Search the Community

Hey everybody! In the Science & Spaceflight subforum and over at NSF, I've been discussing a proposed reusable methalox upper stage for the Falcon family as a precursor to SpaceX's ITS programs. The Air Force has already given SpaceX funding to develop a methalox upper stage, so this is something that's quite probable. In the Ideas for a fully reusable launch vehicle thread, I outlined a 4-meter-wide biconic spacecraft with some pretty cool capabilities. By the numbers: Dry mass: 11.07 tonnes Propellant type: subcooled methalox Propellant mass: 141.5 tonnes Main propulsion: 2x development Raptors Auxiliary landing propulsion: 8x pressure-fed methalox thrusters Main propulsion thrust: 2,291.6 kN (vacuum only) Main propulsion isp: 381 s (vacuum only) Auxiliary propulsion thrust: 736 kN vacuum, 688 kN SL Auxiliary propulsion isp: 326 s vacuum, 305 s SL TPS: PICA-X It's fully reusable. EDL on Earth (or Mars) looks like this (taken from the Mid-L/D NASA MAV concept; not representative of vehicle design): As shown in the mockup, the landing thrusters are covered by TPS-equipped panels; these actuate on landing to serve as landing skids/legs. Split flaps or other control surfaces can be used for control during re-entry. This upper stage serves as a drop-in replacement for the current Falcon 9 upper stage and can be launched on Falcon 9 FT or Falcon Heavy. By my estimates, it should be able to outperform the current upper stage for F9 and FH while reserving plenty of propellant for landing. The wing extensions are symmetric in two planes and come out from the body not unlike the ITS winglet extensions, as shown loosely in this rough sketch of a launch on a Falcon 9 Block 5 first stage: I would love to build this myself and simulate flying, etc., but I only have the demo and I don't have RSS or procedural parts. If anyone has RSS and procedural parts and would love to take a whack at building this, I would love to see the finished product! It would be really cool to see simulated EDL on Earth, the Moon, and Mars. Can't give you anything for it other than mad props, but if you've got the time, I'd really be thrilled to see. I think a few other people would as well.

I made a SpaceX's Falcon 9 launch simulation with the deployment of a dummy satellite and the recovery of the first stage on the drone ship. I always love seeing the lives launches from SpaceX and I just wanted to do it in KSP so we can see it from a better angle. I used some mods like : - SpaceX Launch Vehicles crafts - Environmental Visual Enhancements - Distant Object Enhancement - Stock Visual Enhancements - PlanetShine - Camera Tools - MechJeb

Where does everyone think space flight is going, and who do you think is the future of space flight is gona be? Btw, feel free to comment more company's to add to the poll.

