ZooNamedGames
-
Posts
5,149 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by ZooNamedGames
-
-
2 hours ago, ArkaelDren said:
I can't believe someone would quote me on a misstep of sts launch numbers. I am not a politician or public figure that needs scrutinizing. The STS-51-L was the correct number and everyone can see or look it up.
I know I am a horrible representative. The point I don't think I'm relaying here, is the impact a company like SpaceX has had on the "Entire" Industry. Ask anyone off the street back in 2010 "Hey, ever heard of SpaceX", most would be clueless. Try it now. Wasn't one of the main reasons for the Space Program to provide support for itself? I suppose someone could twist words around well enough to say "No". If I have learned one thing about the internet, its that someone out their will take my words(Cause I suck at writing)and twist them for their own agenda. Tater can you explain to me, why its not cool to be a Fan Boy of a man like Elon musk? By no means am I asking you because I think your on SpaceX's side, I see you being objective. Guys I am not hear to be right, nor am I here to get people to like what I say. I am here to learn, to see good objective discussion. How can anyone compare SpaceX to NASA? You cant. They are entirely different beasts. But you can say, SpaceX has been one of the best ventures to come along, for the future of space travel, in a very very long time. Why would anyone argue that?
I know several people who have recently been polled (in multiple settings and ages) and most don’t know what SpaceX is. A small portion remembers when you specify it’s two major attributes- ‘Elon Musk’ and or ‘“landable rockets”. Buy in large those surveys showed that NASA is the household identity- not SpaceX (or any other agency for that matter). So yes, the actions of SpaceX does impact the industry since people don’t have the knowledge to know any better to know the difference between NASA and SpaceX. They both launch from the US- bear US flags, are built in the US, etc etc etc. So the people (tax payers) only see the failure, not the successes- and that’s a trait of human psychology.
-
15 minutes ago, tater said:
Absolutely.
Sometimes you look at Hopper and think, "Meh, it's just a flying test stand."
Then you think, "Wow, it's a flying test stand!"
On topic, what payloads dedicated for SLS are funded that are not Orion?
I'll wait.
Europa Clipper.
-
2 hours ago, ArkaelDren said:
I know this is a thread primarily about the SLS program, but I couldn't help after reading many of ZooNamedGames comments.
After reading this entire thread, I am amazed at some of the "flame" sent Musks way as well as some super natural way of ignoring what SpaceX has achieved. I come no way near the understanding or knowledge base of the material at hand, but maybe someone with a bit more vision (Yep Vision) could define the achievements made by SpaceX over the last decade. What I have seen from Elon Musk, is a bit of an over zealous time schedule, but almost "EVERYTHING" that man has claimed they will do, they have. You can take every technical spec, data sheet, test results based on real time testing, or virtual, and what I see is people forgetting the Human factor. The desire to be inspirational exc. I love Nasa, and watched 2 shuttle launches, was sitting in my science teachers class during the loss of STS-41-D. I believed getting rid of the shuttle was a mistake, due to the fact, we at least had an incredible functioning flight system getting people to and from the ISS. Now I can easily profess to be a complete SpaceX/Tesla fan boy, and I don't think saying so is a bad thing. Maybe this is because, no one company has done as much to disrupt and place a positive outlook on its field as much as "Tesla" or "SpaceX". Just happens to be run by the same visionary..... yeah both companies. So maybe, the next time you think of slamming SpaceX, you might want to consider how much they have done for the advancement of the industry. Again, I love Nasa, but if you go by SpaceX's track record alone, for their pure speed and performance record, the simple Human drive to change the world, then my money is on SpaceX.
Just 2 cents given here. I really don't care what people think of my comments, because at the end of the day, my opinion means about as much as yours. Hell, in my case, yours probably has quite a bit more technical relevance. But it has been a complete Joy watching a good guy win again for a change. Side note, my favorite parts packs are with out a doubt, SLS variants. I used Bobcats for a couple years.
I had a long rant but I want to keep this succinct and direct as possible so I'll put this in a 10 point format so I can keep things on point to answer your question as to why I'm not pro-SpaceX-
- SpaceX is a brand new company that has only 20 years of existence. This means they have little economic experience keeping their business and their budgets stable and functional in turbulent economies (2010-2020 has been a rather calm year since we just recovered from the 2000s recession).
