All Activity

LDM-1 - PART II | LUNAR OPERATIONS Following a successful separation event, Odysseus is on its way to the Moon to conduct various tests of Propulsion, Guidance and Communication systems. It will stay on a lunar orbit for 45 days - about the same length as two full moon orbit cycles around Earth Coast Phase Lunar Orbit Insertion Odysseus in Low Lunar Orbit (LLO) Second Orbit Pass Earthrise Last Orbit Before Moon Departure [Switchover to Mission Control] "All Systems Good, Inititating Moon Departure Profile" "Two Good Engines, Guidance System reports Nominal telemetry" "Separation Right on Time, Starting up Reserve Fuel Cells" Ten Minutes Before Earth Entry Interface Earth Entry Interface - Loss of Communication Peak Entry Heating Entry Heating Subsiding, Comms Restored Parachute Deployment Splashdown - Southwest Pacific Ocean Post-Flight Analysis: LDM-1, as with all previous missions was a resounding success, verifying all systems required for Future Lunar Operations by testing Odysseus CEV extensively in and around the Earth-Moon System. This marks the first time an American crewed spacecraft successfully entered Lunar Orbit since Apollo 17 This flight also marks the partial decommissioning of Saturn III, being replaced by Saturn III+, an improved version of the latter allowing even more payload to be launched into Low Earth Orbit, Lunar Orbit and Beyond The next step in America's continued Space Exploration Program would be the extensive testing of the Human Landing System (HLS) verifying its capability to lift crew in-and-out of the Earth-Moon System A Personal Annoncement: 2 pages? What an achievement, most of my forum threads died short of completing a full page I just want to say: Thanks to everyone who interacted with/followed this Forum Thread, y'all give me enough motivation to continue forward with this Alt-Hist Thread

Ah. then they arent any more stackable than the graphene ones. Length variation would be more useful than width. They dont looks as cool without the 1:20 aspect ratio

Last week @Dakota and @Nerdy_Mike posted images in the discord dev tracker. The images look like forum posts but are way too small to read, there is no option to click on it to read it or to make it bigger, and there is no link or even a reference to where the posts were made so we can actually read the posts. Am I missing something? In the future, could you maybe copy-paste this stuff so it can be read? Using Microsoft Edge browser.

I am arguing that NASA was blindsided by the low 40 to 50 ton capability of the current version of the SuperHeavy/Starship. A couple of reasons why I say this. First, while Elon was extolling the “success” of the latest test flight in his recent update at Starbase on the Starship development, NASA soon after wards started making plans for use Starship in Artemis III that won’t use the Starship as a lander. (NASA did not openly reveal this; it had to be leaked.) Note also the proposed options NASA is considering also would not use refueling of the Starship. The low 40 to 50 tons to orbit would cause impractically large number of refueling missions. Then V2 or even V3 would be needed for this and I’m suggesting NASA believes neither of those would be ready by Artemis III. Note the SpaceX plan for a lander using multiple refuelings absolutely can not work if the Raptor can not operate reliably for both boostback and landing burns. Relighting, apparently, successfully at boostback is not sufficient if a Raptor explosion on landing causes vehicle RUD. So I’m also arguing NASA has no confidence SpaceX can solve the relighting reliability issue, that requires three Raptor firings per flight both for the booster and ship, by Artemis III. Beyond that, another key reason why I say NASA was blind-sided by the low payload capability of the current version is if you run the numbers SpaceX cited for the specifications on the current version, it should easily make 100+ tons to orbit even as a reusable. That it makes at best half that suggests the dry mass or Raptor values or more likely both are significantly worse than the values cited by SpaceX. Bob Clark

Do it again and take pics this time.

That was a big job. Congrats.

Blue rockets are the best rockets.

Nice avatar.

NASA is now opening up the Mars Sample Return mission to the commercial space approach. The usual NASA government financed approach is estimated to cost ~$10 Billion. But following the commercial space approach it probably could be done at literally 1/100th that at ~$100 million including launch cost. I had estimated it as less than ~$200 million using the Falcon Heavy as launcher: Low cost commercial Mars Sample Return.
 http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2023/07/low-cost-commercial-mars-sample-return.html This could get ~750 kg back from Mars with the Falcon Heavy as the launcher. However, it probably could in fact be launched on the Falcon 9. The Falcon 9 can launch about a quarter of the mass of the Falcon Heavy to Mars, for all the in-space stages, so estimate the sample size returned from Mars of ca. 180kg. At a $40 million launch cost of the reused F9, then all together with all the in-space stages, the mission cost probably could be less than than ~$100 million. Such a low mission cost probably could be paid for by advertising alone. But to encourage participants to take up the task of such a fully privately financed mission, NASA could offer a prize of say $200 to $500 million to whoever could accomplish it, with some smaller incentive prizes to those who accomplish some key required steps. Bob Clark

