Jump to content

saabstory88

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    240

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by saabstory88

    The official unoffical "help a fellow plugin developer" thread

    in KSP1 C# Plugin Development Help and Support

    Posted

    Quick question. I want to setup a UI_FloatEdit with values from the config file. When attempting to pass another field as the arguments for minValue, or maxValue, I get the following error: 

    An object reference is required for the non-static field, method, or property

    At the moment, the only way it compiles is if I hard code the values: 

    [KSPField(isPersistant = true, guiName = "Length", guiFormat = "F3", guiUnits = "m"),
         UI_FloatEdit(scene = UI_Scene.Editor, minValue = 0.25f, incrementLarge = 2.0f, incrementSmall = 0.25f, incrementSlide = 0.001f)]
        public float tankLength = 1.0f;

    What is the proper way to make this work?

    [WIP][1.8.x] SSTULabs - Low Part Count Solutions (Orbiters, Landers, Lifters) - Dev Thread [11-18-18]

    in KSP1 Mod Development

    Posted

    1 minute ago, Shadowmage said:

    Its on the list of engines stats; whether I'll ever get around to doing it is questionable.  In the end it will come down to if there is a need for the engine (does have a purpose that other engines/clusters cannot fill?), and is there enough solid/concrete information available (diagrams/schematics) as dealing with these Merlin engines (and their lack of reliable information) is driving me insane.

    Just like you're amazing work, SpaceX just can't stop trying to improve their creations :wink:

    [WIP][1.8.x] SSTULabs - Low Part Count Solutions (Orbiters, Landers, Lifters) - Dev Thread [11-18-18]

    in KSP1 Mod Development

    Posted

    2 hours ago, blowfish said:

    Sure, but that's not necessarily indicative of bell diameter.  The chamber pressure has increased which means that the throat diameter could be smaller for the same flow (although flow could also have changed).

    In the case of the Merlin Vacuum, the extension was lengthened which caused changes to the interstage to be nessesary between the various models. Below is a link discussing this change in the upgrade from v1.1 to full thrust. The change from v1.0 to v1.1 is more externally obvious when looking at the M1C vac vs standard M1D. 

    http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/falcon9ft.html

    Maybe more detail than you wish to add, but I thought I'd mention it. It really is a different length. 

    The Future of FASA

    in KSP1 Mods Discussions

    Posted

    5 hours ago, TiktaalikDreaming said:

    Mostly the blender work.  I'm still wrestling with getting up to speed with unwrappings and texturing, but I'm getting better at that.  I can assist in other aspects as well, I've been building parts pack mods for about a year now.  So I can do the range of stuff.  My IVA-fu is week.  :-)

    That's okay. No plans to mess with IVA's at this point. Well, if there is going to be some interest, I'll have to get a battle plan together. 

    New Shepard derived orbital rocket.

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    9 minutes ago, fredinno said:

    Probably Delta-V calculations- however, it's pretty darned high. Did you account for lower surface ISP? Did you account for things like fairing mass?

    I'm referring to the article " As their next development Blue Origin intends to make a several million pound thrust rocket capable of sending 25 metric tons to LEO."

    @Exoscientist I want to know the source of that knowledge, as in, where and in what context did Blue Origin say that? I'm thirsty for details about their orbital launcher.

    NASA defends decision to restart RS-25s

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    2 hours ago, fredinno said:

    They can with cost. BE-3 is much less expensive than RL-10 (which costs an arm and a leg), and can both be used for upper stages- and BE-4 is a serious threat to AR-1.

    RL-10 is an expander cycle engine with a very high ISP. Blue Origin has not released the exact ISP of the BE-3, but it is likely closer to the 436s predicted on the J2-S engine. This would seriously reduce the performance of something like a Centaur upper stage, not increase it.

    New Shepard derived orbital rocket.

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    7 hours ago, Exoscientist said:

    Blue Origin's New Shepard rocket made history as the first rocket to do a vertical landing after a flight to suborbital space. It is intended only as a suborbital rocket.
    However, by using triple cores of the New Shepard with a small upper stage, a la the Delta IV Heavy, you actually get an orbital rocket:

    Triple Cored New Shepard as an orbital vehicle.
    http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2016/01/triple-cored-new-shepard-as-orbital.html

      Bob Clark

    Where did you get your 25,000kg payload number for their orbital launcher?

    I'm pretty sure SpaceX put ULA out of business (To some degree)

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted · Edited by saabstory88
    Proton Retirement

    2 hours ago, fredinno said:

    By that logic, the Russians should only use the Angara A5/Proton, and retire every other rocket to save costs.:huh:

    Well, that is exactly what the Russians plan on doing, the Proton is even on the way out. That is also why the ULA is going to move to only producing the Vulcan. That is why Arianespace is going to retire the Ariane 5, and move to a common SRB shared between Vega and Ariane 6. That is why Ariane 6 will only have a single kind of upper stage vs the 3 types on the Ariane 5. 

    Reduction in the diversity of vehicles is the way that the industry is moving. The primary reason that the Russians are going to keep hanging on to the Soyuz is to not have to man-rate the Angara until absolutely necessary. Once their next generation capsule is online, the Soyuz is finally dead. 

    I'm pretty sure SpaceX put ULA out of business (To some degree)

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    On 1/4/2016 at 9:31 PM, fredinno said:

    MCT is a pipe dream, TBH.

