sgt_flyer

Mmh Ufos ! David Vincent was right !

You know, it 's not up to us to prove that your device interacts in any way with it's environment. Science is not an auction Especially when something like that goes against fundamental laws of physics. Doing it on a surface is giving your system a way to interact with something else - no matter how low the surface's friction is, it will still have friction. Your device has to pass the pendulum test before anything else (suspend it in the air - if it can achieve even a small deflection, then it 's worth investigating further. It has to be first equilibrated around the average center of mass of your system. Then, with, for example a line drawn on the ground and a laser pointer, you can see if the average position is deflected from vertical while in operation. If that works, then the same test in vacuum is in order. Once you managed to pass these tests, then you'll gather more than sceptic comments You are not the first one to propose such contraptions, and you'll not be the last. And 90rpm can be quite fast - depends on the rotor's size

uuuh no can't be lox / hydro. they don't put cryo fuels in probes / satellites for a reason : Boiloff it had 89kg of hydrazine on board (monopropellant) https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/i/isee

well, i don't know for other people, but your answer smell completely trollish ... or an answer of someone who should need to completely rethink how real life rocket works and actually make some real searches on rockets (hint : there's plenty of infos on the net). there's no magical fuel lines in real life for asparagus designs. you'll need fuel valves, turbopumps (driven by the stage's rocket engines - so you'll need more powerful gas generators to both pump to their rocket engines, and to the stage next to it) - all of this is : both heavy, and give additional points of possible failure to a rocket. then, the other 'rocket' fuel you're talking about is Methane - and no engines of this class have already flown for the moment. if you wish a superheavy launcher different from SLS with no SRB's, maybe try Vulkan... now that's a superheavy launcher - and surprise - it would also be built with existing components. (AKA : 8x Zenit rocket first stages (Lox-RP1) 1 Energia core stage (lox-LH2) and 1 Energia M upper Stage (lox-LH2) - 175 tons to LKO... but please, stop saying such things real life don't work like KSP...

i guess i'll go with my latest design, although i have several crafts who brought me rep already but i like to keep pushing my skills forward with my designs Full mini Saturn V Thread with .craft file

My latest mini saturn V has a lander of my own (develloped after studying gusturbo's mini chair based LEM - and i asked him first ) (link in my sig ) Also, interesting design comrade jenkens, how well does it fly with all these wing parts ? Feel free to check out my interstage designs if you wish comrade (on either of my saturn V designs)

I wonder if it would be possible to set a mod dependencies list for each savegame. (Just selecting a savegame, and selecting the 'mandatory' mods from the existing ones for that savegame. This way, if one if the mandatory mods is unloaded, the savegame is also unloaded until the mandatory mods are reloaded ?

Well, that's just a centrifugal pump that's one of the most used pumps in rocket engines. And they need a gas generator + turbine to be driven for a reason. We don't have limitless and lightweight energy source avaible to drive the pump. (And if we had this energy, i'm sure we could use it for engines even more efficient - vasmir like engines &co. ) And there's limits to those pumps - in the form of vortices and cavitation, which can be extremely destructive. (Basically, cavitation is a 'void' created behind the blade of the pump - when this void forms, the liquid will come back fast and slam the blade - and the impact force can weaken and shatter a lot of materials. (A easy 'cavitation' example, is seen with shattering the bottom of half filled bottles by hitting it on the top.)

Well, you can attach radially a cubic strut on a fuel tank, and turn it so it goes either 'inside' of a wing, or even inside the tank it's attached on. (you can also use the small hardpoint for that, less thick than the cubic strut) then attach your fuel line start point to the cubic strut / small hardpoint. Once there, you can make your fuel line going through the tank, or the wing. (Basically, your fuel line can pass through a part as long as it's origin point is inside the part's collision box.) The fuel line will 'exit' the collision box of the part it started inside, to attach to the next collision box avaible. You can even use that to chain between parts : imagine you have two wing parts between your tanks, you put a cubic strut or a small hardpoint in a way that it's clipping inside both wing parts. Your first 'fuel line going through the first wing, to the small hard point, and the second fuel line starts from the small hardpoint to the destination. Of course, it requires fancy VAB / SPH camera play to be able to see through the parts. You can also use other fuel crossfeed capable Structural parts / wing parts (not other fuel tanks) to transfer fuel without fuel lines. Basically, if the tank you want to drain first is the one in the middle of your spaceplane, if you attach a wing to this tank, it can pump fuel from it. (Any engine radially attached on the wing will be able to use the tank 's fuel without fuel line) A second wing on the first one can extend the effect (it pumps fuel from the first wing, which pumps it from the tank) Now, if you radially attach a fuel crossfeed capable structural part with an attachment node to the wing (cubic strut, structural fuselage, etc) you can attach a fuel tank to the structural parts node - fuel will be pumped first from the 'center' fuel tank, through the wing and the structural part, inside the second fuel tank. (The same way it would if you ran a fuel line from the first to the second tank.)

