ZooNamedGames

Hiya! I would advice using the 3.75m tanks for the SLS core stage & a 2.5m tank set for the ICPS & Orion stack. I would also use the largest 2.5m SRBs from the Making History pack, if available, so you can stretch the core stage as long as possible. I’d also use 4x KS-25s instead of the Mammoth engine part since they combined are lighter with similar thrust. To make them match SLS’ engine placement, try using 2x mirror symmetry. It’ll take some tries but eventually you’ll find the optimal spot to match SLS’ engine placement. For the ICPS engine, if available, I would use the Skiff engine; it’s supposed to be a J-2 engine-alike but I find it’s thrust/weight/efficiency to better mirror the real world RL-10, which is conveniently the engine the ICPS uses. For Orion’s engine, I would advise using either the Terrier engine, or the puff engine, if you feel brave enough to get it aligned through Orion’s (mk2-3 cockpit) CoM. Also, for Orion’s offset solar panels, use the earlier trick of using mirror symmetry to position the solar panels closer to Orion’s. For Orion’s tanks, use the 1.875m tanks, as that will give you a closer approximation to the size difference between the Orion capsule & the European Service Module. Use angle snap to make sure all of your placements match, & hold shift while placing or dragging parts via the translate tool. This will allow the part to shift *just* slightly left or right, depending on where your mouse is. This will allow you to get a better, finer positioning for parts. For the LAS Tower, I advise using a fairing for the blast protective cover, then a structural strut with 2 sets of 8x sepotrons. You can add cones where needed for aesethics. Note, to get the necessary offset thrust for it to torque the pod up *and away*- open the parts menu, pick any 1 sepotron, remove it from symmetry, & reduce its thrust from 100%, to 99.5%, that slight difference will be enough to create a higher thrust, slightly longer burning & more stable alternative to the stock LAS part which is frankly, awful in many ways as it can’t even do it’s listed job well at all, but that’s a separate subject. Also to create the LVSA, I would just use a fairing from the core stage that meets with the upper tank of the LVSA (covering the lower tank, engine & decoupler). Hope this helps! PS- I will upload my replica of SLS Block 1 tomorrow which shows all of this in detail.

Long time no post. Just had to pop in & say the photos don’t do this girl justice! I got a selfie with her today ! She looked fantastic!

Long time no post. Anyway I'm making a 1.12 RSS/RO install & I'm curious if there's any RO compatible mods that provides parts from SpaceX (Starship, Falcon 9*, Dragon 2), United Launch Alliance (ULA) (Vulcan), Blue Origin (New Glenn, Blue Moon), & A RSS/RO compatible Space Shuttle mod. *Note, I am aware that there is a Merlin in RO by default, but a better visual engine would be appreciated. Thank you for your help.

SLS has been lifted ahead of its mate to the SRBs.

You do realize it also employs many people, people who can turn around & spread their experience to groups like BO & SpaceX? Moreover, the reason why Stennis doesn't get companies to work there is precisely because it isn't modern enough to handle current vehicles. It'd be nice to welcome groups like SpaceX or Blue but they can't afford to make the upgrades to the facilities needed- NASA, who doesn't need to concern themselves over profits or expenditure v income- can. Plus going back to my earlier point- all this work will not only hire more people but open it up to not just the likes of Blue Origin, SpaceX, ULA or NASA but other new start ups too who need access to a test facility but might not be able to afford rural real estate & the equipment needed to fuel a rocket like that. Also there's more needed than just those 2 things. For one, permission from the government to do such testing as well as properly setup disposal procedures if there's toxic fuel included (which includes Kerosene), as well as the test stand itself which needs to be able to hand not just the thrust loads but also the sound & thermal dynamics of running a rocket engine near the ground. A complex setup which a simple bill to give Stennis a refurb could easily solve & thus- give smaller, newer startup companies making their rockets a government available, leg up in testing. Again- SLS staying there forever is stupid. The bill to upgrade Stennis is not. After all- if it didn't go to Stennis, then it likely wouldn't have fallen in the space sector at all. More likely to more military spending or some other use which we'd see far less of a return on.

