feanor

I\'ll just copy paste my earlier post I\'ll just reply to this discussion once. We should make a subforum dedicated to real spaceflight. Anyho; Shuttle hasnt launched full size satellites for a while. only reason they kept it flying after columbia is because the ISS wasnt finished yet. SpaceX won\'t be ready for a while, for the really big satellites. SpaceX is still developing, and does not have the confidence of clients yet (especially DoD ). They have to launch more; so far, spaceX has flown only 2 falcon 9\'s. None of which this year, and it\'s looking mightely like they won\'t launch anything this whole year at all. Even when they are flying, it isn\'t like USA gets to decide - We\'ll all use spaceX! Certain departments will buy services from them, just like you buy a service from mcdonalds. Others will prefer burger king. ULA will still launch. Energia will still launch. Rockets are still being launched while spaceX doesnt. They have a small fraction of the launch market ( growing, but still ) . Ariane 5 is the biggest sat launcher right now, possibly Proton. These will continue to fly even after spaceX. Space isn\'t the golden bullet for all problems with launching rockets. Also, price is not everything. Going for a rocket company from your own country really has it\'s own benefit; price becomes less of a concern when most of it flows back into your own economy, and government is quite a big fraction of payloads. Also, retaining of certain skill items, or industrial base. Who won the space Race? Depends on where you cut it off. Russians won the early part. NASA did the moon, but Russia did space stations. If you look at capability now, russia wins. If you look in a few years, commercial wins. It\'s better not to see it as a technological race, really. Russia abondened plans for the moon as soon as america got there; imagine if they had eventually developed a system as cheap ( relatively ) as the soyuz for moon travel. But this didnt happen. America did not improve on moon either. Buran was arguably superior to the shuttle, and would be cheaper as well; but, it was still too expensive. Who won that race? anyway, repeating calls for a forum section dedicated to real space travel. Otherwise, I can redirect you all to Nasaspaceflight.com - Read for a few months before you ask a question, as the people who actually launch rockets get tired of questions like 'how do I make orbit and 'why doesn\'t everyone use SpaceX yet', not to mention people who think real rockets are legos like they are in this excellent game Human Spaceflight is not all of nasa. no manned spaceflight of SpaceX will be around 2014 earliest. spaceX time dilitation factor ( when they announce something and when they actually do it ) is around 2 or so last time I checked, so 2015-2017 is perhaps a better guess. I\'d love to see surprises, but as said, for the last year or so they haven\'t launched anything. The new updated SLS schedule shows first crewed flight ( trip around the moon ) is planned for 2019. Might slip to the left even further. That news item you read was based on a worst case internal schedule. Those worst case conditions didn\'t come true. Please, let\'s move this to another thread, in general or in unrelated. repeating calls for new subforum, as it is certainly related.

As said, instead of filling development, here you can ask general questions. A better option would be a subforum dedicated to the real life space programs going on. Fire away ( although I am going to bed, will check it out tomorrow )

Awesome! downloading now, checking it out! edit: the pack is excellent, loving the new SRBS and the spin engines in particular. ( spin engines are very nice for my ICBM! ) One question, though - I can\'t find a good ares-1 SRB. I tried 2 approaches: -1 meter SRB, 1.75 meter 2nd stage. The SRB burns out at 5-6 km with 150 m/s - not really powerfull enough here - (way) too little thrust for it\'s weight? -1.75 meter SRB, 2 meter 2nd stage. The SRB burns good allright. Wow. It ripped the 2nd stage apart a few times near burnout, when it\'s acceleration was highest. Added Struts for that. But, it doesnt really look like a Ares 1 anymore - the SRB is too big. So, 1.5 meter SRB? all cheesyness aside, the 1 meter stackable could do with a bit more length and way more thrust, around 350 wouldn\'t be bad, if you\'re looking for an Ares-1 simulator piece - if you\'re not, NP - i\'ll cfg edit one. ah, and here is one for fun. -2m SRB, 3m upper stage. Beastly, but also burns out at 6-7 km height.

ah, excellent. New options are always good! can\'t wait to play with this and other new parts.

gimme gimme gimme A liquid fueld soyuz is possible with that? do the side tanks hold fuel as well, and can they be detached / the fuel flow can be stopped from the central one to the side ones? If that is true, you\'ve made me very, very happy ( if that\'s not true, it\'s still awesome ;D )

Since I can post again, I\'ll post this here. Something in general. SRBS across addons, and also the stock ones, are underpowered. This pack is one of the few ones that does it right. Shuttle SRBS burn for 124 seconds. 124. Not 23, or 40, as quite a few. 124. This pack is the first that actually applies SRBS as they should be. They can\'t be turned off for aborts and they tax infrastructure- these are real life concerns. Heavy, with lots of thrust, and a lower ISP, sure. But not THAT low! 60-100 seconds of burn time is about the lowest strap-on boosters on rocket\'s you\'ll get. 23/40 second burn times of SRBS really are useless. these smallest strap on rockets are amazing; truely a model that has uses everywhere. Other modders take note; this is how you do strap on srbs. when the stacked version is brought out we\'ll finally be able to make a good ares-1.

