TeeGee

Of course you are! How much payload does she carry?

HEY MESKLIN glad to hear from you! Wow, your newest lifter is amazing! I have to say, your hexagon design was excellent, that's why I borrowed it's design for my own purpose as a solution to the "cluster bomb" issue after I decoupled the boosters from my payload. I wonder if my original staging method will lift as much as yours does! Now when you say "proof of weight" was 145.6 tons, do you mean to include the launcher as well? I launched the 84 ton tank with my method NOT including the boosters. I wonder if I can do even better! The only problem I have is that after I stage, the boosters reenter at spread out locations. I'm looking for an inexpensive way to keep them all together after staging but have yet to come up with a solution. I've tried attaching docking ports, sepatrons etc but can't seem to keep these boosters together for reentry. Anybody have any ideas?

EDIT: I got her to lift: But that's not her max payload... she lifted 88 tons into orbit (obviously that includes the craft herself). Mesklin was onto something.. I used to get craft up like this: Same result but more mess. EDIT: Actually scratch that, I remember why I chose to stage the airbreathers, they are cheaper, lighter, and can carry much higher payloads. Proof:

Cool design! Is the top orange tank separable?

Umm, well you could send up an interplanetary ship with nukes on it attached to a full orange tank and recover the booster for refuel at ksp. Fully reusable and a heavy lifter, sounds like a cheap way to get things into orbit to me..

Sigh. You being the authority on what is possible? Throughout the history of science (from breaking the sound barrier, to heliocentric models, to flight, to travelling to the moon) educated, and very intelligent men have said it was impossible. Impossible is not a word ANYONE should use... because that means that for all time, in any situations with any level of intelligence it cannot be done. How can you possibly say that? Who are you to say that 10, 50, 100, 1000, 100,000 years or more someone, somewhere won't develop the technology to break the boundaries of light speed? People who accept impossible, never advance anything because the strive to do so implodes. People who LOOK for solutions to problems are usually the ones who find them, not the ones who give up and pack their bags and go home. People who say something is impossible are quitters and nobody who was great in the pursuit of science was ever a quitter, or ever used the word IMPOSSIBLE in their field of work. Anyways, sorry for the rant but that needed to be said.

Hi everyone! Just out of curiosity, has anybody managed to get 50 tons of payload into orbit using a stock ssto? I've been looking around and only witnessed 2 or 3 crafts that are stock and are capable of doing this. I've built a craft that can launch 71 tons on the launch pad, but I won't post it because it is a borrowed and modified craft from another individual named Mesklin. Here is the proof: Has anybody else been able to replicate or improve on this payload capacity for stock sstos?

Skepticism is the doubting of something. Nibb31 is skeptical that warp drive will ever be produced.

It's funny how there are 2 types of people in this forum: those who say warp drive is impossible and others convinced it is possible. If everyone thought flight was impossible, we never would have developed airplanes. If everyone thought developing splitting atoms was impossible, we never would have developed nuclear energy. If everyone thought going to the moon was impossible, we never would have had the apollo missions. Human's aren't advanced by skepticism, they are advanced by innovators and dreamers who say anything is possible, we just need to find the answer.

Is that possible? How would we generate forward momentum and not fulcrum rotation?

Hi everyone, Quick discussion: If humans mastered warping spacetime, we could theoretically get rid of chemical rockets for good. Instead of blasting off into space, we could just warp spacetime around a craft and leave the planet without firing one single thruster. Are there any side effects to the planet that we could theorize about if spacecraft technology used alcubierre drives to reach LEO? Would the warp bubbles contain atmosphere from the planet and release that into space (once LEO is obtained)? If we mastered warp, would we need RCS for orientation in space due? We could create a high "mass" deformity outside the craft which would force the ship to fall into the gravity well which would thus cause the craft to turn... right?

