Nibb31

Orion was supposed to use LIDS, which is androgynous. KSP doesn't care though, all docking ports are androgynous as long as the collision model works.

I added this line to the cfg file of the Dragon_Wings folder: node_stack_cargo = 0.0, 0.75, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0 This adds a node inside the trunk. You can put a decoupler there and a small 2m cargo tank (not 2.5m, you might have to resize something to fit).

They've been announcing this kind of stuff for decades. I'm not holding my breath.

Absolutely none of Skylon is proven technology. It's a theoretical design, which might work, but is based on margins that are so tight that the whole project can fail because of one small roadblock. They managed to build a proof of concept of the SABRE precooler in a lab. Although that is a great achievement, there is still a huge difference between a lab bench prototype that uses paper-thin sheets of aluminium and runs in a controlled environment for a few hours and an operational system. Things like reliability, serviceability, and ruggedness have to be included into the design. It has to work under harsher conditions, with vibrations, weather, handling, maintenance... And this is just a precooler, which accounts for maybe 10% of a totally innovative and unproven engine design. It takes a decade and billions of dollars for companies like GE or Rolls Royce (yes, British too) to design, build, and certify a new conventional turbofan engine, yet the principles are well-known and they have hundreds of experienced engineers working on the There is only so much 3 blokes in a shed can do. And that is just for the engine. Skylon's airframe or TPS are also totally unconventional designs. They are reinventing the wheel, which is much more complicated than using proven technology. Although in theory, their designs might work, there needs to be years of studies and prototyping, much more complex than those for an airliner like the A380. In addition, their margins are so thin that if any of their concepts proves impractical, unreliable, or ends up putting on some extra weight, then the whole project fails. As for the UK having their own space program, I don't think it's realistic to want to start from scratch (even though it has some great companies like BAe, Astrium, and RR). ESA already has a fantastic launcher, a great spacecraft capability and experience, one of the best space facilities in the world, and an advanced space industry. I'd rather see the UK participate more heavily in ESA, maybe by contributing the manned flight capability that ESA is lacking.

I think he's done with the Soviet pack.

The Titan II first stage from 50 years ago was capable of SSTO if you cared to launch it with zero payload, which would have been useless. SSTO itself is pointless, but actually easy. It's SSTO with a significant payload that is difficult to achieve, as well as reusability. SSTO for the sake of SSTO doesn't make sense. SSTO, reusability, and low-cost are 3 different things. Generally, the goal is to reduce the cost to orbit, which is not necessarily related to achieving SSTO or reusability. SSTO and reusability are engineering parameters, but cost is usually a function of the market environment and many complex parameters, of which engineering is only a minor factor. X-51 has nothing to do with SSTO or spaceplanes.

They've been working on it for 30 years, and they have virtually no budget. They are basically just a bunch of BAe retirees with a dream and some cool Powerpoint presentations. In all this time, all they have accomplished is some theoretical studies and a couple of lab proofs-of-concept for minor parts of the SABRE engine. They are a very long way from having an actual prototype engine, a longer way from having a reliable operational production engine, and a mindbogglingly long way from having a low-maintenance reusable spacecraft. So no, without a major investor stepping in, there is no way such a small team can design and build a reusable launch infrastructure from scratch, where organizations like NASA, Boeing, Lockheed Martin and others, have spent billions and failed.

Getting to orbit is about horizontal speed, not altitude. The only reason you want to orbit above 70000m is because the atmospheric drag slows you down. Look at the map view during the launch. When you reach the magic speed of 2300m/s on a horizontal trajectory, you will see that gravity will still be pulling you down, but you will be going fast enough to fall "beyond the horizon", therefore you will be in an orbital free-fall. So if you are falling down at 40000m, then your rocket probably isn't going fast enough to reach orbit. We would need to see a picture of your rocket to figure out exactly what you are doing wrong.

..........

My take on a Kuest-based lander, and why I would really like to see a 1m Cupola that would fit the Fustek CBM ports.

Because he makes them for his own enjoyment and doesn't care if you use them or not. And that is perfectly fine.

It depends on your terrain level of detail settings.

