ZooNamedGames
-
Posts
5,149 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by ZooNamedGames
-
-
9 minutes ago, wumpus said:
Looks like the X-20 uses a similar strategy as the Shuttle in returning from orbit. I wonder if they would have had similar (or worse) issues with tile replacement on the X-20.
Likely hard to say- the tiles initially were used as a way to ensure reusability for the Shuttle. If the Dyna-soar wanted to sacrifice some reusable parts for reentry, they could've created ablative tiles. Or even coated the airframe in ablative coating- which, as a reminder, worked on the X-15 test flight. The main issue with the coating during the X-15 flight was with the X-15 and not the coating. It ablated as intended, the issue was the airframe of the X-15 was designed to cool through the airframe and it's skin, which the coating prevented. Assuming they built the X-20 with this knowledge in mind they could've engineered the vehicle to survive that issue. The X-20 was also slightly smaller than the X-15 so coating would've not been a problem, minus the time spent recoating it after every mission.
-
3 hours ago, NSEP said:
Starship has two full scale orbital prototypes under construction and one (almost) functioning hopper vehicle. Sure, Starship has a long way to go and is obviously behind SLS, but its not nothing.
Even then- it’s useless to NASA without the Super Heavy Booster. If I recall someone calculated that Starship has just enough DV to get to orbit, but only when flying light (no payload). Even if it did have enough DV to SSTO to orbit- it still lacks DV to reach the moon which is where all of this is actually needed.
-
1 hour ago, wumpus said:
As much as I love the idea, two huge issues almost certainly killed it.
1. Do you really think it is easier to provide 7000m/s to an X-15 than 9400m/s to a Mercury capsule? They aren't light, and don't really have the delta-v (only 2400m/s) you'd expect from an upper stage.
2. Re-entry heat. A X-15 goes to heroic efforts to survive the heat from extreme speed, but it isn't designed for 9000m/s. All returning spacecraft that I'm aware of keep the compressed heat away from the spacecraft to minimize heat. A X-15 simply attempts to survive the heat, which is unlikely to work at de-orbiting speeds (it technically did re-enter from space). It is also low-drag, so it will have to survive those temperatures for much longer and will certainly vaporize.
Which is not doubt why they envisioned the X-20 to replace it when going to orbit.
-
19 minutes ago, JadeOfMaar said:
@ZooNamedGames There is a pretty bare, but definite implementation of Part Upgrades in stock. I've experimented well with it and I can precisely name some places where it falls short and where it can grow. I and Angel-125 use it in our mods and we have enabled engines to be upgrade-able, but again, shortcomings.
-
Does not support every stock module
The ones I know of are ModuleSAS (The SAS levels), ModuleEnginesFX (Thrust and Isp of course), ModuleRCSFX probably, and ModuleResourceConverter (ISRU), but not ModuleResourceScanner (surface scanner modules) and obviously, no modules added by mods.
-
Root level properties cannot be upgraded
Mass, cost, heat tolerance, title, manufacturer and so on. Nope. Not happening. I wanted to affect heat tolerance to provide a construction material upgrade. Boy was I dis-heartened. If I couldn't affect that, what hope is there in testing anything else.
I see your point with this. My only return comment is maybe Squad and overhaul the whole system and make it functional for parts. But being a non-coding pleb, I will refer to your advice in this case.
21 minutes ago, JadeOfMaar said:-
Only the first instance of a subnode
For example, a resource converter that takes two or more input resources. You can only change the one of these nodes. The upgrade parameters don't support targeting multiple.
-
Visual upgrades
There's no means to tie a change of model or texture to an upgrade so there's never the opportunity to tell that one of two identical objects standing beside each other is better just by looking at them.
I didn't consider changing those things but since you mentioned having made a mod that managed that I will again refer to your judgement.
22 minutes ago, JadeOfMaar said:Not all upgrades should be overrides
Tanks, for example, could be made to support new options for fuels, namely the fussy ones like cryogenics (Liquid Hydrogen) or high toxics (Red Fuming Nitric Aciddddddd). Procedural Parts gets around this somewhat. Tank lengths are bound by tech node unlocks as though part upgrades.Or if you're stock- LF/Ox to LF only, or Ox only, xenon, monoprop, etc perhaps.
