Jump to content

Pipcard

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,252

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Pipcard

  1. Pipcard
    Burning the first trans-lunar injection stage Final trans-lunar injection Course correction maneuver Approaching the Moon Lunar orbit insertion Course correction to intercept the lunar lander in orbit Slowing down (relative to target) Detaching from the transfer stage Rendezvous... and docked!
  2. Pipcard
    Yes, that's how it works. There is one person who stays behind in lunar orbit while the other two land, according to the diagram on page 3 here (it also shows H-IIBs, but those won't have enough lifting capacity). They also need the hab for the transfer between the Earth and the Moon. Re-entry is probably direct like Apollo.
  3. Pipcard
    Meet the crew: Hibito, Mutta, and Kenji (TextureReplacer + Extended Sylith's Kerbal heads pack with some modifications) Liftoff! Booster jettison Fairing jettison Launch escape system jettison Deploying solar paddles \ This is based on a concept for a manned version of the H-II Transfer Vehicle (HTV). In the actual concept, the re-entry and service modules would not detach to re-dock with the orbital habitation module, but would be reconfigured using a "rail-and-wheel system" (probably to reduce risk). I might be able to replicate that with Infernal Robotics but it would just add too much mass. Rendezvous and docking with the Earth Departure Stages
  4. Pipcard
    Fourth launch: Fifth launch
  5. Pipcard
    stock + Procedural Parts edit: there are parts that come with Realism Overhaul that use the stock part models.
  6. Pipcard
    Another Earth Departure Stage (designated EDS1-L) was launched. It was used for the first phase in the trans-lunar injection burn, then separated. At the next perigee (about 3 hours later), the first EDS was used to complete the rest of the burn. A course correction was made as the spacecraft was on its way to the Moon. Earth was getting farther away. and the Moon was getting closer. Lunar Orbit Insertion The lander was left in low lunar orbit.
  7. Pipcard
    re-do of the second part
  8. Pipcard
    I did test out the Heat Pumps mod, and it works, even with heat-releasing RTGs. I just rotated the radiators for aesthetic purposes. The internal/radiation flux doesn't matter. And I can accelerate time to high speeds without problems. As you can see, hydrogen consumption when idle is at 0. Not 0.00, just 0. It feels somewhat like a cheat, but this needs to last for a week.
  9. Pipcard
    Maybe the RTGs are one of the culprits (due to their heat release): I undocked the Earth Departure Stage from the lander, quicksaved, then reloaded. The liquid hydrogen wasn't quickly boiling off anymore. But that doesn't explain what happened here with a newly-launched EDS. At 1x time acceleration, the "radiation flux" is positive (as it should be, because when the internal flux is more negative, that's when the liquid hydrogen boils off faster), but steadily decreasing. The LqdHydrogen is being consumed at a rate of 0.01 L per second, it should be 0.00. (yes, there's a hyperedit icon, but I honestly only use it for testing purposes, not actual missions. And I do use the MechJeb autopilots, but only during launch. I also can't stand doing a manual rocket launch when playing Orbiter) At 10x time acceleration, the radiation flux made a drastic jump to -144.72 kW. At 100x time acceleration, the radiation flux becomes somewhat less negative but the cooling effectiveness is much lower. Over a day at 10000x time acceleration, it has lost >1000 L of liquid hydrogen. This wasn't happening yesterday.
  10. Pipcard
    I checked, and they were cryogenic. Over the two days it took to catch up and rendezvous, it only lost about 100 L of liquid hydrogen (out of ~50000), even at high time accelerations. But now the radiators are ineffective, and it's losing thousands of liters over a few days. And I did right click and activate the radiators.
  11. Pipcard
    Having technical difficulties right now - yesterday (when I did the last mission), the radiators were working to mitigate the hydrogen boiloff (not completely, of course, but just enough so that it could sit in orbit for a few days without losing a significant amount of fuel). But now they aren't and I'm not sure why.
