harrisjosh2711
-
Posts
881 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Everything posted by harrisjosh2711
-
The heights aren't right. I have files where I have fixed the height for everything besides the BFR I believe. I haven't fixed any of the attachment nodes for the tanks though. Considering the amount of work its taking to get working right in 1.4, I mostly considered that project on-hold until everything was updated to 1.4.X. I'm in my senior year of college, which is my main focus right now, not the mod. If you would like to give it a shot I can provide you with the files but you would need to fix the attachment nodes on the tanks. Also, I think this version might have a different tank or two, I re-made one or two of the tanks because I didn't like how scaling the height was making the textures look. You would also need to fix the fuel numbers & mass(I may have already done mass) on the tanks, as-well as the thrust/ISP on the engines. Most of that info is readily available. As to figuring out the fuel/oxy. numbers- the easiest way would be to copy the fuel amounts from a procedural tank (or just stack tanks and take their sum) of the exact same size as the tank you are working with. Then you can just use trial and error for any fine adjustments you may need to make. None of this is technically to difficult, if you can multiply and divide you can do it pretty easily, but its time consuming. The hardest part will likely be making sure you have the right config. for the corresponding part.
-
For me, way better. This base right here has about 1500 parts sitting in its immediate vicinity. I'm on EVA and the clock is consistently staying in the green. Actually Bill had to push the rover out and ride down to the surface in the cargo bay because I forgot the lander was only a two seater and this was a long term mission.
-
No, I was working on some recently but haven't gotten around to finishing them. If RSS/RO comes to 1.4.x I will finish them. I'm skeptical it will though I think I seen something about one of their people saying that performance is worse in 1.4 so they weren't worried about it. Of which I must point out, that person is out their mind. I can build a 500+ parts ship in 1.4 with mods and my clock in the green. 1.3 my clock was yellow with 50 parts probably.
-
I don't think SpaceDock checks anything, when you update your mod it instantly updates- no checks and balances. Someone was actually able to upload the DLC the other day. Curse on the other hand actually does have some system in place to verify mods, though I cannot tell you how in debt or thorough they are. My rule is if it don't have a picture I'm not downloading it. Unless it is a very well known mod that just so happens to not have a pic.
-
The article is from 2016 but seems like the most reliable source outside spaceX. The article states " Additionally, it will eliminate the TEA-TEB hypergolic cartridges currently used by Merlin engines. Instead, Raptor has implemented a new spark ignition system that, at least theoretically, would allow for unlimited re-ignitions.". Perhaps you are correct about the engines. This is why you cite your source and don't try to start explaining things with a blow torch. It appears from the story SpaceX is remaining somewhat tight lipped about how they will be lighting the engine, as the author didn't know much about it, which is understandable considering they have very strong competitors in a very early an undeveloped market. As to your "speculation" with the RCS, I thought you were saying it was a fact.
-
Ur still on that? What you are saying makes sense for a blowtorch. I have already provided you with info pertaining to the reliability and use of flames to light rocket engines provided in a video from an aerospace engineer. If you watched the video and learned anything from it is on you. You keep making all these claims about a piece of a equipment that doesn’t exist, you cite zero evidence, and keep raving on about how your blow tourch is some how like some thing that has lots of power, travels in space, vibrates excessively, and needs to light up something traveling hypersonic speeds in atmosphere. Cite some legit evidence from spaceX themselves or go over to the spacex forums and argue with someone over there. This information is only serving to make people more dumb.
-
My whole argument concerning the those outer flanges is nobody truly knows what the BFR looks like as it might not even be out the conceptual phase. That likely is something what it will look like, I guess it depends on its actual design. I cant imagine where else you would put the legs, you wouldn't want them any closer to the engines. When people start claiming "like the real BFR" I get into arguments because as far as I know we only have a fuel tank design for a real BFR. Next week when some artist conceptualizes his rendition it will look a little cooler and all of a sudden that will be the new "real BFR". On a positive note I'm sure things are advancing along a lot faster now that most of the R&D resources are geared towards the raptor and BFR after the success of the Falcon Heavy I doubt we will see a BFR flight in 2019 like Elon says but hey it doesn't hurt to dream huh? Elon has certainly already proved that much to us.
-
@selfish_meme It might look heated up in here but were just passionate folk arguing what we believe. Me and @eskimo22frequently go back and forth like this but we keep it civil. He's so picky he needs to make his own BFR though..... I kid.
