Jump to content

GoSlash27

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    5,797

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by GoSlash27

  1. GoSlash27
    Sgt Flyer, I haven't run the numbers myself, but yeah. This is why I disagree with the tweet calling it a "full mission success". They were fortunate to have this happen with payloads that have sufficient DV to correct it. I imagine finding the cause will be a bear. Best, -Slashy
  2. GoSlash27
    Unfortunately, the lifter did not successfully complete the mission. It placed the sats in the wrong orbit and now they'll have to expend more DV to correct it, which will shorten their operational life. I hope they find the source of this problem and get it corrected quickly. Best, -Slashy
  3. GoSlash27
    Yeah, I absolutely reject this notion. This launch may end up being just fine, and I certainly hope it is... but losing telemetry during most of the evolutions is *definitely* a big deal. Best, -Slashy
  4. GoSlash27
    YNM, Well... he wants his name in the record books, and even homemade steam rockets aren't free. It requires sponsors, and he's got to do whatever it takes to keep the money flowing. As I said earlier, I bear him no ill- will and truly hope he has a safe flight. Best, -Slashy
  5. GoSlash27
    Outstanding news -Slashy
  6. GoSlash27
    dvader, Absolutely. Bonus cave cred since you wrote them yourself. Using mods in another install to develop launchers, OTOH, is strictly forbidden. If you know your Ap and Pe, you can calculate your orbital period http://www.braeunig.us/space/orbmech.htm Best, -Slashy
  7. GoSlash27
    sevenperforce, Not necessarily. Previous challenges focused on different mission modes, but there's no reason why the challenge can't have separate leaderboards. One for SSTOs, another for partially recoverable, another for disposable, etc. Even though SSTO space planes are clearly the cheapest way to orbit payload, there's still a lot of advantage to developing cheap disposable and partially- recoverable lifters. The down side (at least as I see it) is that all of these challenges have been done before. Best, -Slashy
  8. GoSlash27
    That is far from official. I hope it's correct. Best, -Slashy
  9. GoSlash27
    Well, #1 it never came back and #2 ArianeSpace confirmed that they lost telemetry when we did. It is common to temporarily lose telemetry when switching tracking stations, but it is not common to never reestablish it. Also, contact was lost in the middle of Natal's hunting patch, not the edge. Best, -Slashy
  10. GoSlash27
    You can see at 23:28 when the telemetry dropped out. The yellow X and yellow telemetry line in the upper right hand corner disappear, and the flight data at the bottom disappears. Any "confirmations" beyond this point are invalid. Best, -Slashy
  11. GoSlash27
    Yeah, he said that. He "confirmed" a bunch of steps in the flight, but throughout all of that stuff, the telemetry data at the bottom of the screen was blank. Best, -Slashy
  12. GoSlash27
    sh1pman, I think he was just following the flight plan animation. There was no telemetry at the time, so the vehicle wouldn't have been able to confirm that. Basically, we can't assume anything from beyond the moment telemetry dropped out. Best, -Slashy
  13. GoSlash27
    Canopus, That's my understanding; Ariane does all of these things automatically. But if S2 never actually ignited or there was a failure that took out the computer, then who knows? This is an anomaly if not an outright failure, so there will have to be an investigation and resolution. This could slip JWST's launch. Best, -Slashy
  14. GoSlash27
    Possible failure? There was no telemetry after S1 Sep and still waiting for confirmation of Yahsat sep. Ouch. Looks like they lost contact moments after S2 ignition and now they're looking for the sats, trying to figure out if they made it or reentered. Potentially the first Ariane failure since 2004, I believe.
  15. GoSlash27
    Det cord as a breaching charge. Best, -Slashy
  16. GoSlash27
    Aiden.J, No worries, it's your challenge. The way we've done it in the past is like this: (Launch cost-payload cost-recovered parts)/ payload mass delivered in orbit. "Payload" is defined as a completely inert mass, unable to provide assistance in its own delivery. It provides no fuel*, thrust, RW torque, electricity, or guidance. *For fuel delivery to orbit, we would have to demonstrate docking and delivery, then divide the cost by the fuel mass delivered. HTHs, -Slashy
  17. GoSlash27
    What 5th Horseman said. No mods are permitted in Caveman that alter gameplay in any fashion. Mods that don't alter the info that you are given or the parts you have to work with are fine, but definitely not part packs, KER/ MechJeb, etc. You *definitely* can't have something in place that reports back your DV and T/W as you're building. That's too easy. The entire point of the Caveman Challenge is to get the job done with limited facilities/ parts and absolutely no help. In the case of Minimal Minmus' entry, I would've disqualified it outright. If I'm polled as a clan member on it, I vote to disqualify. Sorry, @MinimalMinmus Sincerely, -The original caveman Martian Emigrant, Back when I was running this challenge, I would've definitely preferred that the challenge be run on an unmodified install as per above. I have (grudgingly) permitted entries where MJ was installed but not used with the concurrence of the rest of the clan, but I'm not administering the challenge anymore. Best, -Slashy
  18. GoSlash27
    That clearly makes the most sense. SRBs are both cheap and heavy. We've had several iterations of challenges in the past for cost per tonne of payload to orbit. Disposables, recoverables, and SSTOs. Not actually difficult to sort it out. Just wondering where the challenge is if scoring is done this way, and what point there is to it (if any). Best, -Slashy
  19. GoSlash27
    Aiden.J, Wait... so the scoring is by how much the rocket weighs on the pad, not the payload it puts in orbit? Best, -Slashy
  20. GoSlash27
    I have no problem with this Best, -Slashy
  21. GoSlash27
    Was gonna say... No way was that 12 seconds. Best, -Slashy
  22. GoSlash27
    mikegarrison, "Space" costs a lot more than "Aeronautics". I don't know this for certain, but I suspect NASA spends a lot more man hours conducting aeronautical research than space research. Best, -Slashy
  23. GoSlash27
    ^ This, and I want to stress that anything that does not look like this is not a Hohmann transfer. If this is what the OP is considering, then we can establish a calculable upper bound for the DV required. If it's not, then there is no upper bound. Best, -Slashy
  24. GoSlash27
    Oh, I don't think it's that boring. I get through the KSC science pretty quickly, and it's a busy process. What's boring is the long flights to collect science from distant Kerbin biomes like the Badlands and poles. I go after them early- on as well, because their meager science is only helpful in the early stages of the game and it takes less in- game time to acquire than going to the Mun. Also, I know that if I don't collect the science from far-away biomes on Kerbin early, I will have zero incentive to collect it later. Best, -Slashy
  25. GoSlash27
    W00t! Also keep in mind that his intention isn't to prove the Earth is flat on this flight. It's just to 1) make a new record, and 2) raise awareness and funding for future flights which will fly higher and faster. Or a publicity stunt if you prefer that wording. While I don't agree with his world view, I do sincerely hope that he has a safe and successful flight. Best, -Slashy
×
×
  • Create New...