  12. Pipcard
    The second H-X launches an Earth Departure Stage (designated EDS2-L as it is going to act as the second stage for trans-lunar injection and lunar orbit insertion). The EDS is supposed to look like an H-IIA upper stage but I would need a ring-shaped docking port with a 5-m diameter. To reduce boil-off of the liquid hydrogen, I had to put some radiators. It makes maneuvers to rendezvous and dock with the lunar lander module.
  13. Pipcard
    Thanks! Just a notice, I re-did the first launch.
  14. Pipcard
    I have an interest in the "what-ifs" of the Japanese space program, which were only denied because of problems with the country's economy : ( . In the mid-2000s, JAXA announced that they would be sending astronauts to the Moon in 2020. In 2008, this was the plan according to Mitsubishi Heavy Industries: 6 launches of a next-generation rocket known as "H-X" (the preliminary version of what is now known as the H3 rocket) would launch a lunar lander, a manned cislunar transfer vehicle, and several Earth Departure Stages (found via a NASAspaceflight forum thread). I also found another paper done by JAXA. The launch vehicle shown here uses a custom version of the LE-7 engine from Forgotten Real Engines, with the thrust and Isp of the future LE-9 engine. This will be a recreation of the mission profile using Real Solar System and Realism Overhaul. EDIT: I re-did the mission because of a few things: I needed a slightly bigger rocket for the Earth Departure Stages, I wanted to launch to the lunar orbital plane during the daytime so I waited about 200 days, and I changed my mind regarding the use of RTGs over solar panels. The original version of this post can be found here. Just remember to get an ambient light mod like this or this if you're taking screenshots at night. The first launch from Tanegashima Space Center would put the lunar lander module in a low Earth parking orbit. Liquid rocket booster separation (and fairing jettison) Second stage ignition (and orbital circularization) Payload jettison The lander, waiting in low Earth orbit.
  15. Pipcard
    I am using 1.1.3 KSP_x64.exe on Windows, installed the Linux branch of RVE (but used Scatterer from here instead of overwriting, and made the changes for RSS according to that post), and it seems to be working fine so far. Thanks! The city textures are actually working, but I changed them to be blank as they were conflicting with some launchpad locations.
  16. Pipcard
    I'm loving this series, but how exactly did you configure clouds in RSS for KSP 1.1? I thought RVE only worked for 1.0.5?
  17. Pipcard
    There's this annoying shadow glitch (you can see it on the VAB, but it also occurs on large patches of the terrain) that seems to be caused by having the Scatterer folder in GameData, I'm guessing it can't be fixed? edit: I think the Scatterer thread did mention this. edit: except the version of Scatterer compatible with KSP v1.0.5 (downloaded via CKAN) does not have this option in the start menu. edit: I managed to get it working in 1.1.3.
  18. Pipcard
    Is the Win32 branch still compatible with KSP 1.0.5? (because 1.0.4 doesn't seem to be available anymore on the official website)
  19. Pipcard
    M-III launch and return:
  20. Pipcard
    I don't know why you have to assume a 29-tonne all-CH4 or RP-1 rocket or 25-tonne LH2 upper stage rocket, 23 tonnes is the expendable capacity of F9 FT. I admit, you're making some decent points here about the disadvantages of multiple payload slots. And it does sound ridiculous for an SLS-sized launcher to be launching 1-tonne payloads, even if it is fully reusable. But I guess some people would prefer launching their small payloads as secondaries on a reusable Falcon 9, while others might require a dedicated smallsat launcher from another provider for their particular orbital needs. One is not completely better than the other. (If you want, you could get a NASAspaceflight account and continue the debate there and not just with me, but just remember that the mods are a little more strict over there and probably won't tolerate stuff like snarky image macros as much) An SLS Block II-sized monolithic reusable rocket would lift 130 tonnes in expendable mode, and possibly a 30% payload penalty in RTLS reuse mode. 90 tonnes to low Earth orbit. Maybe it might have over 100 tonnes if the first stage landed on a barge, but that's cutting it close. I'm guessing they just want a pad all to themselves for their giant rocket, without schedule interference from anyone else. Not because it's too big for LC-39. It also still needs refueling to beat the rocket equation.