Wow, Elon Musk wants to go to Mars! Wow, he made a rocket plan that can go there! The ITS. Oh boy. Where do I start. Elon Musk is a pretty genius buisnessman. But he's not a scientist, or engineer. Neither am I. And for SpaceX, that's been a pretty good thing. The Falcon 9's relative simplicity and lack of (yes, it's not innovative- everything on the rocket has been done before, fight me) innovation has cut costs to unprecedented levels. The ITS I've been wanting to make this thread for a while. But now that SpaceX fanboyism has probably cooled down, maybe people will actually listen to my concerns. There are 2 big problems that automatically stick out when I see this rocket. 1. NO ABORT SYSTEM Yes, it has a 2nd stage that 'can' be used as an abort stage, but that's a horrible idea. The 2nd stage is the stage that has to do the MOST IMPORTANT burns in the mission. The ones for landing, for example, that can't be aborted. It has to fire multiple times and do course adjustments. It's already under massive stress from constant re-firing. Worse, it's vulnerable ITSELF to failure. Remember that one time when the Helium tank in the 2nd stage blew? Thus, if the 2nd stage fails, you're screwed. No one else uses the 2nd stage for an abort system, because the entire point of an abort system is to be separate from the rest of the rocket system. There's also the fact that it may not have enough thrust in a pad explosion to get out quickly. 2. Too tall for landing. It's height-to-width ratio is comparable to the F9 1st stage (WHEN THE LEGS ARE SPREAD OUT), more than anything else that lands today. That is fine for an unmanned system, worse case scenario, you're going to lose a stage. But something that's fairly unstable in design is not a good idea when landing with humans on another body. Even Mars One uses landers that have a height-to-width ratio similar to Soyuz. NASA's Altair and DRM Mars are much wider when their legs are spread than they are tall- meaning they have a natural stability. Also, the ITS is top-heavy on that final Mars landing- its propellant tanks are empty 3. (BONUS !(lol)) The Heat Shield As we all know, this is a major issue. Sure, the Shuttle survived 4 times when it reentered from Earth's atmosphere when it's shield was holed up- but it failed that one time. It was a pretty unlucky hit, that foam strike. And you're going to be in deep space for at least 12 months, minimum. A strike of some sorts is an inevitability... And that shield needs to be used 3 times during a mission- none of which can be aborted. You could fix this with a covering, but that one covers the first 6 months TO Mars. What about the final aerobrake to Earth? It's more dangerous than anything else, since Earth's atmosphere is so much more dense, and it's coming it at MUCH faster speeds than Columbia in 2003. A hole that might have not been a big issue for the Shuttle could become a major failure point for the ITS on that essential final brake. And no, the ITS probably does not have the fuel to propulsively enter Earth Orbit. I'm not sure how much the aerobraking in Mars lowers the landing Delta-V, but I can safely assume the amount needed is MUCH lower than that needed to Enter Earth Orbit. And the engines probably aren't good heat shields at these sorts of speeds. Their cone shapes concentrate plasma at their tops. The dust storms probably aren't a big deal though, thankfully, due to the dust's low energy. And that doesn't account for the fact it's carrying 100 PEOPLE. If a mars Landing fails, and all the crew die, compared to the 7-man Shuttle disasters, that's a SPACE GENOCIDE. The Public would lose trust in commerical space, and Congress would probably nationalize all US Space operations. All of Elon Musk's work to build SpaceX is now in vain. Not only that, anyone trying to do the same is now MASSIVELY HAMPERED. Every time one proposes a commercial Mars landing, people will turn to the ITS disaster, in the same way people turn to Hindenburg with Airships. Thus, everyone loses. Let's remember the story of the Turtle and the Hare here. We aren't going to win by simply 'jump-stepping' to Mars. It's not the year 1700. People send people to space with the full expectation they will return. If they don't... well. Look at the history of NASA's plans being demolished by Challenger, Columbia, and Apollo 1. For the record, the Shuttle was supposed to fly until 2030 until Columbia.

Dragon Rider (Originaly By cBBp) I'm porting this modpack (with permission) to the latest KSP version. Most of this is updating the node attachments, flipping the y angle. There's other problems. Download: https://github.com/macluky/cBBp_Dragon/releases/tag/0.2 Links: Original link: [http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/24217-dragon-rider-capsule-023-21414/] Mod Support: * Lazor * Kerbalism * TAC * MechJeb * CTT INSTALL: Unzip into your main KSP folder, delete old versions before that. Have module manager already installed. CONTENTS: * Dragon Capsule * Trunk * Solar Panel Covers * Nose cone NOTES: * The offset of the RCS thrusters is wrong Changes * fixes for KSP 1.8.1 * fixes for KSP 1.2.2 * added mission flags * updated buoyancy profile * updated COL profile * techtree integration * editor search and category integration * generic docking node fits normal and jr clampotron * emergency fuelcell if power drops below 10% * integrated heatshield and insulated capsule * science container and crew report * integrated transmitter CREDITS: * cBBp for original setup LICENSE: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/ This pack is originally made by cBBp. This licence does not forfait any original licences. SCREENSHOTS: http://imgur.com/a/isypC

Ok, so we're building this giant rocket to send lots and lots of people to Mars and beyond. Let's say Elon Musk's plan works out and we get humans to Mars' surface safe and sound on this thing. They've aerobraked and landed without a hitch, and everybody's ready for the historic first step. But how do they get from the living space thirty or forty meters above the ground to a position where they can step off and put their feet on the regolith? Is there a ladder? A staircase? An elevator? A big pillow to fall onto? I can't seem to find anything even in cutaway diagrams like this one: Does anyone know where the exit is on this ship?