Its set to use a spare core stage which could be any. Regardless their getting pretty close to 1 a year anyway & with HLS related delays, SLS will be rapidly begin piling up unless that's sorted quickly. Artemis II is nearly complete with Artemis 3's core right behind it (as far as I'm aware *most* of the core stage hardware for it exists). At the end of the day as one of the few self reported SLS fanboys- even I agree this is stupid, I get why they're doing this (not just pork- there's other legitimate reasons like bringing the badly aging Stennis facilities to the 21st century) but there's a million simpler solutions like pushing ULA to hotfire their Vulcan boosters prior to flight there like they did with Delta IV RS-68 engines have been for decades. With the last RS-68 being hotfired there- there's little reason not to modify the other side of the B-2 test stand to support methalox rockets, especially as they're use is on the rise. Alas, I digress. Well considering Artemis 3's Orion is well underway with it's SLS core largely built (awaiting SOFI & stacking) & it's boosters are being fueled- there's a very high chance it'll fly crew as will later missions- especially given there's no viable alternative to SLS right now. FH can't throw Orion to TLI, using distributed launches won't work as the reversed thrust loads poses risks to the vehicle's structure. You can't use a modified D2 as it would also exceed FH's lift capabilities. There's just no alternative to Orion+SLS right now, regardless if you're happy with that or not.

Thanks for the answer. I wasn’t in a good place emotionally in 2017 (nearly 5 years ago now, wow), so take my hostility back then with a grain of salt.

How about @tater

Eh I guess it is time for some better formatting. Blasted I was wanting to delay that, such a pain. The intention was to provide data for upcoming vehicles. If you notice, all spacecraft are from 2010 & later (Orion is apparently up for debate). All rockets are from 2020 onwards with the exception of Electron which is an extremely sore thumb the more I look at it, so I may remove it, maybe not. If I can get enough data for things like F9 B5 (or previous blocks), I'll add it. As I said to tater, its about time for an update to the format. (Ugh). So adding more vehicles may be an option. I already have a blank slot on the rocket section anyway so adding just 1 won't be an issue, but I'd likely add more than just one from SpaceX. Again the reason for the 1 per company rule, is that I want to be unbiased, which on Twitter can massively affect your credibility which for a project like this, is all I have. But if I can get enough data for a new rocket, then perhaps I'll add it anyway. Don't tempt me. I've been considering making a HADS.

Clearly an error, I'll fix that. Remember it's one guy running this thing. Its already iffy if I should've even included the free flight tests, but captive carry seems to be more like capsule drop tests to me, hence their omission. I just wanted DC to have something on the list. Noted, I'll fix that. Starship can't carry humans either in it's current form, but if it flies in July as Musk claims, I'm adding that to the "orbit" milestone for Starship despite SN2X being the Starship equivalent of Orion's EFT-1. Error, lots of areas to update when something flies, sometimes something gets looked over. Again, one guy.

I'll give it a look, seems promising for some numbers.

Yes, I've listed both drops. The one with the landing gear failure & the successful landing in 2017.

It had an Orion boilerplate, so just as much in common with the Ascent Abort-2 Orion. The Ares 1X was a rocket, while rocketsleds are more assists to throw it out of a plane- not quite the same & thus far, you're the only one to make this complaint. Cargo is not included as that's following the crew variant (its in the crewed spacecraft section). Also I've included the pad abort test, IFA & other Dragon 2 flights. Cells K63-K68. Each mission includes which vehicle is used. It says if its a boilerplate or not.

I've updated Orion's listing to 4 crew since I can't find what I found before but if I do, I'll relist it as such.

"Flights", according to my definition that I'll soon add to the MADS, is anything that includes rocket propulsion; exemption being SpaceShipTwo & DreamChaser. The former since its the same exact article as the rocket flying article, & DreamChaser as the two freeflights are the only ones it has thus far. Things like parachute tests, drop tests, splashdown tests, etc; are not included in any calculations or listings other than to report its status in the list. I can't remember where but I did see data that suggested 6 for a short period (can't recall how long). If you can source a better number for that or costs, by all means hit the submission form. I'd love the help.

