ZooNamedGames
-
Posts
5,149 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by ZooNamedGames
-
-
10 hours ago, KSK said:
Oh, they were far more than a tube o' boom - their ignition system was particularly impressive. Heck, it would have been impressive for one booster but lighting two closely enough together that the shuttle went straight up... yeah.
There was a lot to admire about them but I don't believe they were quite as potentially fragile as you're making them out to be.
Perhaps you're right. I just don't find anything about a vehicle disintegrating in one of the most violent ways we've ever seen in manned spaceflight to be something boosters designed to handle (in normal configurations) merely aerodynamic stresses, some friction heating and the comparatively light staging process to be of the same scale.
-
8 hours ago, KSK said:
Not really. They're damn great steel tubes designed to contain a rather substantial controlled explosion. It would have been more surprising (and alarming) if they hadn't survived.
Perhaps but they are more advanced than a 'tube-o-boom'. With gimballing nozzles to direct their thrust and throttle- not to mention the fuel that they contain burns hotter than the temperature than the melting point for the metal container. All it would've taken was a ding to the right part of the tube and the whole thing would go up. Not to mention if the gimbal wasn't properly aligned or kept on the correct course (perhaps damage from the resulting shockwave) it could've spun off course, ended up in a spin or a myriad of other outcomes.
I get your point KSK. Solid rocket motors are simple, no fuel pumps, cooling systems or anything else- but to be fair, the space shuttle SRMs were some of the most advanced that I'm aware of, that still remain in operation. Perhaps I'm not informed though and I eagerly await seeing a more advanced booster.
-
27 minutes ago, tater said:
Well, except the one time that leaps to mind
To be fair, and as @SuperFastJellyfish mentioned, that was launching outside of safe conditions and even after a short spurt of burning fuel out of the side, both motors continued to operate nominally. Both having to be detonated by the RSO. The fact both survived despite an entire vehicle literally exploding beside them, is incredible.
-
8 minutes ago, Wjolcz said:
More fragile too. Why does the mobility matter? If two starships were docking it's not like they would smach into each other at dozens of meters per second. One would use the RCS to approach the other while the other would keep, as you call it, 'immobile'.
BTW: The Starship will be only slightly larger than the Shutle orange tank. And there were plans to make stations out of those.
Planned to- but never attempted such a station.
As I said before, small changes in momentum and the inertia of the other vehicle, pushed or pulled by RCS, microatmospheric drag or movement of crew can cause a massive amount of strain on docking ports. Such a docking mechanism would need to be very strong. Since docking isn’t about one vehicle- but 2. Both have movement and their own velocities that are affected by a great many things. Most of which can be damped with springs and pads but on larger scales, that may not work.
-
3 hours ago, Wjolcz said:
How massive are we talking?
Starship and Cargo Starship. Rip the wings off of the shuttle and you could fit it inside Cargo. So that kind of big.
Also as I mentioned in my original post- one of those vehicles are largely immobile.
-
Just now, tater said:
Internal audits have shown the project as mismanaged.
They don't need future sight, they need capable management, and incentives to achieve the desired goals. The incentive structures were never designed to accomplish the goals, in fact, the opposite.
Well Bridenstine is working to give NASA an incentive structure through Artemis.
1 minute ago, tater said:Docking is not a problem, this is not 1960.
If docking is a problem, the SLS should be shut down now, as the only mission envisioned for it is Gateway---which requires autonomous docking at the Moon for it to even exist.
1966*
Regardless- docking two super massive structures has never been attempted. There are strains put on the vehicles as each moves. A docking assembly would need to be designed to handle very large amounts of force as one moves in reference to the other. This is untested territory. We can't just bring up two vehicles and dock them together- there are other factors that apply here that are on small scales with current vehicles making them a no-factor. Especially docking in LEO poses the challenge of microaerodynamic properties of the vehicle. This will cause strain on the docking mechanism and cause damage as one vehicle is pulled away.
Docking with Orion and docking with SSH/ACES is not remotely the same. Orion and LOP-G is on the scale of Apollo and Skylab, something we've seen in practice and tested with the ISS. We've only docked with one orbital tug vehicle before with a manned craft, and that was the Agena TV in the 60s. And docking with SSH is again, on a scale we've never tested.
5 minutes ago, tater said:Orion exists independent of SLS, and could conceivably fly on other LVs. FH could be man-rated at some point, Starship (expendable stage 2 has been mentioned by Musk already) could be used to loft it, as could New Glenn (crew rated from day one by design).