As someone who doesn't like to use modded parts and is a big fan of SpaceX at the moment, I would really like to see bigger parts. Right now, if you want to build a stock Falcon 9 replica, you are going to either have to get the biggest landing legs to work somehow OR use hinges to build custom landing legs like EJ_SA did. Come on Squad! I want to see some larger landing legs! Fire

I'm happy to share with you the first public release of this mod. Most of the parts are done and ready to use and you can now properly replay the Mars colonization mission in KSP. IMPORTANT NOTICE: This mod is absolutely overpowered for the stock game. The engine performance and ship stats are as close to their real counterparts as I could make them, and as of now it works just fine in RSS with FAR and RealHeat installed. You don't need RO for this to work 'realistically' in terms of performance, except the fact that the fuel is not right (liquid fuel/oxidizer instead of liquid methane/oxygen) and engines don't suffer from ullage and other great features that RO brings. DeltaV stats, Isp, masses and all related parameters are nevertheless more or less correct. PARTS Crew Transport Ship with 4 crew and 100 passenger capacity. Tanker Ship for orbital refueling. Reusable Booster with attachable fins and gridfins. Built-in decoupler, probe core and antenna. Dedicated shielded side docking port. Matches stock senior docking port. Raptor engines for atmospheric and vacuum use. Ship landing legs Deployable Gridfins that act as control surfaces and airbrakes Booster fins Solar Panels, RCS etc. FEATURES Booster has a built-in decoupler for stage separation. Built-in docking ports can be activated in config files (as an alternative). Currently uses Liquid Fuel/Oxidizer mixture but with correct masses for the ship and booster Engine Isp and thrust are set to values given by Elon Musk in his presentation All sizes are as accurate as I could estimate Ship and booster masses are as specified by Elon Musk. Raptor engine mass is estimated based on Merlin mass Tested in KSP 1.2. Backwards compatibility for KSP 1.1.3 and some extra config files for RSS are available on GITHUB Landing legs are missing landing leg module. They are still animated and act as landing legs, and are by default activated by Gears action group. They cannot overstress. CURRENTLY IN DEVELOPMENT Internals IRSU module RSS/RO configuration for proper fuel usage - partly done Configuration for stock KSP that is not game-breaking Split body flaps for the ship VIDEOS! A quick video I made how to assemble the ship: Kottabos review: DOWNLOADS: SPACEDOCK CURSE GITHUB - Backwards compatibility and extra configs are available here. DEVELOPMENT THREAD is where all the important updates and future features, as well as current issues (there are some) are discussed. I hope you will enjoy this mod! It took me a long time to (sort of) finish and I wasn't even sure if I could do it. Because of that, I'm even more excited to share it with you! A big THANK YOU to Marcus House for the support and testing, as well as config adjustments!

THIS MOD HAS BEEN RELEASED! CHECK OUT THE RELEASE THREAD HERE SpaceX Interplanetary Transportation System! With realistic sized parts (aka massive), accurate mass (launchpad might explode occasionally) and other stats as close to SpaceX presentation as I could get. Now you can colonize Mars SpaceX style. Intended use for this mod is going to be RSS/RO, because it is obviously overpowered for stock Kerbol system. It took me a lot of time to model these parts and even longer to make them work properly, so I hope you will enjoy and provide feedback, because it is very much needed! DISCLAIMER: This mod is absolutely overpowered for the stock game. The engine performance and ship stats are as close to their real counterparts as I could make them, and as of now it works just fine in RSS with FAR and RealHeat installed. You don't need RO for this to work 'realistically' in terms of performance, except the fact that the fuel is not right (liquid fuel/oxidizer instead of liquid methane/oxygen) and engines don't suffer from ullage and other great features that RO brings. DeltaV stats, Isp, masses and all related parameters are nevertheless more or less correct. Currently in development Internals RSS/RO configuration for proper fuel usage - partly done, files on Github ISRU Backwards compatibility for 1.1.3 (for RSS and RO) - compatibility done. Config files for stock KSP Proper configuration for the landing legs Engine heating animation (I totally forgot about them) Split body flaps for the ship Imgur Album - more pictures. Downloads: Spacedock Curse Github - extra configs for RealPlume and SmokeScreen, also WIP configs for RealFuels LICENSE: All rights reserved. If you want to use models or textures from this mod, just ask. It's the second mod ever and therefore there are many, many sharp edges and strange solutions. Some parts might summon Kraken, so be warned. This endeavour turned out to be far bigger than I ever expected and I have certainly underestimated the complexity of such operation. Development will be slow because I have learn things on the fly, but if you would like to help with the development, please contact me. In any case, I hope you'll enjoy the mod and please share some screenshots!