The Modern Aerospace Data Sheet (MADS) is a running project I've been making for over a year now where I've been collecting & compiling all data I can find about modern crew spacecraft (Orion, Dragon 2, Starliner, Starship, etc) & rockets (SLS, Super Heavy, New Glenn, Electron, etc). It's a small compilation of data, and a long running WORK IN PROGRESS. If you follow me on Twitter (please do, I post a lot of space related content!), you'll know I've been tracking the progress of modern spaceflight & the progress of all the vehicle's mentioned above, as well as others. It is a short list sadly, but I have expanded if I can get enough data to fill up most of the info on the data sheet. I bring it to the forums since I'd like to get some help in filling out some of the blanks & open up discussion on it. Though I've been trying to be dedicated to it, help never hurts. As such, I've made a Google Form for people to submit info to- the only difficult requirement for a submission is a source for your information since I want reliable information as this is an unbiased, unopinionated project. All info on it is as neutral as I could possibly make it. Currently the following vehicles are listed in the Spacecraft Section: Orion, Dragon 2, Starliner, Starship, New Shepard Crew Capsule, & SpaceShipTwo. Rocket Section: SLS Block I, Vulcan, Electron, Super Heavy, New Glenn. There is currently a slot open in the Rocket section, as I have not found enough info of a modern rocket. I am trying to keep company representation fair, & not include multiples of any one companies rocket's (New Shepard & New Glenn, Falcon 9 & Starship, SpaceShipOne & SpaceShipTwo, etc). However I am open to adding another vehicle should the data be sufficient; same goes for spacecraft (but would require reformatting the sheet again). Again, as its a WIP, there are many gaps, "Unknowns", "???" & other blank info on the sheet. I've either not found a reliable piece of info on it, or the info has simply not been found, which is why I'd like help. I post MADS updates on twitter semiregularly (given time for me to work on it), but I'll also post them here, should this post have enough activity to warrant it. Link to the MADS: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tODJp9YheCIUGPmptWGfFZ7lY-Ew3FSa4T8t4H0f7IY/edit?usp=sharing Link to the MADS Data Submission Form: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScRnyLdmvxPPNXjOX8gp_b6fPZDLRuy4PFFgelerm52MQd1Ow/viewform

Y’all do realize NASA said they have spare engines on site right? Set to take at most a week to perform a swap (if that’s even needed). Which currently does not appear to be the case. Jim even said that a retest may not be necessary if they got the data they needed. Everyone realizes the docking port on Orion can’t handle the forces of a tug in a reverse orientation (unless its extremely low thrust). Merlin (much less raptor) generates so much thrust that the docking port would be crushed, who knows what kind of damage the capsule itself would endure as it hasn’t been designed for that (abandoned when Orion become the MPCV in 2011).

No photos yet but there's now 2 sets of SRB segments on the launchpad. Regardless of opinion- countdown to launch has begun with the stacking of these segments requiring them to launch within a ~year before they exceed their limits & need to be unstacked.

This is still a problem. Is there any solution known up to this point? This issue is driving me mad. Worst yet, all the encounters I'm getting are anywhere from 2,000 days in the future to 50,000 days. It makes no sense.

Despite the unavoidable delays imposed by COVID & the busiest hurricane season I’ve ever lived to see- SLS has only drifted 1 month off of the schedule I made back in July. I also ran the timeline past a Stennis SC worker & he agreed my timelines were close to what he expected based on their work. The booster was predicted to arrive before the end of the year back in July. Now, I’m predicting arrival before the end of January. Assembly & MLP integration by/before July. Testing close out by September, Wet Dress Rehearsal by or before November. Launch within that month is still possible, though likely early December for final prelaunch checks. Many of these dates also assume delays, meaning this is closer to a “worst case scenario” timeline. Any improvements or meeting deadlines ahead of schedule would bring back any of these dates back. Remember prior to COVID & hurricanes, the green run was ahead of schedule. So them getting ahead of my schedule is very likely. The biggest delay currently being Test 7 of the Green Run, something else I had predicted would be a cause of delay since this would be the first time the internal components of the vehicle such as valves & seals would be used. Not to mention I expected weather to have taken its toll on the vehicle considering its weathered (pun not intended) multiple hurricanes to this point. Especially given it’s a hydrolox fuel core, I knew that leaks (which is common with liquid hydrogen fuel tanks). So the news of the Test 7 delay isn’t all that surprising to me & only barely pushes the schedule I already have had planned for most of 2020. Artemis 1 is unmanned. Artemis 2 will be SLS’ first crewed flight. ICPS is just a stretched DCSS, which as already considered for crewed flight for Orion Lite (before it was canceled) & Starliner. Artemis 1 will certify both SLS’ crew readiness & ICPS.

I just made it to match the rest of the emotes.

Well the first docking has always been slated for A3. I had been hearing that in light of Starliner’s issues that a similar docking test would be done on A2, however I hadn’t heard where in the mission it would be done. I find this ironic since Starliner did test the docking system, just didn’t attempt to rendezvous & dock but whatever. Good to test beforehand anyway.

Well while you work on that, Artemis 1 Orion is fully built & waiting at the ksc while it’s sisters, Artemis 2 & 3 Orion’s finish production. Those 2, actually supporting lunar missions from the outset- rather than retrofitting.