All very possible. Though Orion is built on legacy technologies. (Apollo, Space Shuttle, etc) so the only remaining portion, the Service Module, won't be a massive change to how the vehicle behaves in testing. What's more important to NASA right now, is making sure it can make it's mark and bring the vehicle back safely. That will give NASA the green light and likely the momentum to continue to a manned flight of SLS/Orion and eventually the later lunar landing. Though I do support a Apollo 7 style LEO mission using a commercial booster. But perhaps Bridenstine knows something I don't with Orion's SM.
8 minutes ago, tater said:The shot at the moon literally requires non-SLS LVs to be a thing, many are the same LVs that could lost Orion, instead. Somehow EoR is a daunting task that complicates a mission, but LoR of the same elements is supposed to be easy. For reasons.
Bear in mind, EOR is great and all but it also requires boosting and transport to lunar orbit. That's where things change. It's easier and more reliable to build the lunar kickstage into the launch vehicle as opposed to launching 2 vehicles, making sure both don't fail, successfully dock, the tug functions correctly and gets the cargo to the proper destination. We've never used a tug to ferry crew to another celestial body before. How will the internal forces of the crew moving around effect the CoM/CoT with the tug? What about any dumps (urine, feces, soiled samples, etc) on the way there? Many questions that must be factored into the design of vehicle that doesn't exist in 2019.
-
3 minutes ago, RCgothic said:
There is zero requirement for a man-rated superheavy launcher.
SLS is the only man-rated SHLV that will be ready to fly by 2021. So to advance the Artemis program, there is a need for a man rated SHLV.
3 minutes ago, RCgothic said:You don't need a superheavy to put a crew in orbit, and you don't need to man-rate a cargo superheavy and make everything five times more expensive than it needs to be.
We barely have the orbital Starship yet- so I wouldn't rest my hat on Cargo variant either at the moment. That said, with the exception of ACES (which doesn't even exist yet and likely won't in full development until after the 2021 launch date of Art-2) there exist no orbital tugs available to transfer crews from LEO to Lunar Orbit.
5 minutes ago, RCgothic said:RS-25 only had to be uprated because of the poor launcher architecture. Does Raptor need to withstand the heat and vibration of solid boosters? No, it doesn't. Because raptor will only fly on competently designed vehicles.
Remind me again what happened to the Starhopper nosecone? Which led to Musk on the fly saying "we don't need it"?
Oh and don't forget the 'free falling' booster design. Something I still don't believe will work in practice and am eagerly awaiting to see tested in reality.
-
Just now, tater said:
The point of "Shuttle derived" launch vehicles was to quickly, and cost-effectively come up with new capabilities.
SLS/Orion has accomplished neither of these requirements.
For the expense they have made, the might as well have done a clean sheet design.
I am saying that a new engine of similar capability was built from scratch for a tiny fraction of the cost. If RS-25 is allowed to fly with people with any significant changes (to reduce cost, for example) from the SSME, then it strickes me that the new, highly altered design needs to be rerated. If the changes are minor enough to not impact man-rating, why did they cost 127 M$/engine to accomplish?
NASA doesn't have the luxery of future sight sadly. Besides, without an increase in funding, it's possible that with a clean sheet design, we may be even further from launch day of a SHLV than we are now. But we can't say for certain since we don't exist in that timeline.
2 minutes ago, tater said:SLS/Orion is not a rocket program, it's a jobs program. I never once suggested replacing SLS with Starship, I said I cannot wait for commercial vehicles to obviate the program. There is no need for a single stack when you can put 100+ tons into LEO cheaply. Loft a crew rated vehicle that includes a transfer stage. Loft a crew vehicle some other way, and dock the 2. Big enough transfer stage and you don't need Orion at all, brake into LEO, then reenter at lower velocity instead of direct return. Everything is possible with cheap LEO for large payloads.
Notice, the largest vehicles we've ever docked in history is the Space Shuttle and the ISS. One of which, is largely immobile. So docking on that scale poses a large amount of new and untested and unexperienced engineering and development challenges. It might be a good idea on paper but in practice we have no idea how that will pan out.
4 minutes ago, tater said:I'm not arguing for SSH, I'm pointing out what a train wreck/dumpster fire SLS is.
It's either the dumpster fire or nothing for another 10 years as we wait for SSH. With SLS, we actually have a shot to have men on the moon within the next decade (whether by Bridenstine's 2024 date or not).
6 minutes ago, tater said:How is SLS man-rated right now? It has flown, let's see, zero times.
It's built from the ground up, to be man rated. Every facet of the vehicle is built with a man-rated safe reliable agenda in mind. Not a cost-first or job-first priorities.
