Jump to content

sh1pman

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,460

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by sh1pman

  1. sh1pman
    You're completely wrong. And here's why. Falcon 9 B5 has a TWR of around 1.46 at liftoff. Total launch mass + max payload of 23t give ~565t wet mass (stage 1 - 424t, stage 2 - 116t, payload - 23t, fairing - 2t). Now, let's shave 15% from the stage 1 wet mass. That would be 360t for stage 1, or 500t for the entire rocket. 7 Merlins produce 591t of thrust at sea level. Giving you a pathetic TWR of 1.18 at launch. It will barely ascend. Gravity losses will be huge. In fact, in order to maintain the same TWR of 1.46 you will need... 8.6 Merlin engines! Meaning that you'll still need all 9 of them if you want to go to space.
  2. sh1pman
    In the early days they didn't have reusable rockets.
  3. sh1pman
    Now you're stealing talking points from Rogozin.
  4. sh1pman
    What possible explanation can you give why SpaceX is reusing their boosters if not for money? They love their rockets so much they can’t let them go? For good feels, pride and accomplishment? To trick their competitors into doing reuse too and losing money on it?
  5. sh1pman
    Heavier, Merlins? lol. They have godlike thrust to weight and thrust to cost ratios. They are VERY light. Everyday Astronaut did a video with numbers about different engines, but in short, Merlins mass is definitely not a problem. About extra fuel I said already. It’s about 10-15% of fuel reserved for braking and landing. Not an issue in 90% of actual real launches. I don’t understand this. What do you think is cheaper? One 747 flight but paid for entirely by one person, or a small but expendable private jet Cessna that you throw away after the first flight? You didn’t address my argument at all, please do
  6. sh1pman
    @kerbiloid and nothing beats the simple argument: if it wasn’t profitable, they wouldn’t be doing it. They’re business after all, not a charity, not a roscosmos. Keeping two drone ships, a huge recovery fleet, investing god knows how much into reusability R&D and Falcon upgrades. I imagine it all costs quite a bit. So the fact that they’re doing it, and haven’t gone broke yet, suggests that their math works.
  7. sh1pman
    Ok, next point: legs and fins. They’re not that heavy. They add around 2 tons total to the first stage. Which is 425t full, 22t empty. I checked the payload penalty in my rocket calculator, and it’s really unnoticeable. Requires more fuel: what it means is that Falcon 9 expendable can launch 8ish tons to GTO, and around 6 with far droneship landing. BUT! There’s very few satellites heavier than 6 tons that need to go to GTO. Most of the time they’re much lighter. And if it’s not GTO but LEO or SSO, then reusable F9 can launch practically anything that can fit into its fairing. 15t reusable payload limit to LEO, there’s no sat even remotely as heavy in existence.
  8. sh1pman
    Falcon 9 second stage dry mass is 1/5 of that of a first stage. It also has nine times fewer engines. Should be around ~15% of the total rocket cost. Expending a second stage every time is not a major hit really.
  9. sh1pman
    That's the fun part! Or grief each other's space centers. Like sending an ICBM to their VAB! KSP2 MUST have anarchy servers!
  10. sh1pman
    NET 2028 currently. It'll take so long because it first needs a flying Souyz-5 (they become the boosters), and a heavy Angara-A5V (Yenisei uses Angara's hydrogen upper stage). Oh, and they haven't even started building a launch pad for it.
  11. sh1pman
    The big one. (Still not the biggest, though)
  12. sh1pman
    I have no idea how that happened, the first post must've been deleted somehow. I can edit the post and copypaste the actual announcement there. Come to think of it, moderators can edit my post as well.
  13. sh1pman
    Life support can be on a different game mode. Survival mode or something. E.g. if you want to timewarp through interstellar travel time, make sure all of your active colonies produce enough food to keep them running. Otherwise they’ll starve.
  14. sh1pman
    Dunno, maybe he’d ask his boss for some more cash? I mean, there are so many opportunities, like increasing VAT to 25%, retirement age to 90, freezing pensions... oh wait, that last one is done already
  15. sh1pman
    Somehow I became the OP of this thread. Weird but ok
  16. sh1pman
    I wouldn't be that surprised tbh
  17. sh1pman
    But not the entire industry. CD Projekt Red doesn’t give a [snip] about how greedy the majority of gaming industry has become. They just don’t add any monetization to full price games and even make fun of those who do. I want KSP2 to be like that. But there’s little chance...
  18. sh1pman
    Publisher, not the devs. Devs usually don’t get a say in this.
  19. sh1pman
    Terrible excuse, it makes the devs want to lock all the good stuff behind a paywall.
  20. sh1pman
    If KSP2 was free to play, then I wouldn’t care. Paid skins in a $60 game? Not okay. Greedy. Didn’t like it in Borderlands 2, will hate it in KSP2. Ye, Randy kinda [snip] himself over this. Buy extra fuel for your rocket for just $9,99 $4.99! Best price!
  21. sh1pman
    Of course you are wrong. Look at Borderlands 2, for example (also Take-Two btw). It sells character skins for real money on its Steam store page. Need a link?
  22. sh1pman
    Yep. “No in-game currency” does not mean “no in-game purchases”. The fact that they don’t want to openly state if there are or aren’t microtransactions in KSP2 makes me worry. This is Take-Two after all.
  23. sh1pman
    ...Wow. P.S. The actual announcement of KSP2 is 4 posts below.
  24. sh1pman
    The problem here is that it might not be their decision to make.
  25. sh1pman
    That’s a bigass nuke torpedo. Whoever designed it must’ve taken the inspiration from warhammer 40k.
×
×
  • Create New...