First of all, we don't know anything about artificial gravity. We don't know if it actually does prevent bone/muscle loss, how much is enough, or if there are any detrimental side-effects. For example, the coriolis effect induced by the spinning might cause more problems than the artificial gravity solves. We do know that we can reasonable counteract the biological effects of microgravity with bone-less medication and exercice, and we are currently experimenting those solutions. Until we have actually done some long-term testing in LEO, it would be unwise to commit to a particular artificial gravity design for something as short as 9 month flight.

I'm so glad that Bobcat chose to do the ESAS LSAM concept from 2004 rather than the 2010 Altair from Constellation !

I've been using the previous version with MechJeb 2 and it has been working fine, landings included. I had to remove all the fairing parts, rebalance the upperstage, hack the craft file to get the upperstage legs to fit properly, and hack the texture files to get it load though, so I can't wait for the low-rez update.

The link is missing the : after http.

Do we really need another thread about Mars One? It's been talked about to death, and no, there's no way they are are ever going to book a flight, let alone put people on Mars. If they did, it would be a slow and boring suicide mission, and the failure would probably prevent anyone else from attempting a proper manned exploration mission.

Fusty, there is something weird going on with the CBMs when attaching them in the VAB. I fixed them by changing attachRules in the cfg to: attachRules = 1,0,1,0,0

To dock, you need to have a relative speed of 0, which means that they are stationary relative to each other. By definition, if both ships are travelling in opposite directions it's impossible for them to be stationary to each other. The only way around this is to reverse your orbit on one of the ships, which is the same as doing a 180° inclination change. This is going to cost A LOT of delta-V that you probably don't have.

Very nice! I'm loving these new modules and their capabilities. Here are my comments: - I think the airlock hatch on the end of the airlock prevents you from putting a CBM there, which when attached to the side of a had module, makes it hard to move around with a tug spacecraft. In other words, it's only possible use is to launch it attached inline to another module. I think a side hatch would have been more useful, or you could have set one hatch on each of the other modules to use as an airlock, or made an airlock end-ring (I know that would screw around IVAs). - The current airlock design would be great as a side mounted lander pod, with a cupola at one end and hatch at the other, a bit like the old Constellation LSAM concept. Unfortunately, it's lacking the side nodes for that. - The end ring part is fantastic, but it makes the MkIIIAdapter modules redundant. You could pretty much remove them and let people use the end ring instead, when needed.

Try them and tell us.

BobCat is working on other stuff right now. He might update the old stuff and he might not. Most of it works anyways, or can be easily fixed by yourself. Modders make these mods for fun, and it is usually more fun to work on new stuff than to do maintenance updates on old stuff. They don't owe you anything.

Looking good !

-snip- concepts like this (like giant railguns, space elevators, balloons to orbit, and so on...) have been floating around for decades, yet nobody is building them, because I'm not the only one who thinks they are ont viable or practical. On the other hand, a lot of people on this forum wear pink-tinted glasses. Many of us are young, somewhat inexperienced, and have been raised on science fiction. Now, Star Trek is fun, with warp drives, time travel, and teleportation, but real-life constraints and physics say that it's not reasonable to expect these to happen any time soon. Powerpoint presentations are easy. Real engineering is hard. Some concepts look appealing in theory but are hard to actually build because all sorts of petty real-life concerns crop up when you want to convert theory into a robust operational system. You know, stuff like money, politics, weather, patents, regulations, maintenance, human resources... I'd love to see someone come up with a cheap and feasible way to put people and stuff into orbit. However, handwaving the problems that I raised away by calling them naysaying doesn't make them go away and certainly doesn't provide an decent answer to those issues.

Sometimes, you have to recognize a lost cause. There is no point in fighting an uphill battle when there are no benefits to gain in the end. Some things in life are impossible. Some are hard, but feasible. Others are hard, and not worth the effort. Yeah, but what for? In what circumstances would it be desireable for Humanity to establish a colony on an uninhabitable planet where people have to live underground and hardly ever go outside? Even if some major catastrophe rendered Earth uninhabitable, it would be easier to do the same on Earth.