavy, as it lacks a large enough fairing to launch the modules at once) using a specially designed tug to carry the modules to the space station. How good of a concept is this? Is there any chance it will happen? The basic, single launch space station is the baseline, by the way.
  9. Welcome to Rocket of the Week! This week(12/8/15-12/15/15)'s featured rocket: Delta III Rocket of the Week is a place where we will feature one rocket that is currently operational, retired, or planned. A new rocket will be featured each week. All members are welcome to comment about the featured rocket and even make suggestions about rockets that should be showcased the following week. Sometimes polls will be held for members to vote on their favorite rocket. Also, if the rocket is available in a KSP mod, it will be showcased as well. This is a place for all rocketry enthusiasts to gather and to talk about rockets (and sometimes spaceflight)! This week's featured rocket will be the Zenit-3 rocket, which likely made its last flight on December 11, 2015. Links to previous (or current) featured rockets of the week: Delta II: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/126822-rocket-of-the-week-delta-iii/&do=findComment&comment=2315493 Delta III: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/126822-rocket-of-the-week-delta-iii/&do=findComment&comment=2315504 Zenit 3: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/127481-final-flight-of-zenit/ Rocket of the week is a place where real-world rockets will be featured. It is meant to give people more information on real-world rockets, and hopefully influence some rockets that are being built in KSP. My goal is to provide information about these rockets that will give people sufficient information on these rockets, which can be famous or forgotten. I hope to bring these rockets to life through weekly informative posts about these rockets to the KSP community. Enjoy!
  10. nearly all of the KSP engines are chemical/fossil fuel except the ion engine. there should be a couple new (and non-new) resources added to the game. the resources are the following: hydrogen, carbon dioxide and argon. hydrogen can be converted to liquid fuel but its fuel tanks are very expensive (since hydrogen is hard to pressurize). carbon dioxide (use the resource from TAC life support) will have very cheap fuel containers (carbon dioxide is easy to pressurize), but will weigh more than normal fuel. argon, as a resource, will be cheap, but fuel tanks will be expensive. please note that carbon dioxide should be free. there should be VASMIR engines for argon and hydrogen, hydrogen producing more thrust in the atmosphere but more expensive. the carbon dioxide will have acceleration tubes as engines, lasers accelerating the CO2 (thus using electricity). the carbon dioxide acceleration tubes will have a medium price and they will barely make any thrust at sea level, but will produce lots of thrust in space. the VASMIR engines will also use electricity. and there should be a part which converts hydrogen and carbon dioxide into fuel, oxidizer and ore. I have also invented an agency for those parts: AC space industries (there flag is AC in green next to a picture of a futuristic rocket). I have listed their stats: mentality = stern 0.9 mentality = scientific 1.0 mentality = moral 0.1 mentality = pioneer 0.9 mentality = industrial 0.8
  11. Designed for intercepting RoadRunners, the ACME Mark II was designed for use on pavement in the large stretches of highway in the mid-west, particularly in the four courners area. The original design was featured in a general merchandise catalog. The latest version has been improved to include an enclosed cockpit and better handling characteristics, though ejection seats are still not a design consideration. At extreme speeds, the craft can in fact take off from the highway, though stability is problematic at best and manuverability is hampered. Once the fuel is exausted, the rocket tends to coast to a stop. Catastorphics mishaps with this rocket have included tilting off of the tires, launching off of cliffsides, and worse case, colissions with brick walls or painted rock formations. Download the Ship File: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0ByygDcuGFHYPWG5jcFVnSWxQeGM
  12. Should Orbital ATK replace Pegasus with Minotaur I? http://spacenews.com/demise-gems-may-cost-orbital-150-jobs-doom-pegasus http://innerspace.net/current-launch-vehicles/pegasus-launch-cost-soars-to-55-million/ http://spaceflightnow.com/minotaur/ors3/131119launch/#.Vmu8aUZxSrk One thing that I wondered about is why Orbital kept using the air-launched Pegasus once it gained the ability to use Minuteman rockets for space launches in 2000. Though air-launch has its advantages, such as being able to launch to any orbit much more easily, Pegasus has become FAR more expensive (55 MILLION per launch), as its launch rate has shrunk to once a year, compared to Minotaur 1's $28.8 million (including the rocket AND the payload), and can launch about 100 kg less than its ICBM-derived counterpart. Currently, both are incredibly expensive, but if operating costs are kept down by eliminating Pegasus infrastructure, and increasing the launch rate for the Minotaur (which should already be theoretically very low since 1. Uses mainly already-built stages 2. Uses ICBM stages that have large leftover stockpiles (Minuteman II) 3. USAF will dump about a good number of very similar Minuteman III ICBM (apparently 830 of these things were built, with about 100 or so launched). OrbitalATK would probably actually have a good thumb in the future cubesat market if it made the right choices with Minotaur I. One would wonder why Orbital hasn't replaced Pegasus already. There is one rebuttal I've found: According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus_%28rocket%29#Related_projects "Due to the use of surplus military rocket motors, it is only used for US Government and government-sponsored payloads." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minotaur_IV#STP-S26 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnepr-1 I would think this is just something the author might have just made up, since Minotaur IV launched things like FASTRAC-A (granted, it is a nanosatellite) and the also ICBM-derived Denpr-1 launches commercial satellites (granted, it's foreign). If this is the case, it really begs the question of how launching commercial satellites on ICBMs is a bad idea. How would the use of surplus ICBM motors be bad for defense? Does the DOD expect a spy payload to hitchhike a ride on a commercial satellite, and determine the properties of the rocket it is riding on (while still being useful for the enemy)? One last note is that OrbitalATK considered retiring Pegasus, but decided to hold out. Let's hope they do it sooner than later- Pegasus seems like a bad asset at this point to keep hold onto.