8 minutes ago, tater said:The engines are man0rated---assuming they fly exactly as they did on the Shuttle, if they have changed in any meaningful way, I'd say that should un-man-rate them. The tank was supposed to be Main Tank (flown many times) derived, but changed utterly (odd since the shuttle failure rate was considerably worse than the commercial crew requirement). So the tank is brand new, but man-rated, because they say so. The upper stage has flown, but never on a crew vehicle, ever, but that's man rated (because they say so). Orion will fly on Artemis-1 as a boilerplate. Orion literally flies the first time "all up" with crew aboard, but magically gets to be called man-rated.
Because SLS/Orion are the only vehicles to have undergone every single test we on Earth (and in space thanks to EFT-1/Artemis-1) can possibly apply to these vehicles. SSH hasn't and I don't see any plans for it to undergo the same lengthy battery of tests SLS has. We have put it through every challenge, every hurdle and every test we can create. The only SHLV to undergo such lengthy, monotonous, tedious tests.
-
1 minute ago, tater said:
The entire point of SLS was to use Shuttle tech to reduce cost. The only needed more thrust because of poor design.
They did use Shuttle tech- but surprise surprise, engines and equipment built for LEO flight isn't ready out of the box for deep space flight. It requires modifications and changes to make it functional. Those changes are costly, and for every change, there's a battery of tests to go with them, and, each test costs money to run. Thus furthering the cost.
3 minutes ago, tater said:They were given 2.something billion for 16 engines. It's not like they will be given 2 billion in the future for 100 engines (that would still be too much). Raptors are expected to cost $200,000 in full production. Raptor is pretty close to SSME in thrust (and the version that cannot deep throttle exceeds it). Isp obviously better on SSME. Still, I don't see them even getting RS-25 to 100 times more expensive than Raptor. There is simply no excuse for an expendable engine to cost that much, and there is no excuse for the dev of a new version of RS-25 to cost 2 B$ for small, marginal improvements.
Perhaps it has the same thrust, or higher. Perhaps it has the same ISP, or greater. But can it throttle to the specifications needed for SLS? Can it handle an 8.5 minute long burn? How does it handle such a burn? How does it behave when fired alongside 2 solid rocket boosters (creating a lot of noise, vibrations and heat)? All of these are legitimate questions for NASA. Plus, the RS-25 has 135 crewed launches under it's belt. Raptor has test fires. Even if a cousin, to the variant flown on the Space Shuttle, the current RS-25 still has a known history and is man rated. That out of the box makes the RS-25 a league above in standards for the Raptor. The Raptor, may one day be man rated, but in today's world, it is not. Not to mention, the RS-25 and the Raptor are 2 different engines, from 2 different points of history when it comes down to their internal design specifications. The RS-25 in function was designed in the 60s (HG-3). Now a large portion of the RS-25's design has been updated with modern manufacturing methods and technologies but the basis of it's design is still rooted in the 60s. The Raptor was built in 2000s-2010s. And even then, further comparison is unfair as they are still different engines. One is hydrolox- the other is metholox.
15 minutes ago, tater said:Everyone associated with SLS should be fired, I can't wait for it to be obviated by commercial providers who don't cheat the taxpayer.
Another thing to bear in mind is that NASA is a government entity and doesn't need to worry about minmaxing every aspect of development. Because of that, NASA can take their time and focus on building a reliable, safe, and most importantly, the only SHLV available. Only NASA
and SpaceX(Starship is not a SHLV, that would be Super Heavy which does not exist yet) have physical pieces of their SHLVs, but only NASA has a man rated SHLV. Musk may be able to fly crews on Starship, but NASA won't seriously consider such a vehicle for the Artemis program until it's proven safe and reliable.Starship/Super Heavy won't reach those requirements for a minimum of another decade. Musk going at ludicrous speed as he is now, or not. Raptor is untested, Starhopper is the closest we have to flight hardware and still hasn't left the ground and Super Heavy won't even exist for another month.
There's a reason why- inefficiently and costly or not, that NASA remains the only entity in the world with a physical man rated SHLV. Because they have the spending power to make it happen.
Also, fun fact, even if NASA is inefficient with RnD- it's not like that money is wasted and disappears into the ether. It's going back into the economy. There's a reason why NASA hires companies like Boeing, Lockheed, and so on. Because they can spend that income on technologies to benefit other aspects of the economy. Boeing can spend that money on advancing the RnD of the 797 (or the 737-800 right now), or put that money into RnD and develop a more fuel efficient engine for their aircraft, which can cut cost for airlines, which can cut costs for business travelers and vacation travelers. More travel, means more income for industries based in travel. (I can already hear someone saying that the money will instead go into the military sector because it's Boeing or Lockheed but there are other aspects of the economy than military, even if the US government is a cash cow).
So again, NASA may not be the most economical with it's contracts- but it's not like the average consumer doesn't benefit from their deals and agreements.