  21. Pipcard
    Maybe a ~20T vehicle (in expendable mode) today, when economic reusability is still in its proving stages. With SpaceX planning to sell F9R launches at $40 million, and enough capacity to launch multiple small satellites (the ones that would go on Vega or Falcon 1 for example) or have that small satellite be a secondary payload in order to split launch costs, they only need to produce for one launch vehicle family right now. If and when economic reusability is fully proven, you can scale up a monolithic reusable TSTO even further. I know this is yet another NASAspaceflight forum post and I indeed do that too much here, and you'd rather see actual, professional sources, but this is just explaining the idea: Thus, the fully reusable BFR could replace the F9/FH family once it's operational. Multi-purpose, not only for Mars. And using the same monolithic fully reusable launcher for all payloads also ups its flight rate. It might be even bigger than SLS, especially if it's supposed to "land 100 tonnes of useful payload on Mars." I'm still not sure how SpaceX is going to scale up in 6-8 years for such an endeavour, developing an interplanetary spaceliner. I've seen some people (like in this NASAspaceflight thread for example) saying that they're going to fund the MCT system with revenue from current launch systems, their massive internet satellite constellation (which they haven't officially announced yet), and investment by other billionaires.
  22. Pipcard
    Well, it's regarding a launch vehicle for reusable interplanetary transportation, so we'll have to wait. Did you not notice that I had also said "SSTO comes with its own problems" and "however, 1-stage goes too far and you lose a lot of your payload capacity because of the nature of the rocket equation"? And you would need either more time or machines or manpower to inspect them. edit: anyways, I posed a question on the NASAspaceflight forum regarding the pros and cons of multi-core reusable boosters. (the reason why there is no 5-core FH or 3-core MCT) they plan to do refueling - from Musk himself:
  23. Pipcard
    Sorry I can't find actual reports instead of speculation threads, just not until Musk reveals it in September. Yeah, because they aren't planning to reuse those stages. Nor are they planning a reusable interplanetary transportation system. When you have a reusable launch system, the fewer stages you have to deal with, the better (see the bottom of this post for why). For all your opposition to methalox, you even said: And guess what, most rockets that are planned to use methalox engines are also planned to reuse those engines as well (including my fictional M-III). Even Soyuz-5, "a traditional throw-away rocket designed to test innovative methane engines could serve as a bridge toward next-generation reusable boosters." They can use the same infrastructure for manufacturing and processing, but when you have more separate cores or more stages, more man-hours are required to process them. That's why fewer reusable stages are less complex (but SSTO comes with its own problems).
  24. Pipcard
    Yep, more reusable cores = more landing attempts = more chances for failure.
  25. Pipcard
    "3-stages/4-stages are best for high-energy destinations," but there will probably be just a single upper stage because: The MCT system would have to involve refueling on Mars (I'm guessing with pre-established ISRU capability at the landing site) anyway, and orbital refueling is also their way of not pushing the rocket equation to its limits. With refueling, you don't need to design, manufacture, and operate any more than two types of reusable stages (BFR's "monster boost stage," and the "Big [Freaking] Spaceship" itself). A two-stage system with refueling actually reduces complexity and cost compared to a three-stage or four-stage system without refueling. _____ Regarding staged combustion methane: _____ A reusable rocket gains more complexity with multi-core configurations than an expendable one because those separate cores also have to be recovered and serviced. Those arguments can also apply to 5-core FH, not just 3-core BFR, because both the BFR and FH are intended to have reusable first stages. Notice how they said you would have to land and service three separate vehicles instead of one? That is made much worse with a five core reusable launcher. Yes, FH is 3-core already, but 5-core would only make reuse operations worse.
×
×
  • Create New...