- SpaceX has only one major achievement- landing rocket boosters after deploying payloads. That's it- landing rockets was done in the 1990s and the 2000s through the use of the DC-X rocket. An achievement that will soon fall to Blue Origin once they deploy commercial payloads with New Glenn.
- SpaceX only has 1.5 actively functional vehicles (3 if you include the only other rocket they built that actually flew payloads, Falcon 1). Those rockets being Falcon 9 and the Falcon Heavy Core booster- the external two are regular Falcon 9s- so they aren't a new design. However the core is a modification of the Falcon 9 B5- which very much goes against your point of all plans being built which leads to Point 4-
- SpaceX has made many design promises they've failed to meet- much like NASA. As @Barzon Kerman listed, there's a whole laundry list of things he's said and had knocked down because it doesn't work in reality.
- The promises made by Musk affect the whole industry. If he makes promises, the public (ie the taxpayers) expect us to meet them. When reality kicks him off his high horse and suddenly we fail to go to Mars as he plans- it makes everyone in the industry look back. Not just SpaceX. It paints us as "too far behind" and "not ready yet" which leads to cuts in budgets for organizations and agencies like NASA which in turns means they no longer have the funds to operate their own space programs or fund new developing companies- like SpaceX once was- which leads to point 6-
- SpaceX was literally built by NASA. Saying that SpaceX has made all of their achievements on their own through their successes is a massive inaccuracy. SpaceX has only flown because of NASA investments into the development of Falcon 9 reusable rockets. As NASA say the potential for a quick 24h turn-around rocket (which is as impossible as it was with the Shuttle) for cheap- but SpaceX has failed both points and specifically pointing out the flaw with cost leads to problem 7-
- SpaceX hasn't proven reusable rockets as economical, nor any more efficient than standard expendable rockets. Current pricing of launching on the F9 has not dropped and announcements that those prices are fixed. You could claim they're simply maximizing budget margins- but if that was the case, why would Musk be in such a hurry to develop another rocket system to replace the Falcon 9 rocket family (BFR isn't just for BEO flight- it's intended to completely antiquate the Falcon rocket family). Clearly the Falcon 9 is not cost-efficient and can't even meet a reasonable turn around time.
- SpaceX does not have guarenteed funding by NASA. So any failures, mistakes or missteps in development means that the entire companies momentum is broken. Falling to entirely rely on the Falcon 9 which as we established isn't economical anyway. Which doesn't help them when (not if) the economy gets into another upset. Which- speaking of funding-
- SpaceX's founder- Elon Musk has proven that he has trouble keeping some of his ventures afloat with constant faults and issues with another company of his- Tesla.
- SpaceX is a great company. Their fanboys are not. Constantly claiming on every NASA YouTube video and online thread posting how NASA is "antiquated", "too slow" and "inefficient"- basically stating that only SpaceX and Elon are the means to the future and by extension- destinations like the Moon and Mars. Despite many ignoring and overlooking point 6 and that NASA made SpaceX and SpaceX only gets contract money by doing what they need- and what they need is SpaceX in LEO- not BEO despite that being Musk's current ambition of the week.
That's enough for now, I can make more if you want em.
-
47 minutes ago, tater said:
Tank insulation is urethane foam. It starts out fairly light yellow, and quickly (in sunlight) oxidizes to darker, more orange color.
Which I’m assuming has already been applied to the core stage already.
-
16 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:
Well, sure, more work for someone.... But then you'd need more coats anyways to properly cover up the steel.
We’ve got time. Plus this is an extra light SLS. The Orion isn’t fully built- a dummy service module- is the LES even going to be functional or another dummy replacement- personally I think it would be ok to use a lighter dummy version for an unmanned flight anyway, the savings in weight could justify the extra paint weight. Plus this is using the ICPS and not the full EUS. So this will be as light as it gets and there’s plenty of ways to save weight to add the extra paint.
29 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said:I am pretty sure that orange is the color of the insulation, not paint, but I may be wrong.
Correct. It’s actually a foam dye that’s spray painted on (basically the stuff we see on it now, might have an all weather coating added layer for the darker orange) but it’s only orange because of the dyes chemical makeup.
-
5 hours ago, Barzon Kerman said:
IIRC, those were only for PR. Like the Saturn style paint scheme.