Inspired by this, I decided to sort-of-copy your design. Voila. It has a big first stage, a small second stage and 2 spin-stabilized solid rocketed satellites. all except for the detachable heat shield makes it back to the surface with parachutes. It has ullage engines on the second stage aswell. Thanks for the inspiration! The setup: Stage Sep / ullage engines / 2nd stage ignition Payload seperation! Payload spinup through solid rocket engines + solid rocket propulsion engine ignition Off they go! Seperation of the upper stage; parachutes on both stages are activated descent next to the first stage, hanging from its parachutes. 2nd stage comes down next, close to the descent pod.

meh, nozzle size is not everything. I kinda like it, to be honest.

That is exactly why it was build. You can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_program It was a very, very interesting program. If flown correctly I think it could be cheaper and provide safer and better access to space compared to the shuttle. But alas, no money...

These pieces are fine as they are, but renaming them is probably better in the long run. That said, I absolutely love your pieces. Everytime I praise something I ask for something, sigh. I guess I should learn how to edit and model myself... anyway, here goes. A nosecone with a very strong ejection force and an attachment point for a small solid booster ( think radial ullage booster or SAFER booster ) so that you can jettison it and it doesnt crash in your stage. a dedicated, small, no shroud, 1.75 meter decoupler? a smaller 1.75 diameter tank for even more options to optimize stages for respective engines - say you want 1.25 times your big tank, this could give a solution. an 1.75/ 2 meter diameter upper stage engine. Think perhaps an half of your twin bertha lite, or Sunday Punches' K-2X engine, but with a huge ( vacuum) nozzle and very good efficiency? A somewhat bigger ( 0.5 meter diameter? ) SRB, so we can make delta 2 SRB's ah and ehm while i'm asking / throwing out random ideas, how about a very flat, small, light SRB for deorbit purposes? something like the Mercury reentry package? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:McconnellMercuryCapsule1.jpg right, that'll be my wishlist for today. See you tomorrow! 8)

I can't replicate that. post your .craft file please? are you sure you have the correct 1 meter size engines on the points, and that the adapter is well placed straight below the fuel tank above? I know, but what I am looking for is not only functionality but also aestethics - when I make a payload fairing on top of a 2nd stage I like the rocket to not get overly tall and slanky. So a small 2 meter decoupler would be very much appreciated. Thanks in advance! Also, something that will make my life much easier, and is also something aesthetic: In the attached picture, you can see your RCS module, and an ideal last stage for orbital changes and reentry burn. Wouldnt it be a good idea to bring out a chopped up version of your awesome -looking RCS module? IE chopped in: a decoupler ( small ejection strength, low weight? ) on top a SAS module (With your very nice RCS boosters on it) in the middle, perhaps with slightly higher weight then a normal SAS, but also a bit stronger? ) in the middle and a small fuel tank on the bottom Then your small liquid engine fits on it and it would make a truely marvelous upper stage composite! When all these stages are skinned in the same ( apollo- greyish? ) colour as the RCS module is right now it'd not only be more realistic but also way cooler and nicer to use!

There is one part missing from all 2 meter packs - a simple, non shroud, decoupler. Also, your rockets wobble REALLY hard, especially when they are nearly empty. LoM hard.

this would be ideal. It shouldnt be too hard to see who is right, though? I mean, files like diameter are pretty easy to see if there is a 1 or less/more.. thank you both, by the way, for the awesome work you do.

