EladDv
-
Posts
747 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by EladDv
-
-
@BahamutoD have you been able to fix that weird bug with guards not doing so well in anti-missile missile interception while on the ground?
-
ahhh i remember the old nostalgia threads...those were the days
-
i agree- it'd make it much more realistic and easier to control with new aero
-
can you make the lava overheat vessels on touch?(or just emit heat)
-
16 minutes ago, Exoscientist said:
I hadn't hear that about the left over fuel. Do you have a source? Considering that the fuel load of the upgraded F9 is ca. 400 metric tons that would be about 60 metric tons "left over". That must mean the total fuel that must be kept on reserved for the RTLS, not the amount remaining after landing.
Bob Clark
i dont have a source for that, i saw that on the forum, but take into account that the landing reduces payload capacity by 20-40% and you can see figures around the 1/7-1/10 of the fuel left for the landing. right now it's just estimations nothing concrete but a falcon sure dosnt land empty and seeing how the rocket landed on the barge last time you can see the engine firing and the rocket not going upwards for about a second or so (engine response times are much smaller) from that you can deduce that the merlin is capable of making an almost landed falcon hover for at least a few seconds.
7 minutes ago, Exoscientist said:Got some real SpaceX fans here, as am I. Getting back a booster that sent a payload to orbit is a more significant accomplishment than just doing it for one that sent a payload to suborbital space. But still getting back the booster is a significant accomplishment even for the suborbital case.
Likewise relaunching a booster that sent a payload to orbit is a more significant accomplishment than doing it for one that just sent a payload to suborbital space. But still doing it for the suborbital case is a significant accomplishment.
Trumpeting SpaceX's successes doesn't mean you can't trumpet other space companies successes. We need more companies involved in commercial space, certainly not just one.
Bob Clark
i agree but when people say stuff like "BO beat SpaceX" i correct them, and when they say stuff like "the falcon 9 cant hover" i try to find whether it can and bring that to their knowledge, i am all for BO to succeed in the space business but comparing new shepherd to the falcon family is like comparing an apple to the moon and we are not newton my friend.
-
6 minutes ago, Frozen_Heart said:
The min thrust of a single Merlin engine is greater than the weight of an almost empty Falcon 9 first stage. On the way down they can't hover to readjust at all.
of an empty one no, but falcons don't land without fuel, at the last stages they probably have enough mass so the merlin has low enough throttle to hover, it'd take about 1/20 of the launch fuel mass to be enough for the merlin to be able to go low enough to make it hover, and taking into account that musk said that the ratio of left over fuel was 1/7 of the launch fuel mass i'd say they can hover for at least a significant portion of the landing if they want to
-
Double.
-
4 minutes ago, Spaceception said:
Their idea for a pulsed Fusion drive would've been sustainable, unfortunately, they couldn't test it, so we don't know how well it'll work, but the concept seems sound.
i had an idea to throw bananas out of the ISS window but when they tried it all the bananas were sucked outside with the air, concepts aren't something that you can say "well i thought it would work" and launch an entire multi-trillion $ (if not more) program with, they couldnt even test the fusion tech how would they consider building this?
-
34 minutes ago, SargeRho said:
The Falcon 9 is several times as big, and can't hover.
Technically it can hover even at launch, the new merlin 1D+ engines are throttleable down to 55%. hovering isnt a big deal landing is much more demanding and the way spaceX does it makes it much harder with a lot more points of failure, i am also sure that the single merlin on the F9v1.2 can throttle deep enough to make it hover(it'd be way more risky to not have this capability, if you can you probably want to maintain speed at the last couple dozen meters) i just dont see why they'd want to do it.
-
15 minutes ago, fredinno said:
How is a surface engine able to be used as an upper stage? I'm pretty sure it would need mods, but Vulcan proposed it for use in ACES.
I am not a rocket scientist and especially not an engine expert but from what i understand every engine has the capabilities to be a booster and a vacuum engine it mostly depends on the expansion rate and bells the engine has- take a look at the merlin 1D Vac
-
50 minutes ago, Rune said:
Well, glad to be corrected in such a way. The Merlin gets more amazing with each year, 55% is a heck of a lot! I wonder if that's what's allowing them slower hoverslams in these last attempts, getting them closer to TRW 1 at landing.