Here's my latest saturn V replica album (although it's a 'mini' for one single kerbal. ) Full post with .craft files : http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/77335-023-5-mini-Saturn-V-with-Launch-Umbilical-Tower

well, for the moment, we have nothing that would be able to put into orbit complex industrial style machinery - maybe that would be the occasion to try to set up Orbital facilites capable of building things

Totally agree with that besides, most of the materials used at this time would be considered subpar - or way too expensive compared to current materials technology. (The physics of what happened in those engines could not be simulated back then) And if you start changing some materials, you'll end up changing everything else too, due to different physical properties. I wonder, if a Saturn V could be even Man Rated with current standards, if we rebuilt a new one with exactly the same materials / techniques used back then.

No, the F-1B use the same gas generator cycle as the old F-1 engine.

well, a saturn V launch would be priced around 1.2 billion with the adjusted prices. (Most of the parts were handcrafted, which accounts for a huge amount of required man-hours to build one - and that is extremely costly) Nasa is targeting a 500 million launch cost for SLS. Check the cost problems of the RL-10 engine, that's the same problem you would be facing with rebuilding saturn V (all of those systems would have to be rethinked almost from scratch to be able to produce them with a more industrial approach.) After that, SLS first versions is just a matter of reusing what has already been built and proven with the space shuttle.

If you want to go even further, H-Bombs works by adding deuterium + tritium near one of the 'classic' fission nukes. When the nuke detonates, the heat and pressure is enough to make the deuterium and tritium undergo fusion - which releases way more energy than a fission bomb of the same weight

you'll need more than just a heat shield to overcome the drag at low altitudes. first, your acceleration tube would need to be kept at near vacuum for acceleration - and you'll need some form of shutter (plasma windows are envisaged) - the tube would close with a normal 'door' and the plasma window would only activate when this normal door is opened - just to let the spacecraft fly through. the problem comes after leaving the tube : at the speed you'll need to go to overcome the encountered air, you'll face interesting consequences (imagine the heat of flying at more than orbital speeds in low atmosphere - i don't know if any heat shield would be able to withstand that - as you'll need this much speed to get out of atmo - you'll lose a lot of speed during the ballistic ascent due to drag. one possibility would be to use some form of MHD plasma shield (your spacecraft would have a low density 'plasma' coating during atmospheric ascent to protect it from the drag) (kinda like supercavitating torpedoes, but where those torpedoes use a air bubble to lower their drag in water, you'll use a plasma bubble to lower your drag in atmo)

no, if the reactor containment unit works correctly, they should never emit radioactive exhausts. the 'basic' method of operation of a solid core NTR is to superheat the fuel passing in tubes near the nuclear rods. (the fuel is never in direct contact with the nuclear rod) - the fuel can be heated from as low as 22k to 3000k - the resulting liquid to gas expansion of the fuel in the nozzle produce thrust.

You will still need a way to bring the fuel to the engines. (And pressure fed systems is not practical in first stages / ssto - it takes too much weight fraction away from either : fuel tank structure for withstanding the pressure, or an additional tank for carrying a pressure gas (nitrogen, helium) - so you'll need a turbopump Pressure fed systems are great for upper stages though - it limits a lot the moving parts

That's betavoltaics (and yes, they fit on a chip ^^) although each chip only gives out a few nanowatts of power, it can run for 25+years

RCS build aid was very useful for designing this lander it would have been almost impossible to equilibrate the RCS positions without it

Hehe the ladder cover is really useful in this case it lets me board the command pod with no problems As for the lem, yeh, it was quite a long work miniaturizing something this complex - while keeping partcount / weight / delta-v in the realm of the usable we need something less complex for the future real life landers

Well, some things are not necessarily simpler, but they allow to lower the part count a lot (the new rigidity also allow to limit struts usage a lot )