-
41 minutes ago, tater said:
It's still amazing to me that we know that the cost for the core stage includes ~$708,000,000 in engines alone (the 50M$ we paid for each RS-25 already for Shuttle, plus the 127M$ AJR got paid to refurbish each of the SLS engines to be used.
It would be bad enough at 200 M$, but that would be for simply reusing engines just sitting around. The fact that reusing them cost almost 3 times buying them new borders on criminal, IMO.
Bear in mind, this is far from the final product of SLS. And much different engines. You say they've been refurbished but they've been altered to generate an addition 10% thrust the Space Shuttle variant never had, as well as looking into cheaper design technologies. So initial cost is indeed high, but that's definitely a peak. As new SLS engines will be built from scratch with the most modern and cost effective solutions in mind. They've changed a lot with the new engines.
Also, the first batch of any new product is always the most costly. Just wait for production to ramp up. Economy of scale will see the price drop.
-
" NASA Deputy Administrator James Morhard speaks with media in front of flight hardware for Artemis 1 during his first visit to NASA’s Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans Friday, June 28, 2019. Michoud is manufacturing the core stage for NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) rocket. SLS will send astronauts aboard the agency’s Orion spacecraft to the Gateway in lunar orbit for missions to the surface of the Moon, and ultimately Mars. Morhard, joined by Robert Champion, director of Michoud, and Paul McConnaughey, deputy director of Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, toured the Louisiana facility to see the latest progress in assembling and manufacturing some of the largest and most complex parts of SLS and Orion for the first two Artemis missions to the Moon. Artemis 1 will be an uncrewed test flight, followed by Artemis 2 with crew. NASA and Boeing, the core stage lead contractor, recently completed assembling four of the five parts of the rocket’s core stage. The SLS engine section and four RS-25 engines will be integrated to the stage later this summer. "
" Crews delivered the last of four RS-25 engines for Artemis 1, the first flight of NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and the Orion spacecraft, from NASA’s Stennis Space Center near Bay St. Louis, Mississippi, to NASA’s Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans Thursday, June 27, 2019. The engines, located at the bottom of the rocket’s massive core stage, are fueled by liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. When Artemis 1 launches to the Moon, the four RS-25 engines will fire nonstop for 8.5 minutes, providing the rocket 2 million of its 8.8 million pounds of maximum thrust at liftoff. Technicians from NASA and Aerojet Rocketdyne, the lead contractor for the engines, at Michoud will now prepare the four engines for installation to the rest of the core stage later this summer. "
https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/multimedia/last-test-article-for-sls-departs-maf.html
" The last of four structural test articles for NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) was loaded onto NASA’s Pegasus barge Wednesday, June 26, 2019, at NASA’s Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans. The barge will deliver the liquid oxygen (LOX) tank structural test article from Michoud to NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, for critical structural testing. The liquid oxygen tank is one of two propellant tanks in the rocket’s core stage that will produce more than 2 million pounds of thrust to help send Artemis 1, the first flight of NASA’s Orion spacecraft and SLS, to the Moon. The nearly 70-foot-long test article is structurally identical to the flight version, which will hold 196,000 gallons of liquid oxygen super cooled to minus 297 degrees Fahrenheit. "
-
47 minutes ago, wumpus said:
I have to wonder if this wasn't a better idea than I typically thought when I first learned of deep issues in the Shuttle. Designing rockets is expensive. Designing rockets while being micromanaged by Congress is vastly more expensive. The Shuttle's launch cadence never allowed the costs to drop to the marketing used to justify the shuttle, why would anyone assume that building an additional heavy lift craft would make sense?
Obviously, grounding all non-Shuttle rockets between the original Columbia launch and the Challenger disaster was a mistake, but that doesn't mean that designing a Shuttle-C could possibly make economic sense.
I don't know why the Space Shuttle gets a bad wrap for failing to meet goals. Has no one looked at the Apollo Applications Program? Mercury 2? Gemini lunar lander concepts? Big Gemini? Gemini MOL? Hell, even if looking to concepts that actually were built and flown, the lunar module has so many shortcomings that no one seems to acknowledge. The lunar module was not only massively overbudget, but also behind and delayed on development. The costs were expected to be less than $200 (can't find the exact number) million (in 1960s $) but ended up exploding to over two billion. Plus the lander wasn't even ready for to fly, and led to NASA creating a brand new mission profile just so that they could procede with the Apollo program. With Apollo 8's original plans being pushed to become what we now know as Apollo 9's. Creating a brand new C Prime mission profile.