Rune. The Raptor has a lot of reputation to live up to.
i guess so, you could probably calculate that up to a certain range at least. i'd guess they can do around 1 TWR since you can see they are coming in way slower now.
can't wait for the raptor mate...
-
11 minutes ago, War Eagle 1 said:
What time?
now
-
On 1/21/2016 at 7:58 PM, Rune said:
Merlin 1D is considered a very throttleable engine and it can only go to 70%
I think it's been revised to 55% with the 1D+ as opposed to the 70% of the 1D
Engine Merlin 1D Full Thrust Engine Type Gas Generator, Open-Cycle Propellant Feed Turbopump Merlin 1 D Thrust Sea Level: 756 kN – Vac: 825 kN Engine Diameter ~1.0 m Engine Dry Weight 470 kg Burn Time 162s Specific Impulse 282s (SL) 311s (Vac) (M1D Standard) Chamber Pressure >97 bar (M1D Standard) Expansion Ratio 16 Throttle Capability 55% to 100% from
-
26 minutes ago, KerbonautInTraining said:
Where?
I know it would be possible to get the fuel/engine setup pretty close to reality, but come to think of it I don't think it would be possible to make the landing system without mods.
well you could make the landing legs with some stock hinges the main problem really is that the rocket will be OP for stock KSP
-
1 hour ago, KerbonautInTraining said:
Slightly off topic: I just realized you can build a full scale Falcon 9 in stock KSP using a cluster of vectors.
not without some clipping
-
28 minutes ago, Tpyo said:
Haha, so I am completely brand new to this game, as in I started playing last night.
I was looking up this topic because ~ I just managed my third orbit, and I was attempting my first re-entry...
Upon attempting to re-enter the atmosphere I managed to get to roughly 65km and it's been holding for 30+ rotations. I was under the impression orbiting under 70~ wasn't supposed to happen, but here I am.
Bummer that re-entry was unsuccessful, cool that I accidentally managed a sub 70k orbit xDwell the air pressure and drag above 55km is very low so it wont really slow you down much, also if you use time warp from other crafts it will put all the crafts on rails which means physics stops being calculated for them and possibly you would be able to orbit at any height given enough speed (but then you might burn up at the atmo)
-
45 minutes ago, NecroBones said:
And aircraft grade aluminum!
aluminium* (that's the correct way you rebel americans!)
yeah tank butts should be procedural i would love make an accurate falcon 9 (at least to scale) but i can't because engines are either not strong enough at 0.625m or i can't fit them under the tank nicely (vector bell engines are huge and they are also way too strong) and 1.25m engines will fit without the butts.
but on the other end it would end the joke of "i like big butts and cannot lie" of getting big engines on small tanks and i'll miss it...
-
Soontm
Quote2.3 Forbidden messages-
Messages that contain no meaningful content, such as "like", “Bump" or any variation on the type of message that is used to needlessly boost threads and/or keep post counts up;
-
Messages made for the perceived purpose of stirring up and otherwise getting a rise from users (ie, flamebaiting, troll posts);
-
Messages that only contain images in response to a certain subject dependent to the context of the thread (ie. reaction images);
-
Messages that purposefully change the subject of conversation in a thread without a natural tie to the topic at hand; and
-
Messages that inquire about release dates for future versions of KSP.
-
-
yeah i have a few new laws-
The First law of Kraken Drives:
the probability of a kerbal to be killed on a craft that contains a kraken drives increases exponentially in proportion to the time since the mission has started and the time since the last kerbal was killed by the kraken, this took many experiments to confirm and sadly no one kerbal has survived to tell about their encounter with the kraken so far, may they rest in peace within the great void between dimensions.
Pk= 1-e-(Nk/(T+Tk))
Pk probably of a kerbal to be killed.
N is the number of kraken drives on his vessel.
T time since the start of the mission.
Tk time since the last kerbal was killed by the kraken.
The Second law of Kraken drives:
a special case of the first law for single drive on it's own, a Kraken drive that has been activated has a certain chance to fail on the next activation, the more times you activate it the more likely it is to fail,and this is also proportional to the acceleration that the drive produces and the time elapsed since the mission started. This case was developed by schrodinger kerman after many "thought" experiments he conducted which involved a kerbal and a kraken drive inside a box.