Nothing stopping that PR scheme from making it to reality since we have a year of them on the ground collecting dust. It can’t take that long to paint.
-
On 10/28/2015 at 12:57 PM, Claw said:
Well, I'd say it needs to be the maximum of the decoupler or the engine, because what happens if you put a smaller decoupler under the engine (or other part). But that rule doesn't work when hooking decouplers to something like a quad coupler.
Also, if it's the size of the decoupler, that still doesn't work for the case where the decoupler is bigger then the bottom of that fuel tank too. Then the fairing is open on top.
I think there are a lot of strange combinations with these, which would also lead to unusual scenarios if the fairing is just set to the size of the decoupler. Not sure what's ideal here...
Cheers,
-Claw
If the same size- use current fairing settings
If smaller, exclude fairing
If larger, create conic fairing connecting the fairs.
If this doesn't suit the player, the existing fairing ON/OFF setting will do fine.
Oh god I realized how old this is.
-
You think that's bad, what about the Gemini capsule? The nose is too small and the bottom is too fat to add the payload adapter section which expanded outward to connect to the Titan II but seeing as the Titan style parts are also 1.875 like the bottom of the Gemini capsule, you either go with an unrealistic straight cylinder or use the 1.875-2.5m adaptor and have to use the 2.5m parts! The pack needs some work.
-
with all the time spent sitting around, couldn't the Artemis-1 solid rocket boosters get that old concept of paint stripes? Or are they undergoing their own testing right now?
-
Its not like they haven't had a leaky capsule on the station already.
-
3 minutes ago, KSK said:
Which means precisely zip until it's passed its own qualification testing. Basing one design on another flight proven design is no guarantee of anything - see SLS vs STS or, to be even handed about this, Falcon 9 vs Falcon Heavy.
It's still better than a clean sheet design with nothing ever seeing manned flight.
-
1 minute ago, Rakaydos said:
I post an answer and get 3 mentions in like 2 minutes.
Sowwy. Partly my fault lol.
-
1 minute ago, Wjolcz said:
I would be very surprised if it didn't, tbh
see @Rakaydos's earlier comment
-
Also to everyone else- bear in mind that not every circumstance can cripple the craft's air and require the crew to stay suit only. For example- the environmental controls could fail, and the materials of the cabin could start melting- fuel could be leaking into the cockpit. Issues which could be fixed within the confines of the spacecraft but may necessitate hours before they can fix, purge, and repressurize the spacecraft.
1 minute ago, sevenperforce said:I'm sure they have done this. I know they've tested it up to double vacuum and I'm sure they did sudden/rapid depressurization in conjunction with that. In a lab, they can slam it with high doses of radiation, heat/cold cycles, whatever you need.
I am pretty sure it has hose attachment.
@Rakaydos just mentioned there is one at the thigh.
-
1 minute ago, Rakaydos said:
The SpaceX suit has an air feed line under a patch at their thigh. if the capsue loses pressure, they get their helmet and gloves on first, then, plug directly into the capsule's air reserves.
that makes sense. Thank you.
-
Just now, mikegarrison said:
If you lose cabin pressurization, you don't go to the ISS. What are you going to do, dock a leaky spaceship to the ISS? All you would do is let all the ISS's air out too.
No, obviously you abort from orbit.
I was referring to the suit.
-
Just now, mikegarrison said:
Thinking about it, there are tradeoffs with having connections for external air. If you need external air, then obviously those connections are critical. However, they are also potential sources of failure.
Issue is if it takes multiple days to get to the ISS (as it does), then how are you storing that much air? How does it get replenished?
-
1 minute ago, CatastrophicFailure said:
See, now this is just pure, unsubstantiated SpaceX hate. Do you have anything to back that up? Or is it just, “it’s SpaceX, OF COURSE they’re lying!”
Do you have anything to prove me wrong?
-
2 minutes ago, Wjolcz said:
Nor would NASA want to work with them and keep pumping money into something they don't have any control over.