That's an oops on my part. I've caught the exact issue elsewhere but not there. The loop temperature value is the same as the shutdown temperature value. In SterlingSystems\Engines\zPatches\SystemHeatFusionEngines.cfg go to line 70 and raise the value there. The shutdown temperature for the ICF engines is 2000. You stack them via their stack nodes. What you saw features custom configs that scale them very far in one axis and raises their power to match their custom length. Look closely and you'll realize the part is literally stretched.

Yes, rocket engines are hungry. It burns even more LOX. This is the main problem with cross-feed and drop tanks, you have an flow usually only seen in hydro plants. Yes some large water handling systems might handle many ton's second but here pressure is low and bubbles and cavitation is not an issue.

Welcome to the forum game. Just an FYI it's kinda a mess here

I guess we'll see about that, won't we?

When there's more to it. I'm so burnt out on KSP1 gameplay and the game really hasn't deviated enough from that core to make it interesting again. To be sure it looks fantastic; I've had a lot of fun flying and driving around Kerbin but there's really no draw beyond that. Plus, the wheel options are literally terrible, they need far more torque or parts to increase torque or new part options (low gear, maybe) so we can climb steeper grades. Also the bugs around driving need to be fixed, the physics reset after 1km has killed too many of my rovers. Overall I really like the game, bugs aside, but it needs more of its own personality and less "KSP1 but better".

Awesome design !

I don't think that accounts for the necessity of innovation and commitment that will be required. A micromanaged society is very brittle. An internalized ethic of team effort will emerge the more survival is paramount, but squashing the individual is the last thing you want to do in that situation as it is from that freedom that solutions emerge A young child too young to have the cognitive capacity to deeply empathize is not the same as a sociopath. Way to broad a brush. And I've seen empathy emerge in children much younger than the norm. Individual differences

Sociopathy requires no malicious intent, just a disregard for the right and wrong, and ignoring the rights and feelings of others. I have yet to meet a 1 week old with regard for anything beyond their own discomfort, and perhaps bright colors. (It looks like they do not even start showing attachments to caretakers until 6 weeks)

Yes, but I'd say not comparable. One solution required multiple experts working for months to identify a cause and fix it, while the other involved a single expert knowing the system so well that they could immediately recognize the pattern of faults and know the solution. Both problems could have resulted in loss of the mission, but one was solved with only seconds within which to find a solution. That's not to say that this Voyager patch isn't impressive as heck, but it's a different category of impressive than "SCE to AUX".

Piaget would point out that it is not through maliciousness that younger children are egotistical. They simply do not have the cognitive capacity to be otherwise at that point. Being able to imagine another's pov is cognitively demanding. It is important that during their younger years that they are treated ethically as that modeling will click once they are able to understand Interesting theories. Something about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence comes to mind. Smells like hermeticism wherein the world is viewed as a prison to be escaped from. I cannot see it that way. I'm grateful to exist. What a time to be alive!

Has anybody noticed any difference between the models? I assumed they were the same but haven't actually compared them closely. Smaller methane tanks would open up some opportunities for tiny planes. I would even like to see smaller jet engines. Maybe an rc-sized radially attached jet or something.

Are you referring to the Delta-V required from launch to orbit? If so, you should describe your launch process so that we can understand your problem. A really basic mistake I did when I first tried to go on a polar orbit in KSP, a long time ago when I didn't know anything about orbital mechanics, was to first launch into an equatorial orbit and then perform a 90° plane change maneuver to bring it in polar. I soon learnt a better way is to launch due North (or South), and perform a similar launch profile as for an equatorial orbit but with a different direction. This brings the spacecraft on an orbit close enough to polar so that correction maneuvers are cheap. The optimal launch profile is to compensate for the planet's rotation

We are working the issues with the ventral fin, and many others besides. In the meantime:

When I experience this I try to find some fun or joy in it. It's hard, but coming at it with the attitude that these are tasks you hate and have to slog through makes it so much worse.

A quick search on 'child developmental psychology' mentions Piaget's 4 stages of cognitive development. According to that, it is in the 3rd stage(7-11 years old) that "children also become less egocentric and begin to think about how other people might think and feel." I fail to see how you can be empathetic if you never even consider how others might think or feel. (I would suspect that many people never actually achieve that level of interpersonal awareness, but that is the theory at least)