-
Dude that is heresy. Where are you getting this info from some reddit board? Considering you build new technology off the technology you have already proven to work it is safe to say the Raptor engines will re-ignite just as the merlin's do because this would break the age old principle of "do not fix what isn't broken" SpaceX's merlin engine is the most reliable re-starting engine in existence, to hear someone say they are going to change it up is almost unfathomable. Also, US rockets haven't used torch light since before the Saturn V in the 70's. If you watch that video, these engines are referred to as old school rocket engines- made before the 70's, of which many are in use today because things went downhill after the 70's. You are in here claiming SpaceX is going to use archaic technology, that they themselves have never experimented with, as we can see no SpaceX engine currently in flight is lit by flame. I'm not even going to argue the fact that the engine would instantly destroy any said lighting source hundredths of seconds after the first ignition, just like the real ones that are lit this way destroy theirs. If someone had figured out some special place inside a rocket engine where this piece of technology could be safely stored from the intense heat and millions of pounds of pressure I'm sure we would do it this way. Unfortunately dealing with heats and pressure's like this even tungsten would melt. Also, as I mentioned before, sparks have were deemed in-reliable around fifty years ago. Notice how none of my claims are stated as facts but all yours are and you keep changing things up (gaseous oxy/lqd.oxy). I cant make a factual claim about the BFR as it doesn't exist and even if it did SpaceX isn't going to tell you all about it as they have competitors and they spent billion of dollars getting it to work.
-
Yes, and if you watch that video you will see how un-reliable that is in igniting a rocket engine. Infact, according to the video, SpaceX doesn't light its merlin engines with flame. It carries a small amount of "starter fluid" that upon coming into contact with the fuel ignites. On the other hand, a recent Soyuz launch, who's engines can only be lit once, had to be aborted after one of the engines flames failed to ignite the engine- a catastrophic mistake had the rocket not been bolted to the ground. Plus you went back to liquid oxygen now which requires pumps again so what is the point in using gaseous methane since you will need a whole entire cumbersome tank for that considering the rocket Is already fitted with liquid methane and liquid oxygen?
-
lol, and how much thrust does a push button blowtorch produce? I have one, it doesn't produce any thrust. If you added a nozzle it would but then it would technically be a rocket engine and would suffer from the exact same downsides as one. Watch this video from Scott Manley he describes how difficult it really is to light a rocket engine and why hypergolic (self-igniting) fuels are a must use for reliable space engines. Igniting a rocket engine is not as simple as pushing a spark button like you imagine. Technically speaking, anything that throws matter out one side to produce thrust and momentum in the opposite direction is a rocket engine.
-
Well, darn, I assumed as much, may have to reconsider that kerbalism play through then. -
@Angel-125 will this, and your other mods work with kerbalism? I'm giving kerbalism a play through and want to use this but your custom resource set-up has me wondering if they will work together.
-
Gaseous oxygen? Assuming this is correct, what about the new engines designed to run on these gaseous fuels? We certainly have never made a rocket engine to function off gaseous fuels(atleast since the beginning of rocketry), the only upside would be decreasing complication and likelihood of failure. What you are saying may be true but it complicates things big time. You certainly would not be using these things for docking. Monopropellant works because it ignites under a chemical reaction. Hence it can be turned on and off simply by closing the valves. A rocket engine does not work in such a fashion. You need a steady stream of fuel not just a quick spurt of gas. In fact, a rocket engine can only be throttled to a certain extent. If you need to stop thrust for even a second the entire engine must be cut off, re primed for ignition, and ignited. Lighting a rocket engine is also a tedious task. The fuel must be flowing completely through the engine before you attempt to light it- hence you must prime it. Many engines have been developed to ignite a finite number of times but none of those numbers were very high. A BFR would potentially need to do this hundred of times during a decent all after traveling through a rigorous 6 month journey in space. One way that you could account for this would be dependent on the throttling limitations of the engines. You could lower the thrust on the engines on the left and increase on the right assuming the difference provided adequate thrust for you maneuver. If it did not the engines on the left would need to be shut down until time the maneuver could be completed then they could be primed and shut back on. Picturing this in my mind these engines would be running the entire descent. You would only cut an engine off if you had to as re-starting the engine is never a guarantee. This is why we use monopropellant in space- we have no clue if and engine would fire up in ten years after being in space. It may, but it may not. May not doesn't cut it when there are billions of dollars or lives at stake. This isn't such a huge issue for the main engines as they only need to fire around 5-6 times in a round trip journey to mars. My BFR is suppose to be using two different engines. The thrusters up front and on the tail are small weak thrusters for moving around in space. the thruster on the side are huge and produce much more thrust are for the atmospheric stuff. If you look they actually do produce a varying degree of thrust. You can cut one of them off.