I know, this should probably be a part of the SpaceX main thread, but I couldn't resist! T-3 hours to Elon's talk! A couple of handy links: http://www.veloenvivo.com/iac/eng.html https://www.reddit.com/live/xnrdv28vxfi2 Any of the links in the comments here: https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/54itnx/rspacex_mars_architecture_announcementiac_2016/ http://www.iafastro.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/IAC2016_FP_FULL-Doc_Sept201620_FINAL_LowResCHECK2.pdf (page 41) http://www.spacex.com/mars HYPE! Sad, looks like the virgin galactic thing isn't being streamed. Fingers for BO's being streamed.

[Tested in 1.13] May I present the Space Xplosion ARV9 rocket. A SpaceX inspired stock rocket. It should work without any further mods, though automatic systems such as MechJeb or kOS are recommended for multiple reliable landings. Click for pics: Available in the standard lifting configuration, a light and a heavy variant. All use the same core boosters, with some changes to the second stage to adjust for the lifting capacity. As KSP does not offer concurrent missions or control it is recommended to launch initially to a 125km to 130km high orbit. This should give enough time for all manoeuvres needed between the stages. There are different possible flight paths for options on how to return the craft. If you wish to return stage 1 to KSC, follow this example first get the apoapsis is high enough. Then eject shrouds and separate stage 2. Immediately aim stage 1 back as KSC. You should have around 2 to 3 minutes before stage one "lands" with or without your assistance. Use this time to get a stable orbit. As time is vital, you may wish skip circularising at this point. Once you have a safe orbit, switch back to stage one and land... anyway you wish. If you wish to increase your payload capacity, you can instead land on a barge (I've not tried, it's hard!) or the next continent on Kerbin. At the 125km ballistic trajectory mark, you need very little fuel and time to adjust stage 1 towards your preferred landing spot. However, you will need to use the engines to slow down the descent, else the stage will burn up! But before that, you will have to switch to stage 2 and get it into orbit. You should be able to switch back to stage 1 before it even enters the atmosphere, so may wish to adjust the landing trajectory at this point. For stage 2 and the crew capsule, it is recommended to approach from a 75km or lower orbit, and keep everything behind the heat shields. Flipping the second stage requires some finesse, but is reliable. Advice welcome, as I'll be looking to do a redesign for 1.2 when the refined parts drop and they could do with more tweaking to keep everything stable. Advanced Return Vehicle craft file Advanced Return Vehicle Heavy configuration craft file Advanced Return Vehicle Light configuration craft file

I was watching some videos the other day and come across a video of Blue Origin. It showed their rocket (Shepherd I think it was) and it said they were 'making history' by being able to reuse the booster on their rocket. And a year earlier, There were already Falcon 9's being reused. And I saw some representative of Blue Origin in the video (Or it might've been Jeff Bezos who owns Blue Origin) saying: "Yes, what SpaceX does is very similar to what we do." Even though their Shepherd rocket only went up into space and deployed its capsule then both come back down. So, Blue Origin trying to steal the credit for reusable boosters?

