Jump to content

Real Life "Kerbalisms"


Lisias
 Share

Recommended Posts

Lev Golovin's rocketplane projects (1930s-early 1940s)

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=ru&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http://armedman.ru/samoletyi/1937-1945-samoletyi/istrebitel-raketoplan-lva-golovina-sssr.html

Spoiler

golovin-1.jpg

golovin-3.jpg

Interceptor. Starts from the truck-based erector-launcher with solid booster, lands by chute (whole craft).
No guns, attacks by ramming, 2..3 attempts per flight. The later version with has a gun.

Length 3 m, wingspan 1.75 m, wing area 1 m2, launch mass 250 kg,  thrust 1 000 kgf, speed 1060 km/h, altitude 7.5 km

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DunaManiac said:

MOAR Fins, as they say.

Nah, they forgot to change control point from the payload to the booster. I'd bet the navball was minimized for screenshots.

(this is the accident they installed the gyros upside down, isn't it?)

Edited by Meecrob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Meecrob said:

Nah, they forgot to change control point from the payload to the booster. I'd bet the navball was minimized for screenshots.

(this is the accident they installed the gyros upside down, isn't it?)

Yeah, they actually hammered in at least one accelerometer upside-down. The kerbal equivalent would be the probe core installed upside down *whistles innocently*

My mind expected some lag on impact as the Matrix processes the explosion....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cubinator said:

Please tell me they didn't have to sit in it...like that...

I suspect that the interior of the forward module would be appropriately inverted from its current position:

original.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Soyuz habitat already has a round EVA hatch. Also it's the only way to get in/get out of the ship.
Why add a square hatch below.

CoM makes it unstable.

Why should it have the LEO service module with < 1 km/s of delta-V.

What is this biconical thing below, surrounded by the spherical tanks?

Why any the early lunar program included several (four ?) dockings and LK lander?

How should they take seats when the seats are on ceiling?

The picture depicts some 200x amateur "project", not a real space project.

Actually, the Soyuz with its habitat looks very similar to the early Apollo D-2 project and probably was designed with possible direct ascent in head, so the Soyuz habitat looks like a ready-to-use lunar compartment.
But it would never be overturned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DDE said:

I suspect that the interior of the forward module would be appropriately inverted from its current position:

That's a relief. For a moment, I thought that their toilets would be on the ceiling. Oh, wait....

 

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

The picture depicts some 200x amateur "project", not a real space project

This is what I initially though, but them I found this on the the site from where the poster came:

19k_components_1.jpg

The renderings are artistic, but the project really existed. The internals of some modules would need to be reconfigured, or at least on-the-fly reconfigurable.

Interesting enough, this approach would required two 21k tanker ship, launched separately, that would require a docking in orbit for refuelling.

So, if a docking in orbit would be unavoidable (and the cosmonauts would be dead the same as the astronauts if the docking fails or the tank ship is lost on the launch on by malfunction), the Apollo approach had the merit of saving two launching vehicle, doing the same job that the soviets was planning to do with three!

Quote

For example, the 19K expeditionary complex would stay on the ground until both 21K tankers were safely in orbit and ready to re-fuel it in orbit, while the aborted launch or docking of the crew with the 19K vehicle could theoretically be repeated with a backup L3 vehicle.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IDK how, but nobody has mentioned the OTHER soviet moon rocket (sadly it never left the drawing board). The UR-700.

Just like in Kerbal, they wanted to use fuel cross-feed. Just like in Kerbal, it seems to have been created at a time when they did not have the tooling to simply "make a wider cylindrical fuel tank" instead of clustering smaller tanks and engines. It even had a proposed nuclear variant that would have been able to put 700 tons in LEO. IIRC, it was fueled by hypergolic fuels, so you also get the "infinite restarts" found in KSP.

Having a hard time linking the picture from Wikipedia, but there's a model of it in a picture if you follow the link. Thing's crazy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Rocket#UR-700

Also found on Astronautix here: http://www.astronautix.com/u/ur-700m.html

Edited by SciMan
more info
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The picture is overturned. They just docked to the Moon from below with that grappling unit.

I can prove it. Look, they were ascending from the Earth up, flied to the Moon up, so where should be at the end? Yes, below the Moon.

So. if rotate the picture 180°, the ship is its natural position.

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Allegebily) Spencer Heath, testing his Paragon variable pitch proppeler.

1922.jpg

Bill Kerman is proud.

Source : http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/TRANSPORT/helica/helica.htm (with a lot more contraptions of this kind)

Emphasis to the parking brakes! :)

Edited by Lisias
Freaking auto-correctors.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...