So, even by 1980- a year before the Shuttle ever flew- NASA already had a history of overselling their expectations. Because that's how
the mafiapolitics works. To get anything done, you have to oversell your ideas. Politicians don't buy into ideas like landing men on the moon for the scientific benefit or achievement/advancement of mankind. They buy into it because they see how it can benefit their side in government (oh dear, nearing 2.2b territory). Even John F. Kennedy, the man who's accredited with the push to land men on the moon- didn't care about the advancement of mankind or the scientific achievement landing a man on the moon would bring. He knew it would benefit the economy and would be a great sticker for his campaign trail. So he supported NASA.In the end- oversell will always be present. But it's important to know the difference between what NASA actually intends and what NASA sells to get their budget. NASA had never launched multiple vehicles from one location at a cadence they were proposing with the Shuttle. Even if the vehicle was capable of such turn around times, they wouldn't have met them as there was no need to launch that frequently. Payloads could be stacked and launch multiple on one mission. This is again in an era where a company was considered "cutting edge" for having a team of engineers designing a satellite that could remain in orbit for decades and offer high speed data communication- much less the actual achievement of launching the vehicle and having it work. Which was even more new. There's a reason why satellite TV and satellite services were such a big deal in the 70s and 80s- it's simply because nothing like it had existed before, and especially not on the scale that we were going to grow into. Literally every step, thought and idea was new and had to be tested, and that's not even acknowledging the testing for the actual vehicle itself, merely just the idea. This is the era the Space Shuttle was born into. An era where deploying satellites for other entities was an honor and came with an edge of reliability, and was preferable over unmanned rockets like the Titan II/III, Delta and Atlas launchers. Even after the demise of Challenger in 1986, the Space Shuttle was still seen as a better option simply because again- payloads needed help. This is again, a mere 11 years after the final launch of an Apollo spacecraft, vehicles which relied on massive football field (both American and international definitions of the sport) sized warehouses to house and run the computers needed for the vehicles to operate and the achievement of packing a super complex computer into the size of a briefcase (the AGC). Though post Challenger a lot of trust was lost- but it was still preferable to risking damage from a booster. We were still new to how spacecraft would react to being shaken, rattled and rolled during launch. With a crew onboard, any dings could be repaired or at least indepth examined by crew members more familiar with the spacecraft than the engineers who designed it.
Could the Space Shuttle been built better? Made Cheaper? What about the costs? All of these questions are fair. We could've built it better. But the Space Shuttle, even with age old hardware, was still cutting edge in every way. Unique in every way. It was the first spacecraft with wings! It was the first with reusable engines! It was the first to have a reusable re-entry protection system (the thermal tiles)! It was new in literally every way. So it's no surprise a lot of errors were made. The Space Shuttle was NASA's first steps into a reusable spacecraft, and like any first steps- they look weird and are wobbly and stupid looking. But we learn from our first steps and can learn to run, and even gain some style in our swagger (see the Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, New Shepard). Costs may not have been the best, but that's why it was a government vehicle. NASA can get away with poor cost returns because they don't have to worry about profit, or return investment into an endeavor. NASA has funding guaranteed to them by Congress. As long as Congress is happy, NASA will fly. And no Congress person wanted to be the person to be known for killing NASA's ability to fly... least not until 2010, and by then, we had SpaceX, ULA, and several other American organizations ready to pick up NASA's slack.
And lastly- for anyone sitting on their high horse thinking "NASA could've fixed the issues with the Space Shuttle, hell it was proven with the Buran", the Buran had time to see the Space Shuttle's issues manifest before it even flew. And though yes, NASA could've fixed those issues, NASA never had the surplus funding to put these things into action as changing even 1 part of the Space Shuttle required a massive change in documentation, planning, values for calculations and more. And yes, it's easy to say "that's why NASA sucks, because they are government run and have so many little people to keep in check with every change and why SpaceX rules" but initial RnD costs for a reusable vehicle in the 70s would've bankrupted any and just about every major corporation. No matter the approach. So instead NASA managed to get the brightest and best from across the industry to work and build one of the most complicated and advanced spacecraft ever built by mankind.
-
1 hour ago, StrandedonEarth said:
Especially when you need that crew to assemble, troubleshoot, and fix said cargo
and micromanage to ensure it deploys correctly in an era where satellites were still a new field of development.
-
2 hours ago, Servo said:
Depending on your definition of "mini-shuttle", there were a few U.S. tests done on the early lifting body designs: The SC-5D PRIME tests
These were a series of four lifting bodies launched on an Atlas Booster and reentered over the Atlantic. They were modeled based on the shape of the X-24 lifting body, and they provided a practical test of the hypersonic performance, as well as for control laws and control systems.
At that point you start to near Dynasoar territory. That said, going too far back into the Space Shuttle's development history, and you'll find both vehicles at a certain point both become synonymous since they aimed to complete similar objectives for the same entity (the USAF, DOD, etc).