-
Dude, three holes, three nozzles, three directions. Unless there are more holes than I am seeing. You are making the assumption there are multiple points of thrust coming from those holes, which is not only purely an a assumption but more so wishful thinking. So spaceX is developing another new engine? Whats this one called? Haven't heard about that, I'm going to need some info on that. Now we have the raptor, the merlin, the super dracos, and whatever engine you say they're making. Using liquid fueled thrusters(liquid oxidizer) in the fashion we would typically use cold gas is going to be interesting. There is a reason we decided long ago this was best to use cold gas in this situation. It just so happens fuel kind of likes to flow down not up, a problem you don't face with pressurized gas. This means extra fuel lines, pumps to help the fuel flow in the right direction, all of which carries with it extra weight along with a higher likely hood of failure, all of which are no-no's in the space game. What if one of those engines fuel pumps failed during re-entry(which happens so frequently, we now design rockets to fly when it has engines go out) ? Several hundred people are dead........ You can say engineering but engineering only goes so far.....
-
Cold gas thrusters with 10 tons thrust. I’m going to need to research that. I looked at the soot, their are only three thrusters in those pictures and they only fire in three directions. When you say you see soot in every direction I’m not even sure what you talking about. Are we looking at the same pictures I only see soot in three places? It just so happens to be the three places those holes are.???????
-
Well I will look into that assuming this pic is truly from spaceX. It’s just my opinion that the those thrusters aren’t big enough. Since the bfr’s main control point in the Martian upper atmosphere, those thrusters don’t appear big enough to be moving around 100+ tons as quickly as it will need to be. I could be wrong. I almost question if it would need an entire set of Draco’s engines for this? also, those thrusters will only give you full control on the x&y axis.This means translate sideways you would need to turn sideways. Are you ok with not having control in all directions, because you need a fifth thruster for that? scratch that, looking at the pic there are only 3 thrusters. Up, down, and forward. So is this what u want to do? I’m ok with it. You originally asked for control on every axis. But wait that isn’t even possible because the BFR has to back against each other to re-fuel. See how these pictures are conflicting with its functionality?
-
I’m not re-texturing the bfr. If you can provide some sort of proof this came from spaceX and is not a mere artistic rendition than yes I will change them. Until then NO ONE has any clue besides the engineers directly designing the bfr. Not a single version I have seen from spaceX even has those outter flanges. So I don’t get where you are getting this is the real bfr from other than I found this on some website? I’m not saying it’s wrong but I can’t make changes every time some artist desires to make a different conception and everyone assumes this is right because some artist says so.
-
lol, yea its just disconnected from the ship. Are you playing in 1.4.1 right now by any chance? It seems all the RCS transforms have to be turned around, which I did, but now the RCS is firing the in the opposite way the ship is going, which really, really is confusing me. Like the RCS is rotating the ship clockwise, but according to the direction they are firing the ship should be spinning counter clockwise. I'm really not sure what is going on. I'm trying to get my hands on a new version of the parts tools If their is one to see if that fixes anything. No where are they I'm trying to find them now?
-
@eskimo22 I fixed the color on that fuel tank. Also, just finished up making the wing for the BFR a bit smoother like you asked.
-
I can’t give the bfr that much delta v. If earths orbital velocity is 8500 ms and kerbins is 2400 than kerbins orbital requirement is apx. 28% of earths. So maybe the bfr should have 9km * .28= 2520ms with zero payload? Also, it seems this delta v number is only for the upper stage as 6km/s falls far short of orbital requirements (bare minimum u would need around 9.5km/s) this means if I make the bfr how you ask, when assuming how much fuel the bfr carries, you would likely have around 15km/s, which has no place in a stock herbal. I like playing rss because it bothers me how slow the orbital speeds are in stock. Literally in a to scale system you are traveling at 240% the speed of stock and hence need 240% the resources meaning a bfr in stock would have almost 2.5 x the delta v it would need.
-
Maybe, I plan to lighten the color on that tank
-
Improved the textures&model on the booster for the BFR.
-
Oh, I see what you are saying- I feel dumb lol. When you said composites I thought you were saying that I needed to break the BFR into pieces. Composites essentially means made up of different pieces. Yea, I will look into that. At some point I want to set the mod up to give it a direction if you want to play a spaceX career mode. I just haven't made it their yet. It depends on how early you can get composites if I will put it all there or not.
-
If you are saying I should split the BFR into pieces, no. If you want that level of realism you shouldn’t be playing stock KSP anyways. Fuel mass vs structural mass is in no way realistic in KSP. Stock fuel tanks weigh far more than they should. as to why you can’t run 1.4.1 that is something you need to take over to the squad help forums. That sucks!