Hello here's my latest rocket - a mini version of Saturn V (for 1 kerbal) (spent a lot of time designing it - and it's launch tower ) I'd like to thanks GusTurbo, which shared with me it's mini LEM based on a command chair - which i studied to make a brand new one for this new mini Saturn V the rocket itself is around 500 parts. i'll also include a link to my 'illuminator' simplistic rover, which have 4x 5parts light arrays, to illuminate your rockets for night launches (my pictures were taken with those 4 arrays deployed around the launch pad) at 825 parts, i think it's obvious why i went with a 'mini' version instead of a full Saturn V for Kerbin (especially with the launch tower ^^) Mission Album : Action groups : Abort : ignite the escape tower, and decouple the command pod from the rocket. (this escape tower is special, she's able to make a 180° turn at the end of the burn, so the pod ends up with it's shield pointing prograde - still experimental ) key 0 : eject the escape tower after an abort. key 9 : deploy the parachutes after an abort. Launch sequence : you can put your pilot inside the lander can instead of the MK1 command pod, if you wish to walk the boarding ramp to the rocket 1st staging : fold the boarding ramp away. 2nd staging : activate the engines (i recommand to keep the throttle to 0 before activating them, then increasing the throttle - once at full throttle, stage to release the rocket ) 3rd staging : rocket release, and folding the umbilical arms. ascent phase : i usually start my g-turn between 5000 and 6000m with a small turn towards 90°, then i try to follow / be slightly ahead of the prograde marker to try to hit 45° at 20000m. the first stage will usually run out of fuel at this altitude. stage to separate the S-1C from the rest of the rocket, and a second time to ignite the engines. you can drop with another staging the ullage ring afterwards, once it's separatrons stopped burning. the escape tower ejection comes next in the staging list, at your convenience i try to reach a 30° angle above the horizon at 30000m, then continue to turn towards 0° (usually between 45000m and 50000m) the second stage will burn out roughly when reaching a 1600 / 1700 m/s of speed, use the third stage to circularize (it has plenty of fuel for circularizing, corrections and Free Return Trajectory) once en route to the mün, you can eject the fairings, turn around with the CSM, and take the LEM from the S-IVb brake in mün's orbit with the CSM. here's come the tricky parts : there's a command chair hidden inside the LEM, you'll need to get your pilot out, and move your camera inside the LEM to target the chair, and board the seat. - you can then separate (target the LEM docking port, there's a small visible ring of it at the top of the LEM) you can now make your descent (i have just slightly more than 700m/s of delta-V in the descent stage - so don't do too much fancy things or you won't be able to land ) the ascent stage is much more permissive with 1000m/s for your orbital manoeuvers. - don't forget to disable the descent stage engine before taking off with the ascent stage rendez-vous in orbit (again, move your camera inside the LEM to target your pilot to order him to leave the seat) then board your CSM to drop the LEM ascent module before making your return burn . Here are the .craft files : the mini Saturn V (VAB, 825 parts) : http://www./view/pa1pe2txpvd2bpm/Mini_Saturn-V.craft the illuminator (SPH, 5 parts per light array deployed by the rover) : http://www./view/1jb99m6acrnd8mc/Illuminator.craft as always in KSP, Have fun

One of the problems you will face, is that most current sytems use a lot of various composite materials - which will be very hard to process enough to be usable for 3d printers. I think You'd be better off directly reusing the full parts - although most electronics might have to be replaced - without thermal control on disabled stuff, the components would end up frying in the sun

i clipped two LRB's inside my S-1C instead of a mainsail - their nozzles are roughly the same size as the LVT-30's (and they look even more like F-1's), so i ended up clipping 5 of them in the middle, with max thrust at 93% (so i have exactly 1000 kN of thrust per nozzle ) although, you might need to empty some of the 3.75m fuel tanks, and add some structural panels between those tanks and the full ones. the two LRB's are basically radially attached to a stack of 1 small 3.75m fuel tank and 1 medium 3.75m fuel tank (all full), and the 5 LVT-30s have separate fuel tanks, with a full small 3.75m fuel tank, and a rockomax x16 fuel tank (that gives my S-1C an early cutoff for the LVT-30s) the rest of the 3.75m tanks i have on my S-1C are empty, and simply used as structural parts (as the empty ones are isolated with the structural panels from the rest of the tanks, they don't mess with the fuel gauges ). still working on my mini saturn V