qzgy

Came back from Maryland, near the Chesapeake, yesterday. Don't like the weather, even though it was nice and sunny. 95 F (yes, I'm using the dreaded imperial system) with 60-something percent humidity. Therefore, feeling like 115 F as in the helpfully provided chart. Terrible when you are walking at least like 2 miles per day, maybe more. The humidity was the killing thing. Sweating doesn't work to cool yourself off. Give me extreme cold any day, prefer it more.

Unfortunately, I am travelling and cannot post till Saturday. Sorry

Looks real neat. But whatever you use it on will be a monstrosity.

Eve. Eve, while a neat challenge, is annoying.

Which itself is quite dangerous. But less so than LOX. Also less annoying to work with.

Do that.... I wanna see it.

Did you know that the devs actually got the code with sacrifices to the kraken? Each part cost 24 cookies. Outrageous!

Nice. The amount of boosters seems excessive. Also you could probably improve your launch profile to a more flatter-ish launch style, to save dV.

Git hub is probably nicer. Pastebin is a copy and paste site.

Pastebin?

I'd like to see the rest of it! Also, considering it was in a fairing, why have used a normal mk1 command pod? Weighs less (i think) -> more dV. Also maybe easier to set up a ladder for it. Boosters. Lots and lots of boosters.

I've got this neat little vector based SSTO that can probably do a grand tour lite (grand tour minus eve landing and return). That might be useful, except a bit high in the tech tree. But for larger, more interplanetary missions, high ISP and delta-v numbers are very nice, actually almost essential. Depending on where you need to go and when, that kinda dictates the size. Almost always, for high efficiency missions, you have to sacrifice TWR. Doesn't necessarily mean bigger, but bigger is always more impressive. A couple of 2.5m parts will probably do for most places. Maybe a neat idea would to be a couple Jool fly-bys and return. You can capture into joolian orbit using Tylo very easily, and set-up some maneuvers to hop in and out of SOIs before falling back to kerbin. Not sure of the delta-v budget though. 4000 to 5000 m/s of dV might work to go there and back, and hit up some nice science. You could also, as others mentioned, carry a couple of piggy-back probes/impactors to crash land and send some science back.

At the moment, are we going to assume we have infinitely variable throttle control? I'm a bit unsure...

Wonder if you would make a "Bigger Khleb", by extending it for a crew cabin or something.

I tried. Didn't go well.

I wonder if its possible to make a variation on the airbrake, and instead use a lifting surface. Should have the same effect, but 1) would increase drag and 2) possibly cause it to become unstable. HYDRA as a name works. I'm okay with it, but was thinking of proposing JEB (Joint Experimental Burn). Doesn't really make sense, but eh.

Yup. Though in 1.2.2.

Ooh a new thing to do.

I think what he means is that the RCS thruster is placed to aim into a tube of some sort and used to push it away instead of a normal seperation motor. What I don't understand is why not use a tiny-ish hobby motor (like C or D size) as a separation motor.

Short and simple. Neat. I really want to get Whack-a-kerbal/Object thrower and bowl those kerbals down, it looks like a bowling setup. Almost.

Not to annoy you, but you do already know that the thread has a plan right? Its right above you. Solid fuel was ruled out since making really perfect castings to actually go orbital is probably out of the realm of amateur rocketry. Restartability is very hard to do reliably, so most of our stages are unlikely to be restarted, only throttled down. LOX is annoying, hard to get, hard to work with, and all that other fun stuff. Questions - Can you give numbers on any of these specifics? - How are you controlling it? In our current design, we are using the HTP, the oxidizer, also for an RCS system. - I would also say that pure LF engines are quite hard to make work right. Can you or have you come up with a successful and reliable design? You, to me, have just said "I need money, it might work". I am very skeptical at the moment, not least because of "This is because at this stage we should be higher in the atmosphere where we can no longer rely on the air around the vehicle to provide oxygen for ignition, and would allow for thrust control, but it restartability for the engine," I hope you do realize that rocket engines, by definition, have oxidizer, so I'm not sure where you are getting the notion that the atmosphere provides oxygen in any rocket system, whether solid or liquid or even hybrid. I would, in the case of not totally knowing the numbers, put it a bit too high and aim for that. Better to have excess rather than to little. So maybe a better number to just put conservatively high is 650 m/s. That, I realize, is quite a decent amount, but if we have that amount and we lose less than expected, we still make it.

Fiddled with a large passenger SSTO, before fiddling with smaller gliders (yesterday) Health and safety were not amused by the low building passes.

On a better note, who needs 5 liter milk bottles?. Oh wait. I live in the US with the stupid imperial system. 5 liters is a bit larger than 1 gallon (3.78L). Size kinda makes more sense. Wish we would switch over.

In the style of the gardening thread, this is a place to perhaps discuss any carpentry work you have done, are doing, or plan on doing, and maybe to share pictures, tips, tricks, planning advice, good tools, or anything else kind of related. Currently, my father and I (who are by no means master craftsmen) are working on building a scaled down giethoorne punter, a type of dutch sailing ship. So far, 6 of the 8 ribs have been built. I'll try to post pics later.

maybe.... What's the full title?