23 minutes ago, JadeOfMaar said:Upgrade in-flight
It would be a great thing if an engineer, or a group of them, could huddle around a part and apply an upgrade. As it currently is, upgrades cannot be applied retroactively (which is fine actually, but the option for an engineer to make it so on EVA likely does not exist).Not a bad idea.
-
Does not support every stock module
-
7 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:
How is the swivel out of date? It still works perfectly for 1.25m rockets as intended. It's cheap and relatively efficient for what it does. And by the time you need more power 1.85 and 2.5 m parts become available. And if you want; you can use engine plates in MH to cluster them. I've actually done this with 2.5m tankage for larger landers that need high TWR but no suitable engines exist
Which is true but if I need more thrust at 1.25m, I just use the vector (I play largely in sandbox), or just upgrade past in size using larger engines without their tank butts and just clip upwards and it even visually functions well, as well as practically. But maybe that's a personal opinion and I will admit to that fault, if it is one.
9 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:All that said I don't actually disagree with the overall point of your argument. IRL we didn't grind science and then magically have the F-1 engine poof into existence; we had a mission which had a series of specifications that any potential engine would have to meet. Then designs were submitted and built; I would like to see a similar feature in KSP. Where you can define a set of specifications (That actually make sense physically) and R&D chugs away and as you continue through your program are notified that potential designs are ready. You then pay a sum to fly them and after several tests are cleared for regular use. This would stand alongside the tech tree in career; where additional technology will increase the speed of development, types of engines and the range of values that can be tweaked.
Which doesn't sound like a bad idea. Issue is players don't want to bother thinking (ironic despite the game), so to ensure the game is accessible to as many players as possible it needs to made straight forward and simple. Which is why a simple point system is so effective at keeping the game so easily accessible since points are easy for even the least aerospace informed player to grasp and work with. Especially since the game has a steep enough learning curve as is and introducing any more would cause some players even more additional mental fatigue as they try to learn the game. So bear that in mind.
-
Just bear in mind with the comments towards the SLS that the SLS is the only SHLV that currently exists and isn't a paper rocket. BFR has only two test vehicles (not full scale) and New Glenn is still paper only. Once one or both of these vehicles are routinely flying and man rated- assuming Block 2 isn't accelerated and NASA can trim costs through economies of scale in production- the SLS will be phased out to superior commercial vehicles. As I've always said- SLS is merely a stop gap until the commercial market can catch. Right now we only have two companies with the financial support and in house production and assembly teams- Blue Origin, United Launch Alliance and SpaceX. Of which only one has the achievement of 'building flight articles' and that being SpaceX. Even then, it could be the better part of a decade before SpaceX has a proven and ready vehicle (after all we're talking Musk time) and even longer before NASA can reliably trust the vehicle to be man rated and ready for spaceflight to deep space (currently I am not aware of how Musk plans to have the BFR handle deep space radiation such as from the VA belts and general cosmic radiation which would be a big consideration for NASA recruiting the BFR into their missions).
As to LOP-G and how all of this stands- LOP-G is a midpoint. It is not the most efficient middle ground, but it is a middle ground between deep space and the moon. I support the concept of LOP-G since it forces us to maintain, develop, grow and expand the station and it's utilities as we have had to with the ISS. As no politician wants to explain to Congress why a multibillion dollar space station in deep space should be abandoned as we did the Apollo program. Which the Artemis program is planned to be vastly more complex than- and to ensure that it is as feasible and as politically appealing as possible, NASA plans on handing off many objectives and tasks to it's commercial and international partners. With a commercial company making the PPE core, and another company launching it (likely ULA or SpaceX, but potentially Blue Origin if they can get the New Glenn ready). Another appeal to LOP-G is that we can assemble and prepare deeper space missions such as missions to Mars using the Deep Space Exploration spacecraft which would be launched to LOP-G and return back to it, where crews would board an earlier deployed transfer vehicle and return back to Earth instead of launching a return craft along with the transport vehicle to and from Mars. There's always been the notion to build things on the surface of the moon but that requires relaunching orbital assets back into orbit and there's always the point of 'once in orbit, you're halfway to everywhere' and that certainly helps when building larger interplanetary vehicles or simply acting as a waypoint between the moon and Mars.