My kids love watching rocket launches, so I got them some model rockets and we were launching them. I had also made my oldest a 1:80 scale model of the Falcon 9 with pop-out grid fins and landing legs. He kept asking me when we could launch his Falcon 9 and make it land on a boat. So I got to thinking...how hard would it be to build a hobby rocket with propulsive landing capability? Proper timing for a true suicide burn is hard enough with a liquid-fueled rocket; it would be even more difficult with a solid-fueled rocket, even if you had a laser rangefinder. Instead of trying to do a true suicide burn, then, you could build your model rocket with over-engineered shock-absorbing landing legs. Then, with slightly oversized grid-fin-style airbrakes, the terminal velocity would be fairly low. You could get away with a TWR < 1, since you would only need to decrease terminal velocity, not zero it out entirely. Your landing legs would catch you regardless of whether the motor burned out a few feet above the ground or was still firing on landing. Here's a 1:40 scale model, reproduced in SketchUp. Two stage rocket. Eight motors for ascent; central motor is reserved for landing. The octaweb at the base holds the launch and landing motors, mounts the landing legs, and holds the leg deployment channels (they are deployed by the landing-motor ejection charge). It is either aluminum or dense resin. The legs are likely either aluminum or PVC. They snap into place at the top and are deployed by springs (not shown). Main body (C) is light plastic to allow it to be launched without a license. Fairing halves (A) and (B) are plastic. Upper stage (C) is dense 3D-printed plastic; interstage (D) and "grid fin" air brakes (E) are either aluminum or dense resin. The landing ignition wire guide (F) is also light plastic. Detail view of interstage and upper stage: On ascent, the landing legs serve as a sort of shuttlecock to maintain guidance, with the upper stage providing sufficient counterweight. Return airbrakes on the lower stage and guidance brakes on the upper stage both pop out on springs at stage separation, which also closes a circuit to ignite the upper stage motor. On upper stage burnout, fairing halves pop out to deploy parachutes; these are tethered to the second stage (not shown) and allow for recovery. Lower stage descent and landing:

So... i found this video by "Russianvids" so i decided to make a video about it. My video: Anyway he made really dumb arguments saying and i quote "Look how you see this rocket pointed at an angle like parallel almost and somehow it adjust it's self and comes down for a straight landing give me a break" And anyone who has seen any SpaceX footage especially the Thaicom 8 video you can CLEARLY see the Cold gas thrusters or "RCS Thrusters" firing to adjust and angle itself in the right direction anyway watch the video i know my voice might be cringey i really need a new mic Note: I Don't know why but it is out of sync for some reason :/

Hey Kerbals! I have finished my Duna Colonial Transporter, capable of taking 10 kerbals from low kerbin orbit to Duna surface and back, with USI life support. The rocket requires some infrastructure. Namely, it needs to refuel after the first launch and every trip in LKO by two rockets. Then, refuel in Duna surface for launch all the way to LKO (although some refueling might be needed in LDO). The duna refueling station will have all propellant already made and two Duna SSTO tankers by the time the Transporter arrives, so it's a pit stop really. However, I need help with the trajectory. How do I set up a trajectory that enables me to make a short stop and continue to meet Kerbin? I was thinking about launching it with an apoapsis a little over Duna's orbit, in order to intercept on the way up (from Kerbol), land refuel, launch, and return. But I'm having trouble with the return window. I don't want to have the Transporter waiting on Duna surface, as there will be a station there. Anyone have ideas? I will post a photo of all the transporter and infrastructure as soon as everything is ready.

As title says, would you say SpaceX is doing better than NASA? Like in terms of planetary exploration and quite possibly how they do things different which makes them better. At the moment, my candidate is SpaceX. Musk seems to be making ambitious plans that really seem to be working out and with recycling boosters, they're probably better off with finances IMO. Now what's your opinion?

I know there's already a Space X Launch Towers mod. (i actually think its amazing) but i'm wondering if someone could possibly make a 2.5m stockalike Falcon 9 strongback? Or maybe one already exists? Thanks.

I have been digging around online for a while and haven't really come up with much of anything, so I figured I would croudsource this. The Dragon V2 is listed with a dry mass of 6,400 kg. Does that include crew amenities, like seats, displays, life support, that sort of thing? What's the best estimate of how much of that mass is the trunk, how much is the heat shield, how much the SuperDracos weigh, how much the onboard fuel tanks weigh, the mass of the aeroshell and pressure vessel, and so forth? Can we use figures from Dragon 1 to estimate?