     

    Either way, the death of Falcon 1e and Falcon 5 was kind of a bad decision, in my opinion. SpaceX could have set the development of Falcon 1e and 5 after developing Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy (the original Falcon 1 would be kept, to launch the Orbcomm and ORS sats that were intended for it), to take the main sectors of the market, then move towards cubesats (Falcon 1e would likely be a cubesat launcher it it used Falcon 9-style powered 1st stage powered landings), while Falcon 5 would have been useful for LEO flights- of course, you can still launch LEO sats with a Falcon 9, but its 15T to LEO capability is 'somewhat' overpowered. They literally launched the entire Orbcomm contract in two launches- which can be a bad thing, since these LEO sats might need more fuel to do inclination changes to reach their required orbits. This can actually end up LESS efficient.

    Not to mention DOD has a large percentage of their launches in the 401 and 501 Atlas V configs, (almost half of Atlas V launches are 401s), which is also Soyuz- level. I stand by my word there is a market for Falcon 5. (Not the original, Delta II-level rocket though, but a full thrust version using Merlin 1Ds, and with 8-10 to to LEO capacity)

     

    Also, they could use the same Falcon 9 tanking diameters for Falcon 5 (and likely common engines from Falcon 9 and 1, too)

    SpaceX's goal is to make launches less expensive. Having more kinds of rockets massively increases costs, because if things they can't control. New kind of booster? Tens of millions in certification, testing, and GSE. And that's not just something they can engineer around, because you can't engineer around the FAA. 

    I'm pretty sure SpaceX put ULA out of business (To some degree)

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    7 minutes ago, Rune said:

    It's funny, that maximum payload limitation. That for GTO too? That's about Proton's (or Delta IV's) maximum payload... to LEO, not GTO. Which is (almost) the same thing as an ISS-class module to GSO. Or two Hubbles. On second thought, with reusability, if they underburn the central core to slow it down to recover it... it could be a "simple" Proton-class launcher. Only reusable.

     

    Rune. I wonder why would the DoD want a Hubble on GSO... ;)

    That is 25,000kg on the payload adapter, which has nothing to do with capability to any particular orbit. As I mentioned earlier, the GTO capability of the Falcon Heavy is probably around 11,000kg - 11,500kg. The 25,000kg max payload is going to be LEO only sort of thing. They only need to max out their payload adapters for NRO/DOD LEO missions. As I've said before, the Falcon Heavy is going to be used as something to try to put things like the Proton, Ariane 5, Atlas V 500 series, and Delta IV-H out of business. It doesn't need to get anywhere near the payload cap on the SLS. As we have learned, SpaceX doesn't do intermediary boosters. They canned the F1e and F5 because they wanted to go straight for the F9. They didn't need training wheels. They won't bother trying to get the FH to throw anything bigger than what it needs to make money, it makes way more sense to just build the BFR, and be done with it.

    I'm pretty sure SpaceX put ULA out of business (To some degree)

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    5 minutes ago, davidy12 said:

    Given the fact that Falcon Heavy is coming, and the Vulcan can lift less than half the payload, I agree. I KNOW that payload doesn't matter, but in terms of usefulness in the future (IE: Moon bases, manned Habitats, etc) it does make sense.


    Also, @saabstory88, Delta V? You mean Delta IV right? Or is there some new Delta rocket I've never heard of?

    Delta V = change in velocity

    That is, unless you are referencing a Typo I made several posts back and haven't noticed.

     

    Also, the limiting factor on the Falcon Heavy is the Maximum Payload System Weight rating. As it stands, they have only rated the Falcon Heavy for its max payload in the RTLS/ASDS mode. It's not as simple as saying "Hey, we're going to throw this one away, let's max it out!". They will likely have to go through another process of certifying the upper stage for anything more than about 25,000kg, which is the max payload they need for DoD missions. The payload weight of dual comm-sat stacks vs a Red Dragon to mars is similar, so they don't need to be able to throw anything more than their customers need. When / If something as specialized as a fully fledged Bigelow module comes around, they contract will be lucrative enough that extra certification / integration is a given.

    I'm pretty sure SpaceX put ULA out of business (To some degree)

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Rune said:

    Well, I stand corrected then, SpaceX definitely doesn't market full GSO insertions on the Falcon 9. Makes sense, since that's what Heavy is for, IMO. I don't really think they will mind throwing out a center core every now and then (F9H could be the place where "old cores go to die") and staging it at high velocity with a heavy upper stage, but the standard ~5mT commsat. After all, Musk has commented a couple of time on the Heavy's throw capability to Mars (Red Dragon). Also, nothing is stopping them from building a fourth Draco-powered circularization stage, if the market demands it, or they want to really irk ULA. So, to say the stage can't do it... with a light enough payload, and using the first stage in an expendable fashion, I would be very surprised if it couldn't, considering Merlin's throttle range and the 9 engines on the first stage. Kerolox stages weather long waits much better than H2/LOX ones... in every sense, their engineering requirements are lower.

    As I said, up there, yeah, I guess they could, and they would even have the classically perfect engine for that in the Draco and SuperDraco family. But... honestly, I don't see it, you have to create another line with complicated to handle propellants... I have a hard-to-shake distrust of hypergolics.

     

    Rune. Also, thanks for the TEA/TEB comment, gave me the answer I was looking for (it does use a limited number of hypergolic ignitions after all).

    I wouldn't be suprised if we see a SuperDraco powered third stage similar to Fregat, that's a really good point. I think that sort of thing is much more likely than SpaceX going backwards towards expendable flight, and is sort of low threshold/high profitability.

×
×
  • Create New...