-
I say this quite a lot and face a lot of resistance when saying these things- but objectively, the Space Shuttle not only did more buy in large than even Apollo (Apollo only went to the moon, launched and flew to a space station). Apollo merely has the prestige of the feat that is landing men on the moon. But the Shuttle has a lot of little achievements that ultimately to me, add up to be more. My second opinion is that the Shuttle was also the most versatile spacecraft ever designed. Reusable, capable of launching crew and cargo (a feat we can't replicate today). Noting that as time goes on, this feat seems more and more misplaced. But in the 70s and 80s, having a crew supervise payload deployment was a wise choice. Automation was still young (pretty sure we were still collecting film canisters from spy satellites in the 70s), so having humans standing by to correct any computer issues and ensure that your 100+ million dollar satellite deployed correctly and without damage, was worth the extra $$$ to launch both crew and the payload. Today, we can release 60 satellites without much of a sweat. But it still may be in need for the occasional satellite or payload. Just, not as much of a demand as there used to be.
The Space Shuttle is also NASA's longest term commitment to date. Running the vehicle for 30 years! Apollo was only 7 years worth of commitment. Lot's changed since 1975 and the last Apollo mission launched... hell 6 years later STS-1 flew. (Only 3 years less than it'll (hopefully) take SLS to launch and kickstart the Artemis program).
-
2 hours ago, pucklypie360 said:
I've played this game for so long on this platform the Xbox 360 I cannot figure out how to play on a server with anyone else it's so frustrating
Please help me I have been trying to play this game on a server via my 360 for as long as I've owned it there is literally nowhere online that explains exactly how to do this
You have to invite people on your friends list. Note, only 360 players can join your server.
-
Keep in mind that T2 only owns Private Division. They still can operate mildly independently from T2. PD is for T2's smaller releases, such as Kerbal Space Program. Though T2 runs PD, PD has different goals and serves an entirely different market. T2 is (probably) smart enough to know that what works for AAA games, does not work for more indie titles (like KSP). You could get away with financial success by slamming a AAA game with microtransactions (though this success does appear to be on the decline, there still is profit to be made), but if you tried that with an indie game, you'd quickly run the consumers off and lose profit faster than you could earn it. Tactics are different. So bear that in mind.
Also, for those curious and searching for the video- I watch Yungyeo's videos (though no recently) and think OP is referring to this video-
Reeeeeeeee, OP just added the link seconds before I did. Ah well. Mine is embedded for the lazy.
-
On 6/22/2019 at 6:57 AM, Daniel Prates said:
Yeah thats my point. Frequently a sequel will leave abandoned a half-finished game which had potential, and replace it for a game that does not really lives up to its predecessor. Companies do that to buff sales: "here my minions, feed on these new giblets!". But in super complex games like KSP that will obviously result in loss of quality. The KSP gaming community would make me very proud if we sent a clear message when the fateful time comes: we are not consumer wh%%@s, we want constant improvement to the base game instead of new shiny but useless eye-candy from time to time, in form of alluring new versions. KSP2 would only be good for that: it would look better, benefiting from new techs, but "retrograde" on all other regards.
KSP is worderful as it is, it only needs periodic overhauling to keep beeing interesting. If we go into a biannual DLC routine, that is fine! Being a long time player of Paradox games, which operates like that, I already am used to that cause it works well.
So to me, squad and T2 deserve A LOT OF PRAISE for how they have been conducting themselfs, business-wise. Many kudos to them.
I'm sorry if my ramblings became besides the point. This thread had no clear point however...
^^^ This. Everything said here.
Like Minecraft- KSP is a game that won't gain anything from a sequel. Everything done to a sequel, could be done to KSP1. KSP2 would only be a cash grab. That's it. Basically a super priced DLC (they won't be charging you $15 for KSP2, I'm certain of that). Not to mention KSP would be fighting to getting more attention in a niche where it's already the highlight of the niche style. Not to mention KSP2 would actively compete in the already undersized market with KSP1. As KSP1 has something KSP2 won't have for quite some time- and that being a fervent modding community. That's not to say KSP2 won't have one, but KSP1's is large, and well established.
-
I've finally gotten an install of RSS/RO to finally work for me and as I've been building rockets, I've been wondering if it's possible for there to be an external Search function where I could input my search variables (a range to request how much thrust I'm after, number of ignitions, gimballing, etc etc). Since I often have to scan all of the varying choices of engines to find one that has enough thrust (not too much, but not too little), but also multiple ignitions (if needed).
Just my thoughts though, but maybe I'm mad since I haven't heard anyone else mention this.