Just my thoughts!
-
NASA had plans to make their hypersonic and suborbital X-15 spaceplane into an orbital version before straight up upgrading to the X-20 Dyna-soar. Their plans was to use the Navajo missile to launch the X-15.
My question is- how was the Navajo missile planned to compensate for the offset center of mass center of mass since it was proposed to be side launched Space Shuttle style? Or did they just draw that concept up and put no effort into making sure it would work?
-
In years long since past- Squad added a new save settings option known as 'Enable Part Upgrades', and it was supposed to enable the future implementation of part upgrades. Upgrades which could improve the thrust of parts, reduce cost, reduce weight, improve resource values, and so on. Sadly since this togglable was first implementation, nothing further has ever been mentioned or done with this.
I think that KSP has finally reached a point where old parts need more care than a simple textural overhaul. As we add more and newer parts, the old become more and more antiquated and less and less useful and at a point, only remain in the game for for occupying the lower nodes of the tech tree and providing compatibility and ensuring that craft files and old save files aren't broken as they remove ancient parts in the game.
Two major examples I can think of, are the LV-30 Reliant and the LV-45 Swivel. Two very ancient rocket engines that go back to before I bought in the game in 2013 and, isn't the oldest part in the pack. An honor I could bestow on the the mk1-2 cockpit, and the RT-10 Hammer solid rocket booster (at least, that I'm aware of, amongst other parts). Two parts which have received love and attention over the past few years but a quick peak towards the LV-30 shows it's received little of the same affection. Merely receiving two visual overhauls (0.7.3 appearance, and it's post .18 overhaul that we have today.
But for some parts, a simple shifting of ingame values (mass, thrust, ISP, etc) is no longer enough to keep them competitive with other parts and engines. Part Upgrades could help by reducing their price, their mass, their thrust, etc. Which could put the Swivel as a more competitive option to newer and more modern parts.
But Zoo! How would Squad ever go about implementing such an idea? Well thank you for asking hypothetical person- my proposal is this. In career/science modes, you gain % points when you use parts (bonus points when first used, when they're used to set a record/complete a major achievement), and you gain multiplied bonuses when you complete testing missions (test part on the launchpad, test at certain altitude/conditions). I suggest this, since I have never had inclination to accept the more complex testing contracts since I could earn more cash than the contract is offering by completing other contracts, however with this suggestion, there would be more incentive than just the typical cash/science/rep reward but also the chance to rapidly improve a part.
As you gain % points on a part, with certain milestones (5% increments, 10% increments, 20%, etc) you would gain an upgrade (reduced cost, reduced mass, more resources in said part, more thrust, reduced drag, improved lift, increased ISP, etc etc etc ad nausem). Which of these options that are unlocked at which point are to be decided by Squad for game balancing. In sandbox- there would be a slider or buttons you could select that would select which upgrades are active and save them to the craft file like thrust limiter values and gimbal range values have been set up.
Visually, I would suggest hexagons which would act as the buttons in sandbox and in career/science mode, these buttons would be fixed and not able to be pressed. Acting as a visual indicator of progress instead of a selector as it is in sandbox. In each hexagon, would be a symbol representing what is changed/improved. A -
for when cost is reduced, a + re-entry flame symbol for increased thrust, etc etc.
Thanks for coming and listening to my
TED Talkidea. -
Over the last the last few months, I've been working on a craft series catalog and recently expanded it to include heavy aircraft and rockets/spacecraft. This, after 3 iterations, is the current result and I wanted to show here for others to enjoy. Craft files can be uploaded upon request if I can. I intend to soon upload videos of each craft in action for viewers to appreciate these designs.
So without further ado, here is the craft catalog-
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1G5xuM9sIkkud2s8qUbtQgB41zTWTC9dv/view?usp=sharing
(it's a PDF)
-
1 minute ago, majNUN said:
It's not easy to move around a capsule. However, in the mod, you could change seats if you have a Kerman in the chair. Other than that, you can look around much as if you were a pilot in the seat.