This applies to any version, First make a dragon like Resupply craft. And then make a fully reuseable rocket, then: You must land the first stage and recover it(No parachutes(No drouges either)).Then land the 2nd stage from orbit(drogues are allowed on the second stage de-orbit/landing)and recover it.And then resupply a space station with the dragon like craft.Then finally land the spacecraft and recover it.(you can use parachutes and drouge chutes on the spacecraft).

I was surprised to see this article: http://www.theverge.com/2016/5/1/11549456/spacex-falcon-9-heavy-launch-capabilities-weight-mars Long story short, they've re-spec-ed the Falcon 9 so that it can haul quite a bit more mass into low orbit. 22 metric tons versus the old 13 tons. And the F9-Heavy will be able to lift even more onto Mars. I know that most rockets operate with a good safety margin, but I'm a bit confused as to how they could have gotten this much extra out of it. Elon Musk's tweets say that they haven't' substantially changed the machinery of the engines themselves. I take this to mean that they're just pushing them harder, which would mean a higher thrust and maybe higher exhaust velocity? Does anyone have more data on the old specs and the new specs? On wikipedia it currently lists the Merlin engine as having 282 s at sea level. No idea if this is the new one or the old one.

2 hours ago SpaceX announced on their Twitter page that they are launching the first Red Dragon to Mars (to land) by 2018. According to Elon Musk's previous tweets, they expect Europa landings to follow, and other extra planetary landings in general. Falcon Heavy is also the confired lifter. More information will follow during the Mexico space conference this September.

Specific impulse isn't nearly as important for SSTO designs as impulse density is...you can pretty much send the impulse density as high as you want as long as your engine T/W ratio is good enough. The Merlin 1D FT has T/W in spades, so why not build a really small SSTO powered by nothing more than a pair of Merlin 1Ds? Basic HTOL design. The pair of fixed air augmentation ducts should increase the specific impulse enough to effectively zero out gravity drag and aerodynamic drag and give the Merlin 1Ds an average specific impulse equal to the Merlin 1D vacuum specific impulse. Kerolox is fairly dense so the craft is small, but heavy at 128 tonnes in only a 22-meter-long ship. HTOL requires pretty heavy landing gear, which increases dry mass, but thanks to the small overall size the payload fraction remains close to 1:1 with a total mass to LEO of 6 tonnes. Use VTOL with lighter landing gear and the payload mass jumps, but you lose the ability to take off and land from any large runway. You want to keep that in case you use this as an antipodal hypersonic suborbital transport. Rolling takeoff is to gain airflow through the augmentation ducts, not build up speed for aerodynamic lift. Payload looks like it should be just about enough for a 7-crew ISS ferry.

One of the ways that SpaceX keeps costs down is using the same fuel and engine on the second stage that it uses on the first stage. Only having a single engine design for the entire launch vehicle is a really good idea. I was wondering, though: how close to optimal is the 9:1 configuration? SpaceX started development of a 5:1 configuration so there is obviously some room for variance. I don't know what other TSTO launchers use matching engines so I'm not sure there is anything else to compare it to. The second stage engine has a higher specific impulse and thrust due to the extended nozzle, but that extended nozzle also weighs more, so that may or may not have an impact. I assume the primary driver here is the relative masses of the two stages: you want your launch vehicle to have a T/W ratio of nearly 2:1 at launch, but you want your second stage to be roughly one fifth the mass of your first stage and have closer to a 1:1 T/W ratio at separation, suggesting a nearly 10:1 thrust ratio...pretty close to Falcon 9. Any other considerations? What about altitude-compensating nozzles?

What do you think about SpaceX's progress over the years? Is it promising, disappointing, or not as cool as your KSP save? If your not to familiar with the history of SpaceX, then the video below is as brief an explanation as I can give you. I don't mean to use this post to promote my own video but it got me thinking about how far SpaceX has come and how it's inspired me while playing KSP. Start a discussion below! I'd love to see your opinion on SpaceX or just space exploration as a whole!

Hi guys, this is my first post here and my first KSP video. I hope you enjoy.