-
On 6/21/2019 at 6:05 PM, jadebenn said:
The GAO report is the worst-case scenario, but I can hardly blame them for assuming such. Their job isn't to make government programs look good, after all, it's to try and analyze them objectively. In that regard it's safer bet to assume the worst and (hopefully) be pleasantly surprised than to be over-optimistic and have things go wrong.
SLS core stage manufacturing is (amazingly) still going smoothly (cross your fingers that this holds), so that might actually get done before the end of the year. The RS-25s are planned to be shipped over pretty soon and attached to the engine section, and once that's done it'll be joined to the already-joined hydrolox tanks, upon which the core stage will be essentially complete and ready to head to Stennis for the green run. So it's looking like the green run is the big schedule risk here - if some very bad things are uncovered during testing, you can kiss goodbye any chance of a 2020 launch. On the other hand, if it goes smoothly, they're still in the running.
I have to admit, as a long-time follower of the program, I'm feeling better and better about the plans for it as the maiden launch draws near. It's easy to forget, but things have improved since the rocket was initially announced.
- Initial SLS estimates were one launch every two years - now it's at least once per year once production ramps up, with a possibility for two launches per year, and three during a surge (but you'd need to "stockpile" one in order to do the latter).
- Initially there were no concrete missions for the SLS aside from some half-baked "Mars" and "asteroid" ideas - now it's going to be the crew transport and heavy lifter of a renewed lunar exploration campaign.
- Initially there was an unavoidable 33 month gap in-between Artemis 1 and Artemis 2 (aka EM-1 and EM-2) due to the mobile launcher requiring upgrades - now there's going to be a second ML, so that's no longer an issue, meaning that Artemis 2's schedule is almost completely independent of Artemis 1's.
I'm personally expecting to see a split within the space community upon a successful launch of Artemis 1, because in my view, a lot of the cynicism surrounding it isn't actually grounded in whether or not the idea is solid, and is instead fueled by a feeling that "It'll never launch." Whether or not this is a good thing depends on your POV, but to a lot of people, just seeing that monster rocket lift off the pad will wipe away any doubts whether all this was worthwhile (or at the very least, make them least militant about it).
SLS has been slow, but at this point there's only so many remaining hurdles. As you said, production is going by lightning fast by my observation. They're nearly done with the core, and the engine section is the big delay now. After which is 2 tests (AA and the Stennis test burn) and then shipping back to the cape. At which point all that remains is assembly. Which is going to be rather quick since everything is already built and awaiting their debut. The Stennis test could reveal issues but I'm not too concerned since they've already tested every facet of the vehicle to the point of mind numbing nausea. That said- I'm disappointed that they won't include the SRBs in the test since I'm most interested in how the RS-25 engines will respond to the boosters being much closer to the RS-25 engines. With the Space Shuttle, they had a dozen or so meters between them and the boosters. Now they are next to each other. The addition of an additional engine doesn't concern me as much as that. Since the SRBs generate a lot more heat and noise than the RS-25s do. That noise could cause shaking that could affect the performance or stability of the RS-25. But I digress as we won't find that out until Launch Day.
-
On 6/20/2019 at 11:50 AM, tater said:
Hype hype hype.
It's gonna be the weirdest looking Atlas V I'll have ever seen with a fat top.
-
As I say with most "we need KSP2" threads I'll push the same message I have since 2016 since despite 3 years passing, nothing has changed in this regard-
There is nothing that a sequel can bring that KSP1 can't have done. KSP2 would suggest it's a sequel but a sequel is a progression in the story or plot... there isn't one with KSP. KSP2 would just be an overhauling update. Which, like all KSP updates, would be buried and forgotten as new content and releases makes the previous obsolete.
But to address the original post-
- New engine for KSP would be nice but KSP has already upgraded once to Unity 5 (from 4). Why couldn't it do it again? Not to mention, no game engine will ever be enough for KSP. KSP is a very unique game. Trying to render whole planets while in orbit with other moons rendered, following on rail paths while also having to calculate orbital paths and navigation as both the targetted vessel and every other in the game is following calculated trajectories through the solar system. There's a reason why there's only 1 game like KSP (Simple Rockets 1/2 doesn't nearly match the scale of KSP as they limit the game to 2D making inclined orbits and those fun orbits impossible).
- I think Squad is naturally trying to keep to a routine update schedule, but hiccups in development, QnA, and other background issues keep pushing it off routine.
- A Squad-built CKAN is a lot of work. Maintaining the database, making it functional, making it safe (it is downloading from the internet, they don't want to be responsible for someone uploading a virus and getting blamed for sharing it), making it capable of identifying KSP versions, which OS, making sure mods are for the matching OS, matching version. Plus this would be a massive tease for console players who don't have any mods to choose from.
- MJ stock/not stock is a debate that's been around since KSP first became available to the internet. Ain't touchin that topic, but personally I like it in it's mod status.