  13. Could this be the last flight of the powerful Zenit launch vehicle? On December 11, 2015, a Zenit-3SLBF rocket will launch the Electro-L2 satellite. Electro L-2 is a Russian weather satellite that will be stationed in Geostationary orbit. However, many sources, including Spaceflight Now and Spaceflight 101, have published articles stating that this launch could be the final launch of the Zenit launch vehicle, because the Zenit is for the most part manufactured in the Ukraine, and since Russian-Ukrainian tensions are getting tight, Russia has decided that it is no longer interested in purchasing Zenit launch vehicles from the Ukraine. The Zenit launch vehicle was rolled out to its Baikonur launch pad on December 9, 2015. This Zenit will fly in the Zenit-3SLBF (Zenit 3F) configuration with a Fregat-SB upper stage that will inject the Electro-L2 satellite into Geostationary orbit. Zenit stands approximately 20 stories tall in this configuration. The Zenit's first stage is powered by a RD-171M engine. RD-171M is the world's most powerful rocket engine, even more powerful than the Saturn V rocket's F-1 engines (However RD-171M achieves this thrust through four thrust chambers while the F-1 only has a single thrust chamber. F-1 is the most powerful single chamber rocket engine and RD-171M is the most powerful rocket engine overall). RD-171M is derived from the RD-170 engine used on the strap-on boosters of the Energiya rocket that lifted the Soviet Space Shuttle, Buran. RD-171M burns a mixture of RP-1 Kerosene and Liquid Oxygen. It burns for approximately 2 minutes and 30 seconds. The second stage is powered by a fixed RD-120 engine and a four-chamber RD-8 vernier engine. Both engines burn the same propellant mixture as the first stage. RD-120 has also influenced the design other rocket engines with its efficient staged combustion cycle technology, most notably the Ukranian RD-810, the Indian SCE-200, and the Chinese YF-100. From left to right: RD-120, RD-810, SCE-200, YF-100 On this flight, the third stage of the rocket will be a Fregat-SB upper stage (Zenit is compatible with the Block-DMSLB and Fregat-SB upper stages). Fregat-SB is derived from the Russian Fregat upper stage. The Fregat-SB has an additional torodial propellant tank mounted below the structural frame. The Fregat-SB upper stage will propel the Electro-L2 satellite into Geostationary orbit. This will be the 83rd flight of Zenit and the 3rd flight of the vehicle in its Zenit-3F configuration. The first version of the Zenit was the Zenit-2, which was the basic two-stage vehicle. Later, with Sea Launch's arrival into the commercial launch market, the Zenit-3 family was introduced. Zenit-3 was basically a Zenit 2 with a Block-DMSL/DMSLB upper stage. Sea Launch flights flew with the Block-DMSL upper stage, while Zenit-3SLB/3M "Land Launch" rockets flew with the Block-DMSLB upper stage. The Zenit-3F is the only Zenit configuration that uses the Fregat upper stage. Developed in the former Soviet Union, the Zenit rocket "represented a new age of Soviet rocketry," as according to Spaceflight Now. Many Zenit components were manufactured by Yuzhnoye inside the Ukraine, and Russia depended on the Ukraine to ship Zenit rockets if it wanted to launch satellites on Zenit. The rocked made its maiden flight in 1985, and has flown missions for over 30 years. Reportedly, there are two more unflown Zenit launch vehicles. A completed vehicle is in storage at the Baikonur Cosmodrome. It was assigned to launch Russia's Spektr-RG observatory. However, according to Spaceflight Now, the rocket's warranty has already expired and the observatory might be shifted to a Proton-M Breeze-M rocket. Another Zenit rocket is being assembled in the Ukraine to launch the Ukrainian Lybid-1 communications satellite. However, it is unclear if Lybid-1 will even fly, due to Russian-Ukrainian tensions getting tighter. With this, a legendary product of the Cold War space race will probably make its final trip to the stars tomorrow. This is my recreation of the launch in KSP, using the Zenit-3SLB from Horizon Aeronautics. Note: The Zenit rocket shown here is in the Zenit-3SLB configuration, with a Block-DMSLB upper stage. I don't think there are Fregat-SB stages in any of the KSP mods, and existing Fregat stages are not compatible with the size of this rocket. Also, the payload being launched is a first-generation TDRS satellite, since there is no Electro-L2 replica in KSP.
  14. Sliced-UpTM Spare Parts Presents : AK2 ''Hamster'' The Hamster is a small three engine craft designed for survey contracts. Powered by three ''Juno'' Jet Engines. This highly efficient seaplane will do those damn sea surveys! (Note: This plane is extremely hard to slow down! Jebediah Approves of this feature! ) (Scroll Down for Download) Download -Slicer Hope you all enjoy!