Jump to content

GoSlash27

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    5,797

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by GoSlash27

  1. GoSlash27
    suicidejunkie, There's a difference between "awesome" and "useful". Can you think of anything that fits your criteria that would help a stock career? I can't. Happy New Year! -Slashy
  2. GoSlash27
    Hey, good news everyone! @Sirine claims to be able to not only reach orbit, but actually orbit *Minmus* under these conditions! I'm just going to grab myself some popcorn and watch the master at work. Should be fun... -Slashy
  3. GoSlash27
    Sirine, Excellent news! It shouldn't be any problem at all for you to actually demonstrate what you claim to be able to do. I'll just pop over to the challenge thread and let them know you're coming. Pics or it didn't happen -Slashy
  4. GoSlash27
    Sovek, Not really. The career system was intended to work with a stock installation, not one that's "3 times harder". Best, -Slashy
  5. GoSlash27
    Everything would be a deathtrap composed of 100% reliable parts.
  6. GoSlash27
    5thHorseman, I'm just interested in seeing how it turns out. Yay SCIENCE! -Slashy
  7. GoSlash27
    We have a new official record! 1,693.6 m/sec. Tex, I tried the fairing. It 'sploded Best, -Slashy
  8. GoSlash27
    Tex, It's an intriguing notion. Aren't you going to give it a go? Best, -Slashy
  9. GoSlash27
    Gaarst, Gojira has the current official record of 1,690.1 m/sec, but yeah... If we ever do manage to break 1,700 I think that'll be the limit. Best, -Slashy
  10. GoSlash27
    I like the concept of all of these things put together, but then it might get a little too "simmy". I just thought it would be neat to have the consideration in the design stage of accounting for failures with redundancy, definitely not something I'd want enabled in a standard game. But my apologies for even bringing it up. I had read the DNS list before and it slipped my mind that this was on it. Best, -Slashy
  11. GoSlash27
    Hell, I'm just trying to hit 1,700 right now. It's like my "great white whale". Best, -Slashy
  12. GoSlash27
    Welp... I just found out that a sustained flight at 1684 m/sec *will* eventually blow up a precooler. It takes a while. Best, -Slashy
  13. GoSlash27
    Temstar, It's 38.1t payload and $33,400. The guidance is assumed to be provided by the payload since the booster is disposable. $877/ tonne fully disposable. If you make the upper stage with guidance recoverable as in your design, The price drops to $25,288, or $664/ tonne. Asparagus staging is not economically competitive in the range where single engines are feasible and SRBs beat the stuffing out of LF&O where they can be used. When you get into the scale you're working at, sure. You have no choice *but* to use clustered LF&O, so you might as well use asparagus staging. If you doubt what we're telling you, just try building an asparagus staged lifter for a 38 tonne payload. Best, -Slashy
  14. GoSlash27
    Wow, I hadn't seen Honest Jeb's design before. We're both working the same way Best, -Slashy
  15. GoSlash27
    By all means, but you won't be able to. The first stage is solid propellant http://wikisend.com/download/380030/cheep38.craft Best, -Slashy
  16. GoSlash27
    Well... to be fair turbopumps are incredibly light and powerful assemblies, so you can't really compare them to fire engine pumpers. But yeah... I picture all the complex flows and pressures, remember that oxidizer requires a parallel circuit, and all the connections have to positively seal under pressure when preceding stages are jettisoned... Getting that to work would be a daunting task. Getting it to work reliably would be a nightmare!
  17. GoSlash27
    Hcube, I'm sure there'd be ways to counter it if it existed, but the puzzle is whether or not it would exist in the first place. My thinking is that it would not. I think it would be like an Archimedes steam engine with the exhausts turned perpendicular to the plane of rotation. It doesn't really matter that the fuel is piped around in a half- circle before being used. But I don't know that... Best, -Slashy
  18. GoSlash27
    Oh, I forgot to address this... I have my spreadsheet set up this way: It's absolutely indispensable! No mucking about in the VAB trying to guess which combination of fuel and engines will get me my DV and t/w. No guesswork about which engine is best. I just key in the mission specs and it tells me exactly what to build. Virtually all of my rockets come from this spreadsheet. Best, -Slashy
  19. GoSlash27
    ^ There is much Epic here.
  20. GoSlash27
    tater, Well... yes and no. You are absolutely correct that contracts are unnecessary in early career, *but* there does come a point in mid- career when you will need loads of cash to expand your facilities and rewards will no longer make ends meet. Contracts become important in this stage, and they're actually pretty good by this point (provided you read the fine print). Which brings us back to the original point: Early contracts suck. The best way to deal with them is to just ignore them and press on because you don't need to do contracts at this stage. Once they actually become necessary, they are much better. Happy New Year! -Slashy
  21. GoSlash27
    NeoMorph, I'm still playing it because I'm still learning from it. KSP is very educational! -Slashy
  22. GoSlash27
    Oops! Sorry! -Slashy
  23. GoSlash27
    temetvince, There are no circumstances where an LV-T45 will approach the vacuum efficiency of an LV-909. We wouldn't rate them by DV, since that's a design consideration for the stage itself. A better way to compare them would be payload fraction at a desired DV. As a case approaching the extreme, let's say we want a 2km/sec DV and .5 thrust to weight. This is about the point where the LV-N becomes preferable to both. The LV-909 can handle 5.5t of payload and the whole stage would weigh 12.7t (43% payload) The LV-T45 can handle 17t of payload and the whole stage would weigh 41.7t (41% payload) Looking at the cost, the LV-909 assembly would cost $2,190 ($398/tonne) , while the LV-T45 assembly would cost $7,500 ($441/tonne) Happy New Year!, -Slashy
  24. GoSlash27
    All, I made a new thread regarding "asparagus torque" over in the Science forum. It's a mind- bender and I'm curious about the answer... Best, -Slashy
  25. GoSlash27
    So there's a disagreement on the forums about whether the piping of rocket fuel in a circular direction before use would cause rotation in the launch stack. 1 side says the cumulative mass of fuel piped in a circular fashion before being expelled would cause an equal and opposite reaction in the launcher. The other says that the only source of torque would be from the initial acceleration of fuel, but since it decelerates on the other side of the pipe, there is no net torque. What do you think? Weigh in here. Best, -Slashy
×
×
  • Create New...