frizzank

[1.0.5] FASA 5.44

Recommended Posts

Would be nice of they went with the proposed additions, but surely after 40 years the would have made a new model?

You never know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering the Russians have been using some of their launch systems from the saturn V era today, if we had continued development of the Saturn-V it'd probably be the baddest ass launch system of the bunch. And really from what I recall it seems the SLS seems to be going back to the saturn-v's tech and improving on it....

(Also that picture seems to point to the fact that even 40 odd years later we've still got the same basic idea, need more power? Strap more rockets on!!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There would be no reason to design a Saturn VI and up because the Saturn V was the best they could get to at that time. Even if they would have a Saturn VI now it would most likely look completely different from the Saturn V. We could say the SLS is the Saturn VI of today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly the SLS is the Saturn V with more efficient and powerful engines. I will say as much as I love the Saturn V it was a behemoth and was unbelievably expensive. If we want to get to Mars or back to the Moon we need something that big. However we should have been developing a cheap reliable rocket to make trips back and forth to the ISS like the Soyuz. We Americans just can't do anything small. Our launch vehicles have been expensive and huge, and amazing but the Russians knew how to play the long game. Yes yes I know SpaceX is gonna pick up the lost slack and finally allow us not to rely on the Russians to get to the ISS but we should have been developing one as we were building the ISS. The SLS is too huge to be used as something we use to shuttle astronauts to the ISS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we're going to make a ferry system to get to the ISS and back, I think the Ares I should be commissioned, or the liberty rocket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Idk SpaceX seems to have the right idea for low earth orbit rockets. If we only adapted or developed a launch system like that before we retired the shuttle fleet we wouldn't have to rely on the Russians. Once the grasshopper is fully developed and implemented for SpaceX the Dragon, and falcon rockets will be the some of the most powerful and cost effective rockets ever made. I don't think the Ares I or the Liberty were ever really viable launch vehicles. I don't like the idea of strapping people to the top of a single SRB. Kerbals? Yes. But humans, I don't think so, it just seem innately unsafe. You can't shut them down! Also how do you control an SRB? I mean its over with now. SpaceX will service the ISS baring any unforeseen circumstances. My real gripe is that they retired the shuttle which of course was entirely necessary and doesn't serve a purpose anymore and had nothing prepared to replace it. I mean NASA of all things couldn't predict or see the potential for geopolitical conflicts and tension? Anyway its too late dwell on it now. Sorry for going off topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, are those F1s really have gimbals enabled?

i have the center gimbal locked & the other 4 gimbal free, but i don't seems able to roll my rocket....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a mod that let you do engine roll, I think it is apart of the kerbal mini-shuttle mod. Otherwise you are going to have to use RCS or wings in the atmosphere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is f1b a closed cycle engine?

No, the F-1B use the same gas generator cycle as the old F-1 engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Engine gimballing in KSP isn't smart enough to give you roll control, unfortunately. This is an issue with the game itself, not any specific part.
There was a mod that let you do engine roll, I think it is apart of the kerbal mini-shuttle mod. Otherwise you are going to have to use RCS or wings in the atmosphere.

Hmm, but i roll fine on stage 2 & 3 with the J-2s.... that's why i asked. I'll add control surface then anyway.

Edit: and very slow roll with H-1s with SIB too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, the F-1B use the same gas generator cycle as the old F-1 engine.

Actually the F-1B uses a different, open cycle. The propellent used to drive the turbo pumps is not combined in the Bell anymore like the original F-1. This lowers efficiency by a few percentage points to greatly reduce cost. You can clearly see this by the large chute on the outside of the bell. The original F-1 combined the exhaust gasses mid way down the bell (And Frizzank Did a great job modeling that on his F-1s! The way the F-1B is set up is closer to the older Lr-87/Lr-105 of Atlas or Titan fame.

http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/eande-f1bchart.jpg

Edited by Pappystein
Added picture link of F-1 and F-1B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted by WedgeJAntilles View Post

Engine gimballing in KSP isn't smart enough to give you roll control, unfortunately. This is an issue with the game itself, not any specific part.

Quote Originally Posted by frizzank View Post

There was a mod that let you do engine roll, I think it is apart of the kerbal mini-shuttle mod. Otherwise you are going to have to use RCS or wings in the atmosphere.

Hmm, but i roll fine on stage 2 & 3 with the J-2s.... that's why i asked. I'll add control surface then anyway.

Edit: and very slow roll with H-1s with SIB too.

I think that has to do with the overall length of the engine. A Shorter engine length means a quicker throw if you will. Also less mass to counteract. I have noticed on several multi engine builds I have done (not just with FASA parts) that more small gimbaled engines offer better maneuverability than the same or fewer number of bigger engines. I too think this is a function of either Unity itself or the game code for KSP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not certain if this should be addressed here but something mentioned earlier on was changing thrust of engines in KSP based on altitude.

has anyone attempted a plugin to take advantage of the ability to set a thrust limit on the engine.

Something like at X altitude Throttle limit = xxx%? Then have a section in the CFG file for engines with a SL thrust and a Vacuum thrust?

Should I post this to a plugin request? Would it be helpful?

Craig P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Engine gimballing in KSP isn't smart enough to give you roll control, unfortunately. This is an issue with the game itself, not any specific part.

There are at least five gimbal plugins, and they all support roll control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not certain if this should be addressed here but something mentioned earlier on was changing thrust of engines in KSP based on altitude.

has anyone attempted a plugin to take advantage of the ability to set a thrust limit on the engine.

Something like at X altitude Throttle limit = xxx%? Then have a section in the CFG file for engines with a SL thrust and a Vacuum thrust?

Should I post this to a plugin request? Would it be helpful?

Craig P

Do you mean using a plugin to manage your throttle for you based on altitude, or do you mean using a plugin to make sure that thrust is proportional to Isp (as it is in real life) rather than fuel flow being proportional to Isp? (The latter definitely exists--RF does it, KIDS does it, and Arcturus Thrust Correcter does it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do that? Knowing the success, efficiency, and power the Russians had and have with closed cycle engines why use the inefficient gas guzzlers? I mean beautiful and powerful but extremely in efficient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cost of production far out ways the efficiency savings. We could have car engines that get 100 MPG but the cost of production would far out weigh the savings in gas. This is especially true for rocket engines that get used only once and then are thrown away. We could justify a higher cost more efficient rocket engine if the engine could be reused, for which there is a big push for.

A cheap to produce, inefficient and disposable engine is far more cost effective, to a point.

Share this post


Link to post
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.