Perhaps not in a capsule but in space stations and even landers, there's still room.
-
Honestly if they make a mod like that I would like to be able to move in IVA too since the fixed view point perspectives is very limiting.
-
1 hour ago, Bill Phil said:
The Saturn V was capable of direct ascent if you are willing to reduce mission requirements (fewer crew members, less payload on the Moon, and so on).
As for building rockets big enough... well the big limitation was the size of the Michoud assembly plant for the USA, which limited the stages to 10 meters in diameter. However clustering may have been possible, like adding Titan SRBs or even some new LRBs. One of the Saturn V modification proposals even proposed something like that.
It’s generally considered impractical since for the same launcher you can get better performance with Apollo-style.
I cannot source this, and it’s just something I remember, so consider it hot air- but I recall some concept of adding cranes to the roof of the VAB to assemble larger and taller rockets that would exceed the limitations of the VAB (namely the roof and the doors).
-
The Saturn Nova was an enlarged Saturn design that could've hefted a direct ascent lunar lander which would've flown directly to the moon, landed, took off, and returned to Earth.
One of the reasons the Apollo Service Module's Service Propulsion Engine is so large- is due to the late shift in mission architecture. Initially planned to be Moon Direct which would've utilized the massive Saturn 8 Nova- however due to a late proposal by Dr. John Houbolt to Robert C. Seamans, the associate administrator of NASA. He proposed the concept of having a smaller rocket lift two spacecraft on one rocket instead of multiple as the Soviet's intended with Earth Orbit Rendezvous (EOR). Instead, launch two vehicles, one that could carry the crew and return to Earth and a lighter lander optimized solely for landing on the moon, and nothing else. Allowing the launch vehicle to carry ultimately less mass than a direct launch vehicle and requiring a single launch as opposed to the Soviet's multilaunch structure.
-
The original video of a Saturn booster being air dropped and gliding into a field appears to have been sadly deleted, so I'll have to make do with this as a replacement.
-
12 minutes ago, Geonovast said:
If it was used for anything important, I think it's weird they'd leave it outside. I have a feeling it was just for display.
NASA's left original hardware outside unmaintained in the past. Such as a whole Saturn V, Titan II. Who knows what else that are less bulky and noticeable.
-
Most models are known. Especially all that actually flew. Which, if they wanted to, would've used the test article Enterprise for flight tests. There were smaller models and test units such as Pathfinder which was used for integration testing and there's another (Resolution?) that is really just a cockpit as it was used for crew simulations. There are other models, some have been trashed but as @Geonovast pointed out, that is vastly too small to be even a test article.
So to answer your question- no. That's more than likely a decorative piece.
-
33 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:
Really you could have tried to just read what I wrote instead.
I did and I responded. Followed by my reasoning.
33 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:I guess if you see it on You Tube it suddenly becomes authoritative?
They certainly explain themselves. Some even cite their basis. I'm not here to argue. I've made a point and that's all I have to say.
-
8 hours ago, mikegarrison said:
As I said, airlines have all sorts of business models. They all want all their seats filled on every flight. But for some of them, the real goal is to have the business class seats full, and everything else is just gravy. For others, they don't even have business class seats, and they compete by offering fares as low as they can to get as much traffic as they can. There are flights that are all business class and flights that are all coach. Different ways to make money.
A supersonic airliner would have to be selling tickets at a premium. They would probably go for an all-business class type of configuration, but that's not clear.
Supersonic bizjets are completely different. For them it almost doesn't matter how much the flight costs. In fact, the more it costs, the better for giving the jet that exclusive Ferrari cachet. According to Forbes there are 2200 billionaires in the world, and the supersonic bizjets are mainly targeting them as their buying market.
bizjets aren't practical except for the super rich which they'll undoubtedly be marketed towards- however for the larger airliner sized supersonic aircraft; those would best profit off of traveling business goers. Businesses want them traveling as little as possible, so time is a premium. So businesses will pay for tickets that may be even half the price of a traditional airliner. This may not be practical for economy class seating as I mentioned before due to the inflated costs, but would be more practical for business. That said, as was the case for when Concorde first began flying- flying on a supersonic aircraft will be the premium. As time goes on and the novelty of supersonic flight becomes the norm again, then more will be needed to keep the 'premium' edge, especially across competing airlines. However that results in less space per seat (based on the current First Class seats on most subsonic airliners) and as a result- less profit from each seat as compared to the space being utilized for business class.
