-
Posts
5,483 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Everything posted by Bill Phil
-
What even is this thread?
-
What is your most facepalm-worthy moment regarding KSP?
Bill Phil replied to MaverickSawyer's topic in KSP1 Discussion
Once I had to return Jeb from the Mun. He got stuck in kerbin orbit with no jetpack fuel... that rescue was hair-splitting... -
We were also supposed to land on the Moon in 1967 (originally, maybe even earlier) and be in orbit of Jupiter by 2001... Apollo technology could not do a Mars mission. New tech would've been required, but that could've been developed. Mars missions were expected by the late 70s or early 80s if everything went to plan.
-
Have you ever done something really cool completely by accident?
Bill Phil replied to severedsolo's topic in KSP1 Discussion
Launched an SSTO not too long ago. Turned out it could go to Minmus, so I took it there. -
It only required an extra 900 m/s, far from requiring 2 to 3 times the fuel. Maybe 12% to 15% more propellant with an NTR, but the design called for a margin with over 900 m/s regardless. Reducing the time is significant. Less complex/expensive life support is required. Less exposure to the reactor and less exposure to radiation in space. Less isolation for lunar bases and the like, only a day away from Earth. Less problems with boiloff. Certainly advantageous. Chemical rockets would be hard pressed to come close. This also wasn't intended as a stunt, but was proposed for general use. Time is the enemy in space, once everything else has been sorted out.
-
And even then it would take centuries with a realistic amount of engines. They do it in half a generation. Sorry, but no. Ceres is not a spaceship, it's far larger. And also, that fusion drive has some problems of its own...
-
Anyone know what happened to Nassault's "Voyager?"
Bill Phil replied to Combatsmithen's topic in The Lounge
That is really strange. I looked earlier and it was not there... -
And notice how many problems that's caused? The happier they are the less likely they will be to try and revolt. Bread and circuses. Not only that but the sheer cost of spinning up Ceres is just plain ridiculous.
-
Bad science in fiction Hall of Shame
Bill Phil replied to peadar1987's topic in Science & Spaceflight
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poly(methyl_methacrylate) Used in submersibles from what I can find. -
So like a procedural video? Cool.
-
Bad science in fiction Hall of Shame
Bill Phil replied to peadar1987's topic in Science & Spaceflight
If I recall, there is a transparent material that increases strength when under pressure. Probably wouldn't help against big sharks, though. -
That was the plan. But it never got executed. It was viewed as dependent on the Shuttle program, which didn't live up to expectations, and it was shelved until the Shuttle could support it, which it could never do. You'd need a true super heavy lifter to take full advantage of NTRs (if you can't get high flight rates, that is) and that seems to be on the horizon.
-
How do I calculate Delta-V INCLUDING DRAG
Bill Phil replied to Cheif Operations Director's topic in Science & Spaceflight
Air drag is usually a very small loss, while gravity drag is far worse. Air drag is a function of air density, velocity, reference area, and coefficient of drag. Two of those depend on the rocket's shape, and one is a function of time and the other a function of altitude. It can be done, and is, but there are a lot of variables involved. Just give yourself a good margin. -
They're heavy, although they do provide high isp. It depends on size of payload and total delta V. There are many circumstances where a nuclear engine is preferred and where a chemical engine performs better. As for why not... well, NERVA was almost flight ready by the time it was cancelled. Probably something to do with commitment and money.
-
Anyone know what happened to Nassault's "Voyager?"
Bill Phil replied to Combatsmithen's topic in The Lounge
That's not good. Voyager was great... -
We may have found another 'Oumuamua.....
Bill Phil replied to _Augustus_'s topic in Science & Spaceflight
Interesting. Jupiter may have messed with it, but it is possible that it's not from this system... Can't argue with a name like that. -
Rocket assisted landing, anyone? Duna is a bad place to practice for Laythe. Kerbin works much better.
-
Say Hello to The Rep Grand Group! [07/19/16 UPDATE!]
Bill Phil replied to Endersmens's topic in Kerbal Network
Whoa. Nearing 2K now...- 929 replies
-
- 1
-
- lightgreengroup
- reputation
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
That's what I said. The SRBs were essentially failing but they were not below their certified temperature range before launch. Even so, the SRBs were failing all the same. It just so happened to not be a mission LOCV failure until Challenger. The cold exacerbated an already existing issue.
-
totm march 2020 So what song is stuck in your head today?
Bill Phil replied to SmileyTRex's topic in The Lounge
Oh. You mean this song: It's in so many trailers.... -
The 5-segment SRBs SLS will use are not the Shuttle SRBs with an extra segment. They look similar, sure, but they are not. They've been redesigned. They're not the same at all. Completely different, save for propellant used. So long as the LES can pull the capsule away far and fast enough there's not too big of an issue. The problem with Shuttle was being next to the stack. If the SRBs prove to be an issue during a launch they'll abort and the crew should be pulled away safely. The boosters showed problems before the first launch, but they used them anyways. Before the Challenger disaster, the SRBs were essentially failing in the exact same way, with the only difference being them not below their certified temperature range before launch, and thus the mission was able to continue unimpeded. This happened 7 times out of 9 launches in 1985. If they had been affected in the same way in one of those launches, the disaster could've happened earlier in the program, potentially as early as STS-2. Thankfully that design problem was eventually addressed, but had that disaster not occurred, imagine the same failure during one of the "death star" missions. Hydrolox in the cargo bay. And that was scheduled for the same year as STS-51-L. No matter what, spaceflight must be handled responsibly. Design compromises can easily lead to failures that can cause deaths.
-
From what I can find, jet fuel (not sure which particular fuel...) and RP-1 can be refined in the same refineries. What really drives up price is the high quality input stock that comes from a small number of oil fields, and of course the small market.