- There's a mod for first person view already, though I wouldn't mind it being absorbed into stock. Though this doesn't warrant an entirely new game.
- An option to spawn from the Astronaut Complex would suffice this suggestion well. Alongside a new launch tower part that allows you to be warped to the top of exit upon selection or approach (leave how that would work to Squad) Spawn with a prebuilt Astronaut Shuttle Bus and drive up to your rocket, step up the launch tower, reach the top. Whamo. Suggestion met without a new game.
- Though I've got no information to support my claim- my experience tells me that the scene you're referring to was actually Hollywood'd as usual since I doubt NASA would've knowingly stuck crews in a rocket with another one launching. The crews were likely getting ready for their mission (since the Gemini 8 launch was nearly 7 hours after their Agena TV launched) and not aboard the Gemini spacecraft as depicted. But addressing your request- this could easily be met by having multiple launchpads. Rocket 1 on Launchpad A and Rocket 2 on Launchpad B. Again, not needing a new game.
- You can save subassemblies and use them. Though a sorting or catagorization system of subassemblies would be nice to sort probes, launch vehicles, tugs, landers, etc.
- Improved career has been a necessity since it was first introduced as many people have noticed. It was a great way for Squad to test the waters and get their feet wet but by now Squad's feet have become wrinkly from the water... and it's starting to stink. I would pay to make sure that KSP1's career system was fixed rather than giving up and starting fresh with a new game.
- KSP flight mechanics are a tricky matter. If it's too realistic, it'll be a turn off for more casual players as they can't master the learning curve, but meanwhile it is very problematic. Hence why it's constantly being tuned and adjusted... granted KSP can't change the aerodynamic properties either without problems since that can upset the community who now have broken planes or planes that are vastly inferior. Something for KSP2 sure, but not beyond KSP1's scope. Especially since FAR has been fixing KSP's problems since very early on.
- Go figure that one of the most complicate spacecraft ever built by mankind (making the lunar lander seem like a walk in the part by comparison) would also be the most difficult to replicate in KSP. They've already thrown us a massive bone with the Vector. A better OMS style part (the puffs are nice but their ISP/thrust makes navigation a challenge with a piddly ~200m/s with my designs, though maybe someone else can make it work better) and flat sided variants to the Mk3 parts (since that's clearly an option as we see with the new lander/rover variant of the lander can) would also help, not to mention larger mk3 wings but other than that, we've already got quite a huge leg up all things considered.
- I've been talking about things to do on planets for a few years now. So I agree. Though this isn't something to be left to a whole new game. Plus Squad appears to be considering that problem, as they attempt to give us more to do with Breaking Ground. There's a good possibility they'll continue to add more to do as time goes on (Thank you Squad).
- Squad used to have prereleases of updates for players and mod developers but it created some problems so they stopped doing it. Though I think it would be fine if they had an optional prerelease build would do the job just fine. Especially since there's a lot of smaller mod makers that would suffer if they too didn't get include (a mod is a mod, no matter how small).
- Clouds are another age old request. Handled well by mods but always offering Squad the challenge of making it scalable by settings, togglable, and functional with the stock game which is a taller order than it sounds.
- Even at maximum timewarp (100000x) and at the speed of 17km/s would takes ages to reach. Not to mention then you're reaching into far future developments and that is far better suited by other games.
- Funding does matter. Resources? Well I've always wanted the revival of the "limited number of parts" mechanic. But that's just me. As to multiple launches a day could simply by replicated by a maximum number of launches per day mechanic. That said all of this doesn't necessitate an entirely new game.
- To be fair, there's nothing stopping you from launching vehicles, or assembling them from space stations right now. Just launch and dock stuff in segments.
- A more realistic and developed Kerbin is great, and I'd love it. But structures and things on the terrain hog computer resources. Adding another hurdle for lower end PC players (which I used to be, so I definitely sympathize). A new game would only make that slightly more feasible since even if built from the ground up, you're still having to render an entire planet when in orbit along with either a texture of those structures, sprites of them, or min models, or something else. It still taxes computer power.
- Perhaps that hitting things could be better fit into a less militaristic approach. You're not wrong about space history being very militarized, but KSP isn't supposed to be based off of any one nation's history or backstory. KSP is entirely it's own history. One that can be peaceful or militarized based on the playstyle and interests of the one playing it.
That took a lot of words. But most of those things don't require an entirely new game to solve.
-
This is probably answered somewhere but is this RSS/RO compatible?
-
I predict @Spartwo
NASA SLS/Orion/Payloads
in Science & Spaceflight
Posted
wanna elaborate on how? Bear in mind the Space Shuttle boosters were also reusable. I don't want to sound confrontational- just honestly curious.