As long as they worked towards a functional design- NASA has no reason to break existing agreements or overtly publicize bad developments- they know trash talking SpaceX too much damages their trust and can cripple them as a company. If SX was arrogant than perhaps they would, but as long as SX is cooperative and working towards fixing the design before flying it- they have no reason to make their issues public
-
1 minute ago, NSEP said:
I kind of agree and i think that the Boeing suit is definitely the most comfortable of them all (especially after seeing Tim Dodd dance in the suit). SpaceX's spacesuit looks extremely cool and all, but it also looks very tight. But its important to note that we are judging the suits based on pictures alone. Im pretty sure none of us ever wore a SpaceX spacesuit, so we don't know how good it is. this article from a while back interviewing Sunita Williams says that the SpaceX suit is comfortable and easy to move around in, so thats a good sign.
Im also pretty sure that they did quite alot of testing for quite a while behind the scenes. It would honestly be quite concerning and surprising if they had a seriously flawed spacesuit this late in the program.
if it was severely flawed, SpaceX wouldn't come forward about it. Claim a delay with the "integration of CCP" and stay quiet while you focus on the saying they built a poor space suit does not garner any trust or faith in their developments which is essential since outside investors such as NASA and DearMoon is likely the major driving force for SX right now.
-
Do we even know if that was a full suit on either flight? What confirmation beyond Musk claims do we have?
Also a flight on a mannequin to deep space is NOT a test. That’s exposure data perhaps- but NOT a test. There’s no biological data, no testing if it was damaged, if there’s a leak, if the suit is leaking toxic chemicals to the decomposition of the materials from radiation of space. Even the D2 flight is lacking.
Boeing suit is based on the ACES suit- which is flight proven. And isn’t experimenting with internal life support only.
Also- any suit becomes an EVA suit when there’s a pressurization failure. If the environmental controls fail and the capsule begins to rapidly heat or cool- if there’s a failure in production and the spacecraft fails to shield the crew from deep space radiation. Yes it is for emergencies but emergencies means it needs to survive the same conditions other IVA only space suits (such as ACES) must survive in. They didn’t wear those suits on the shuttle because they were comfortable- but because it kept them alive if the vehicle experienced any of those problems.
And a vacuum test and a mannequin in space is leagues away from being a proven ready space suit. Space isn’t just a vacuum. There are many other threats and dangerous the suit must endure to keep its occupant alive- even if only in a spacecraft and not on EVA.
-
I’d like to see the testing on them. Two flights into space on mannequins don’t make a good space suit. The ability to keep me alive when the capsule pressure fails or there’s some significant emergency that necessitates the suit on.
Sudden depressurization is always a possibility (you plan for what could happen for its better to be prepared for something that’s unlikely than to risk the lives of the crew because “it won’t fail”) and it’s very rough- the ACES suit balloons up very rapidly- how does the SpaceX suit handle this. How does it affect the occupant.
Lastly it irks me to no end that it has no way to intake air. It looks slicker but sometimes you have to wait multiple days to get to the ISS (let’s not even humor Musk’s intent to go to the moon in those things- unless he can engineer a whole new space suit in less than 2 years after the first manned flight of D2 and his supposed #DearMoon flight of BFR/Super Heavy).
14 minutes ago, tater said:And ULA, I can’t imagine ULA wouldn’t bid on a USAF contract. They’ve been their go to launch agency for nearly a decade.
-
12 minutes ago, Dale Christopher said:
If it’s a race to volume, SLS might win, but there are 2 high volume, reusable super heavies coming soon too don’t forget.
If soon is at least another decade. Until then- both vehicles are expendable just like SLS. Unlike SLS- they won’t be manrated and again- would be another 10 years before they are. So again- looking at 2030 for either vehicle to become available, reusable and or man rated by that point. SLS could be ready in 2 years alternatively.
-
Honestly every American launch provider is down this year. Likely because ULA, Boeing, SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, NASA, & Blue Origin are all spending their funds on RnD, assembly and production of their next generation vehicles- with Boeing and SpaceX focused on their manned vehicles at the forefront.
[New] Space Launch System / Orion Discussion Thread
in Science & Spaceflight
Posted · Edited by ZooNamedGames
That sounds like an airline I would want to avoid. That kind of behavior leads to broken communication and trust- things that have been the exact causes for airline disasters in the past as @mikegarrison has pointed out. And one prime example of why that isn’t safe is the Tenerife disaster.
But regardless this is somewhat a more personal regard that isn’t really relevant. So let’s return to the topic of the SLS instead so we can avoid potentially making more personal comments than comments on the subject matter itself.