I disagree. Your engines are one of the few 2m diameter engines. Your parts are a bit smaller, and dare I say, feel more realistic. Also, your 2 to 1 meter and 3 to 2 meter adapters and the like hold fuel; this package does not. Nosecones have a diffirent approach as well. although it would be a good idea to agree between part makers what exactly 2 meters is. because these are certainly diffirent in size, which irks me a bit. Sunday punch - I like it, now make it work

These clamps are amazing. Finally options to making a real Delta IV heavy.. An idea for the next iteration: a 1 and 3 meter variant? Also, I made a gemini- titan - it has a solid retro rocket, and when flown right gets into a nice 40.000 circular orbit. Thanks to your parts it does not only have the functionality, but also the looks! ( I dont really care about skins ) Thanks for the amazing pack!

ah, most excellent! Another request - I seem to be making these all the time - how about making the 2 to 1 meter cone ( and the 1 to 3, and the 3 to 1, etc etc ) actually hold fuel? An empty version would still be great, but that would help a bunch to modelling rockets that not only look a bit like the originals, but also behave like them!. I am looking forward to the decoupling nosecones very much. There are current workarounds with decouplers and nosecones, but if you are accelerating they just pop up and then your ship flies straight into them again. Stackable parachutes are very good aswell. Thanks in advance!

I want them all! Finally I can make my Falcon 9, my proton, my atlas v, my gemini titan! gimme gimme gimme!

I have a few requests for items that seem to be missing from your portfolio of excellent parts: -A smaller 2m decoupler. The height of a normal engine or thereabout. -Another engine for 2m upperstages - more fuel efficient. Think something like RL-10 as used on Centaur? (on that note, I only ask for this as it looks like the bottom of your tanks are not skinned and thus placing another engine there has it kinda floating ) - a somewhat bigger SRB. Not the 1 meter range, but a bit bigger then your mini booster ( yes, I am complaining that it is too small ) - Perhaps an attacher for 2 or even 3 normal 1 meter diameter engines? that way You could really get going on dual engine bottom stages like atlas V, or duel engines centaur. -or even, if you have the time for it, an attacher with a new engine diameter class. Something like 0.6, so that you could have 1, 2, 3 or even 4 engines of that new class behind one of your nice 2 meter tank cores. ( I am inspired by these by sunday punch, as they work together so well with yours - but these are some items that would make that even better ) Thanks in advance if any of these ideas are to your liking, otherwise I might have to learn modelling myself ;D

I'll be eagerly refreshing every second till you release this, this sounds like an AWESOME pack with a great many uses!

These are awesome. They do, however, seem to provide a bit of thrust - I seem to be fall slower when I have these turning below me. They should, as they are turning a bit downward aswell. Anyway, as said, These are awesome. What would REALLY make me happy is a variant of these turning straight up, and another variant straight down. Think of the possibilities! Ullage engines! seperation rockets for safer staging! Small satellite deploy rockets! Perhaps with a bit lower burntime... [edit] or perhaps not straight, but only angled away from the central rocket body, so they provide thrust but dont burn anything and dont induce spin. gimme gimme gimme!

although energia had of course liquid boosters, but allright, I like the design so I'll let this sacrilege slip!

Thanks for this new release! Can i ask for the decoupler shrouds for your 3 meter stages / tanks next please? It works like a normal decoupler, but has an extra high outer wall for better visuals. In real rockets you dont see the engines for stages sticking out in the open either, so now your rocket can be nice and smooth without any aerodynamical holes for stages

Perhaps a better aproach is like the decoupler from http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=537.0 Just a bit wider, and of course, here, on a bigger 3 or 5 meter scale. Basically the fairing is a decoupler with an oversized outer wall, without collosion detection. Then a slope, towards a nice point, if at all possible... There would need to be fairings of diffirent heights, of course. Some for 3 modules, some for 4, etc etc. boy, I sure give a nice request list for a few days work ;D

Yes indeed, you can stick the cap on a decoupler and it'll be fine. The problem is however that what was below that decoupler ( and in the fairing ) is lost then. In your screenshot the command module is inside it. Say I want it above the fairing, with for example and upper stage inside it. I want to launch, pop open the fairing, ignite the upper stage and fly away. All of this, with the command module sticking above it all and with escape capabilities. The attached picture tries to explain this. I want to pop the seperator 1, have everything fall away except the blue and green stages. Perhaps remove the hit detection for the sloped edges of the fairing, if such a thing is possible... The blue stage could be a satellite, or a big fuel tank, or something else unaerodynamical, or perhaps even some added boosters inside the fairing... That way, when the fairing falls away, you have a nice slim figure, and what was on top before will still say on top. perhaps a version without the bottom slope as well, to make it fit nicely on the big stage. note : I have not educated my self enough to know if any of this is possible ;D

I have found a new use for your quad- parachute system! Too bad the attachment points are taken then, so I cant add parachutes on top of them. still makes a nice and stable platform! Here are the rockets. http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=537.0