Jump to content

Sky_walker

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,458

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Sky_walker

  1. Sky_walker
    Or the other way around - rockets will be a backup to the chutes. If their landing sequence will include suicide burn then parachutes won't help you if engines are going to fail / won't ignite. To make any use of parachutes in case of engine failure - they would have to either make two burns or one long throttled burn (eg. max-long minimum-max-touchdown with parachutes working as a failsafe in first maximum and minimum throttle burn).
  2. Sky_walker
    Technically it's not all-solid as a small upper stage would still be propelled by LOX / LH2. But yea, you got it. That's why the new design might appeal to everyone - Heavy variant it retains 4 SRBs just like PPH had, while at the same time having a liquid core, heavy lift capacity and being significantly cheaper than Ariane 5 with an option to "downgrade" it into cheaper medium variant (possibly also opening the gates for future reusability which DLR wanted, though that's more likely to be implemented in Ariane 7 than as an upgrade for 6).
  3. Sky_walker
    It's wrong on a few accounts. Most importantly - the light variant won't be 6.2 as it's going to use Vinci instead of Aestus (look up first post in a topic). And secondly - Germans took part in this meeting and they were one of the driving motors for departure from Ariane 6 PPH. Unlike article suggest - Germans do want Ariane 6, they don't want Ariane 6 based on solid rockets (aka. PPH variant). They want to support Ariane 5 ME because of what it offers - both in terms of lifting capacity and benefits to the industry - not because "it's Ariane 5" or "politics" as article seems to imply. Ariane 5 ME had one advantage - it could be made available within years, quicker than Ariane 6 would, and fulfil the gap that Ariane 6 PPH would have created - heavy launch vehicle. But with PPH discarded - there would be no need for ME.
  4. Sky_walker
    It's not just Atlas - it's a fairly common configuration used all around the world. And besides - it was expected that a rocket with liquid core would be accepted for Ariane 6. Too large portion of the European industry is based on liquid engines to ignore it for a whole generation of rockets. There's already Vega based solely on SRBs so Ariane 6 PPH would make sense only if Ariane 5 ME would be implemented - but because it's more expensive setup - cheaper Liquid+SRBs rocket makes sense. Having whole industry running SRBs isn't going to happen also for the reasons of economy - it'd mean that the upper stage of Ariane 6 would be horribly expensive due to low volumes of industrial output. It's also not future-proof. With core based around liquid engines you have much easier path towards future upgrades including reusability. It's both economy and politics. Looking just at the 2020 Ariane 6 PPH would be cheaper, but looking beyond that - it allows Europe to have a healthy industry both: in liquid engines and solid rocket engines what in a long terms means cheaper development, cheaper upgrades, larger production volumes, and keeping the heavy launch vehicle in Europe - what wouldn't be possible with CNES proposition.
  5. Sky_walker
    You made a topic about Ariane 5 being phased out, I made a topic about Ariane 6 coming in Also: no paywalls and some numbers along with comparisons in.
  6. Sky_walker
    BTW guys, you know if anyone reported a bug with the Klaw causing enormous frame rate drops? I don't have the account on bugtracker thing, nor even know where it is. I recall someone posting a topic about that though can't find it now and don't know how it ended. (yesterday I build spacecraft with 5 Advanced Grabbing Units - all the sudden got 12 FPS even though my ship was just 4 boosters, core, docking port and said Klaws with probodynes mounted on separatrons).
  7. Sky_walker
    Competition was to know what you're doing and complete the milestones, only company that achieved that in 100% was Boeing. That's the brutal truth about this whole thing. And SpaceX is Soyuz capsule made with modern technologies. I already mentioned that Dragon V2 has a capacity of landing with parachutes. The approach Boeing chose is perfectly fine. What dragon offers has virtually no practical advantage over the system picked by Boeing. As Kryten already pointed out - failures of parachutes in capsules basically never happen. (Though I will laugh so hard if they'll make a PR stunt and purposely "fail" to deploy the chute "rescuing" the pod with rockets just to show how their design is awesome and safe while implying that Boeing's isn't)
  8. Sky_walker
    ESA, CNES, DLR and industry representatives had a meeting yesterday setting up plans for Ariane 6. Till now 2 propositions where on a table: ESA-CNES Ariane 6 PPH - first stage with 3 solid rocket motors, second stage with a single solid rocket, and 3rd liquid stage with Vinci engine - offering 6.5 tonnes to GTO. Airbus and Safran proposed 2 concurrent launch vehicles. More powerful Ariane 6.1 with 2 SRBs, Vulcain 2 main stage and Vinci upper stage lifting 8.5 tonnes to GTO, and less powerful but cheaper Ariane 6.2 identical to 6.1 with exception of the upper stage powered by Aestus hypergolic engine. New proposition that emerged after the latest meetings includes two launch vehicles: One with 4 SRBs capable of lifting up to 11 tonnes to GTO (Ariane 5 ECA can lift 10.5 t to GTO) with single and dual-launch capability. Second one will be a lighter version with two engines (two SRBs? Sorry, I don't speak French) dedicated for single launches of large satellites and government contracts. Sadly I couldn't find any more info on the differences between each version. Cost of the large variant is estimated to be ~85 million Euro, only 60% of Ariane 5 ECA, while lighter version would cost ~65 million. Final decision of the configuration and allocation of the founds wil be done on a ministerial-level meeting in December. First launch is expected no later than the end of 2020. http://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-services/air-defense/0203783235566-espace-la-convergence-se-dessine-autour-dariane-6-1043847.php http://www.wradio.com.co/noticias/economia/arianespace-apuesta-por-ariane6-en-2020-antes-que-por-ariane5-modernizado/20140917/nota/2419621.aspx