Pf =1-e -1/((N+1)/Ifr + (Ah *T))
where: Pf probably to fail.
N is the number of times the device was activated.
Ifr the intrinsic failure rate of the drives which has universally been confirmed to be [deprecated].
Ah acceleration in m/s2.
T time since the start of the mission.
The Third law of Kraken Drives:
if a drive is active while it's orbital speed drops below 800 it will destroy the vessel. This was observes after the first few kerbals to not go insane from the kraken or just plainly die were blown to bits after they tried to land back at kerbin, they accelerated from orbital speeds back down and then blew off the radar and since weren't recovered, rumors say their bodies are still out there near the kraken's lair to fend off intruders and curious kerbals.
Pd = { O*(Ah/|Ah|) *(800-|V-Ah |)*((800- V)/|800- V|)<0 Pd=1
{ Else Pd=0
Pd the failure probability.
V your current orbital speed.
Ah the acceleration in relation to the direction of your current orbital speed.
O a binary variable- if the drive is on then the value is 1, if not the value is 0.
Please note that |X| represents an absolute value of a variable
While the mathematical sentence looks very complex it's only to represent the data in the most accurate way, this can logically be broken down to a much simpler version as a chain of binary variables which correspond to different states.
-
3 hours ago, Frybert said:
I'm predicting a landing but it'll tip over. I'll be pleasantly surprised to be wrong, but I just don't think the barge landings are going to work as well as they are hoping.
actually it landed softly the only problem was a leg malfunction not a landing procedure malfunction, a hardware failure not connected to the barge landing and a cause that would have compromised any landing attempt even on land
2 minutes ago, Spaceception said:https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/688837706005131264
The pieces were bigger this time:D
You beat me to It!
as it says on my sig- i am here there and everywhere
-
sounds like they have nailed the landing, the leg not locking all the way was the cause for the landing failure, very promising
i dont want to say "mostly intact" but it is much better than i anticipated to go after a RUD
-
17 minutes ago, Rune said:
Any spanish speakers here? I just posted about this in my mother language somewhere else, and could use a copy-paste to save time...
Anyhow, basically, SNC has pulled a win I totally didn't expect, as evidenced by my earlier comments. US station resupply is going to look pretty cute, what with such different vehicles... a capsule, a disposable cargo carrier, and a winged vehicle! But that aside... yeah, Dream Chaser is going to launch on a 552, that puts launch costs alone in the region of three times what SpaceX charges for a full resupply flight, Dragon included (rounding to ~100 million for a COTS flight vs ~300 million for an Atlas 552 launch). And they bring up less payload than Dragon, never mind Orbital. So yeah, right off the bat, they can expect to be about four or even five times more expensive per kg of payload, and I don't know how that would go with the accountants, frankly. They must have a very tight business case and some special concessions from NASA.
I'm sure it does help a lot that they can put it on top of an Arianne and have us euros pay for our station time that way. The cost to launch is going to be very similar in that case, but I'm sure we would be very happy to pay for station time with what would effectively amount to launch industry subsidies. And I'm sure Woerner is very happy indeed right now, SNC did exactly what he asked them to.
Rune. Man, hauling wings to orbit is a hell of an inefficient thing, right?
well seeing as they have the advantage of a more gentle landing g load profile it might be enough to justify if agencies want to get gentle and fragile experiments down from the ISS, also the ability to land on any conventional airport is a good reason too if you have time sensitive experiments to check on
-
2 minutes ago, tater said:
I'm basing that on the tweet from Musk that said speed was OK, but it tipped over due to the leg not being locked. That's textual confirmation, right?
well it could have fell on impact and not after stabilization and that's much harder, the confirmation sounds good but it could have toppled even with an intact leg, i guess they'll need some more time to crunch the data before we get a clear cut answer
-
3 minutes ago, tater said:
No, I think it means it landed much like the land-landing last launch, but then one of the landing gear folded up.
both are plausible we'll have to see the landing footage to be sure (or verbal confirmation)
Work-in-Progress [WIP] Design Thread
in KSP1 The Spacecraft Exchange
Posted · Edited by EladDv
might want to take a look on this thread
26.2 g's . slap on some more legs and it will be capable of over 500kN of force (but with lower acceleration) like HERE (sorry no pics but it looks almost the same)
Oh and That post has some more info and good tables for these kinds of drives.