I really don't feel like arguing any further so I'm just going to dump a bunch of YouTube videos that I feel are relevant and will answer any potential counter points you may throw back.
-
I was inferring that passenger volume was the profit- not the pricetag on a seat.
-
1 hour ago, mikegarrison said:
This is not true as a general rule. It depends on the airline business model. LCCs (low cost carriers) tend to fly all coach and make their money on passenger volume. But many international carriers actually rely on business class as their main source of profit, which is why (for instance) that some A380s have an entire deck dedicated only to business class.
Which is what I meant.
-
Another factor to supersonic aircraft is their economy. Which boils down to fuel and seats. Everyone else has hammered the former topic so I'll skip discussing it for now. Addressing the second factor, seats, is a matter of airline economy on it's own. Due to the vast variation on seat number, seat pricing, and seating arrangement, we've seen airlines operate with a wide verity of different structures. Ranging from luxary, to economy with budget airlines starting to emerge and take the market by storm.
Supersonic airliners have two markets they can try to make profit from- the wealthy (ie the 1%) and the business man. Wealthy people are willing to buy a luxury seat, but as the novelty of supersonic flight once again fades, the luxuries provided on super sonic flights will need to improve to keep their edge on "luxury quality". Most airlines make the bulk of their profit from economy seating and not first/premium seating. Getting the most money by utilizing as much of the cabin space as possible. Supersonic airliners are still too costly to make a profit from the budget approach, but there's still one market that would be willing to buy seats on a supersonic airliner- especially in preference over standard airfare- the business goer. Business travelers often travel on the businesses budget (there are exceptions but I'm speaking in generalization). Shorter transit times between destinations results in less cash spent on renting out hotels, cars, etc. As well as ensuring that the traveler can spend more time working and less time unable to work as they fly.
Also- to readdress the superboom issue- bare in mind that all designs currently aren't optimized at all for their sonic wave that they create. With better design, through aerodynamic shape and whatnot, this could be minimized.
-
4 minutes ago, jadebenn said:
You mean Boeing, right?
Don't think the ULA is interested in man-rating any of their rockets.
aside from Vulcan and Atlas.
-
-
Having watched several of NASA's latest videos. There does seem to be a growing concern I have about NASA's current mission architecture. Mainly asking the question- what happens if there's a fault, a failure or a straight up loss of the spacecraft? How will this affect NASA's timeline? Can NASA continue without PPE or the Gateway? If so, would the plan to just commit to the first true instance of LOR and just have the lander launched to lunar orbit and Orion dock to it while it's freely orbiting? Or would the timeline be delayed to compensate for repairing/replacing Gateway?
I just got to thinking since that despite the PPE being based on vary well known technologies and concepts and not pushing the envelope very far, there's still a lot riding on the deployment mission and any fault could end up damaging the program as a whole.
for when cost is reduced, a + re-entry flame symbol for increased thrust, etc etc.
Looking for opinions about how optimal NASA’s Lunar Gateway plan...
in Science & Spaceflight
Posted
It allows us to engage in biochemical experiments- you act like humans have to be the test subject when we've been using animal and cellular test subjects for decades. It forces us to engineer new technologies to solve the radiation problem for cheaper since we can actively test our designs in small scale close to home, instead of waiting for months to send it up on it's own vehicle through SpaceX or ULA.
To be fair, Vulcan also has a tested engine and is bending metal. Before you comment, no I don't consider Starhopper more real than a test stand engine burn seeing as Starhopper doesn't fly, and is basically a giant water tank in a steel shell. Quite a large leap from a rocket.
Which is fine since all launches are slated for 2020 at the soonest. So if those vehicles end up delayed or worse cancelled, NASA will pick up the slack with SLS. Undoubtedly missing the 2024 landing date but likely to see SLS pick up after what NG/Vulcan was intended to launch.