  9. Sky_walker
    Damn you! I was just about to post that! hahahahaha
  10. Sky_walker
    I know. But none of them will change physics modelling.
  11. Sky_walker
    As I pointed out - it's very similar to the Soyuz. Dragon V2 itself, as in: capsule, is just a descend module with rockets and (in this case: optional) parachute. Additionally it has a service&orbital module (in this case unified into one called by SpaceX "trunk" so that crowds would hear something familiar) with solar panels and cargo space. True. But they can always use it to sell some additional flights - and if they would: prices can go down. -------------------------------------------- A nice image for those who think that Boeing lagged behind the competition:
  12. Sky_walker
    Comet tail isn't static. It's not "dragged by" a comet (at least: not in the same way planets are). Whatever comet tail is ahead or behind the comet doesn't have anything to deal with to what Brotoro said.
  13. Sky_walker
    Me either, but last time regex stepped forward with it - he was almost burned alive by "anti-realism" people. I'm not talking about guided introduction or tutorial. I'm talking about self-explanatory GUI. See related: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/93292-Realism-in-KSP-Various-Ideas-with-Pros-Cons/page6?p=1403400#post1403400 Now it's very easy to account - once you run the game all of the spacecrafts that you will build in it are going to work across the save games and across different users running stock KSP. With difficulty settings you can have ships that work on one save, but don't in another simply because of a different difficulty options. Also note that people who install mods already account for increased complexity. That's not the case for those who play stock.
  14. Sky_walker
    This would cause all sorts of problems. Just imagine the descriptions for ships: "Works only with force-field-based-atmosphere, non-realistic reentry, incorrect thrust calculations" I'd much rather prefer improvements to the GUI and developers finally starting to implement some features that explain game to the player, than having XX different game modes, most of which make ships incompatible with each other. Though yes: It's much better to have increased realism as an option in the stock game than not having it at all. Still though IMHO the major problems are not based on merit but rather habits of the old players and how very much they're afraid of change. Just look at most of this discussion - well over 2/3 of "cons" that people list for various elements related to the realism were already proved by mods not to be truth. They're just imaginary fears of some players. Nothing more.
  15. Sky_walker
    Isn't it something like 0.1m3? Or you're talking about the one-way trunk which won't offer any access to the bay through spacecraft itself and has no ability of returning back to earth? As said - all of them offer something, in general: capability of brining down pressurized cargo is by far more useful than the unpressurised one, but as far as I remember - NASA didn't ask for a cargo bay. Who?
  16. Sky_walker
    Few facts: 1) Every single competitor had an escape system. So don't think of it as an advantage for Dragon 2. It's not. Even stupid cheap Soyuz got escape system. Escape system is nothing you should praise as something new/great/unique - it's necessity. 2) Powered landing is more dangerous than landing on a parachutes. Parachutes are not "pop and pray" - powered landing is. 3) Saying that CST-100 has no innovation is complete BS. I understand the hype on SpaceX, I know that SpaceX won the lobbying and PR war, but don't get blinded people. It's not /r/spacex here.
  17. Sky_walker
    Check again. Dream Chaser is able to carry small payload just fine. One of it's advantages over Dragon 2 is that it's able to carry pressurized cargo from the ISS in a low-G environment unlike Dragon which pulls notably higher Gs on reentry. Though as Kryten mentioned - it won't/wouldn't have a dedicated payload bay.
  18. Sky_walker
    I put my jeb into the lab on my space station. Bang, problem solved. Never seen him again.
  19. Sky_walker
    AFAIK 3 modellers are Hugo who left his internship and other 2 modellers who stayed.
  20. Sky_walker
    Boeing was the only company in CCiCap to meet all of the milestones in time and within budget. If it ever is running. And that's a huge if.
  21. Sky_walker
    Reporters want a catchy headline for tomorrow news. That's more than clear.
  22. Sky_walker
    That question from one of the journalists: "Is it that Boeing is so much more expensive, or SpaceX is so much cheaper?"
  23. Sky_walker
    As I said earlier on - many have tried to build a space shuttle and most of them failed. I know it's understandable that they skipped it, but still a shame. SNC was on a good path. Why not? In essence it's a modern-day Soyuz Descent Module.
  24. Sky_walker
    Hehe, you grossly underestimate SpaceX lobbying. Though it's understandable - most of the press is very much for SpaceX so the lobbying that Boeing does was "evil" and everyone focused on bashing Boeing for that while the largest campaign went very much unnoticed by media.
  25. Sky_walker
    Only in supporting the spacecraft. Not funding it themselves. For me it's the most disappointing result of all possible, though TBH: I'm not surprised. SNC didn't have the lobbying power that SpaceX and Boeing do, so even if their design could be most profitable in a long term - money and conservative approach won once again. Boeing met all of the goals on time and within budgets. It doesn't matter what "public" can see. Well, unlucky you, I guess, cause that's exactly what happened.
×
×
  • Create New...