Haha, no man, I just would like a movie to have clever enough writing to work around what's plausible and still be entertaining, especially in my space movies! I think people nowadays are a bit more educated than to just accept what hollywood throws at us as being possible. Everybody says during a dumb action movie," that's impossible" or "that would kill him". We are not buying it anymore. Think of how much more impressive a film would be if it were 100% accurate AND exciting, clever filmmakers can do both. I for one liked apollo 13 and From the Earth to the moon, even though there was sound in space (I let that one slide for dramatic reasons) but the physics of the film/series and the events are pretty darn close to what really happened. They never took artistic licence on the laws of physics in a film based on real life events, and that made it a compelling movie. Armageddon is so bad, I can't even watch it again, it just makes me angry. Gravity was on the cusp of being exactly what I wanted, except it took the "I'm realistic" tag line in the opening crawl of "in space there is no oxygen and no sound" to prime me for a truly authentic space movie, but went ape doodoo on the physics and orbital mechanics to the point I was actively trying to explain away the discrepancies DURING my viewing time, which obviously took away from my enjoyment of the film. Suspension of disbelief occurs when expectation is directed towards it, for example in Hobbit or LOTR, I know that was not real but it was never primed in the film that this really happened a long time ago. It didn't start off by saying, middle earth 1000 years ago in the UK.... If you're going to prime the audience with a scientific premise, people are going to watch the movie with hopes of learning something real and experiencing what being in space really is like. If I threw a random person who's seen Gravity into orbit and put them in the exact same situation, they are going to be looking for the ISS and Tiengong while station hopping in their EVA suits because that's what Gravity (the most realistic space movie ever) had happen, and that's impossible. It's called misinformation. I had to actually look up on wikipedia etc. if what happened in the movie was even possible an lo and behold, it wasn't. That wasn't impressive, it was actually disappointing.

AWESMOME! What kind of rocket did you use? LV-N? And where are the intakes?

1) Debris hits once, at the beginning of the movie 2) Debris hits everything on that inclination orbit, including the ISS 3) Orbiter is near ISS and the crew is retrieving a detached module that fell off of the ISS due to neglect or damage from previous debris strikes 4) Kessler syndrome is an already established problem in the film. There, fixed it.

1) Debris hits orbiter once before reentering atmosphere. 2) They were close to ISS to begin with to dock and complete her construction when hit. 3) No tiengong

Why go halfway? Why not create a film that has EVERYTHING, instead of forcing us to suspend our disbelief? A great story teller can satisfy both the learned and the common if the tale is told well. I'm just frustrated that this movie was half real and half lazy. Why are filmmakers so terrified of creating a story that shows the beauty of our natural world instead of filling it with dumb explosions and stupid action heroes doing impossible things in the name of cool? Talk to the audiences spirit, not their animal instincts. Stop being so primal, and start using your brain. Challenge us, teach us and heaven forbid, inspire us. Im tired of losing brain cells whenever I go to watch a movie filled with dumb action. Yes, action is exciting, but creating a movie for the sake of action is very very bad story telling.

?? Care to elaborate? Do you mean that the inclination of the debris was different and only crossed the orbit at one location?

One turbofan, one LV-N.

Hi everyone, Gravity has been bothering me a lot since I watched it in theaters last year, in particular some of the factual issues regarding the Kessler syndrome we observed the characters going through. IF Russia shot down one of their satellites, which is IN ORBIT, why would debris hit the orbiter once every 90 minutes?? I don't understand how that's possible, because everyone knows that orbital period in LEO is once every 90 minutes, that means that the debris must have been stationary over earth (as in, net velocity of ZERO) and the orbiter was flying through it.. was gravity (no pun intended) not acting to pull this debris towards earth? If the satellite was in a retrograde orbit, wouldn't they run into the debris once every 45 minutes?? AND WHY does that same debris ram into the ISS Or Tiengong at the same 90 minute intervals? Does anybody have an explanation for this or any other factual errors that we have not been made aware of yet regarding this film? PS: Please don't reply with the classic "it's a movie" response. If you are going to advertise a film as being realistic, people are allowed to scrutinize its authenticity of that claim till the day they day. Gravity deserves to be picked apart on a factual level because of this claim, no matter how much audiences enjoyed it. BTW has anyone tried to reach a space station in KSP like the astronauts did in Gravity (via EVA)? Is it even possible?

That's always the story isn't it... people suck.

http://falsesteps.wordpress.com/2012/08/18/servmurp-chryslers-space-truck/ Again, why wasn't this the chosen design for the space shuttle???? Can somebody explain the rationale behind this?

Hey guys. How heavy is the KSO without the boosters, SSMEs and LRBs? If the craft with shroud is 45 tons and under, I can push her into space using 1 airbreathing booster that I've designed.

1) Life support 2) Reentry heat 3) MUCH better sound effects 4) Kerbal construction in orbit (astronaut building in space) 5) Weather 6) Maintenance for reusable craft and turn around time for each ship 7) Launch towers and gangways

Who would have thought that Chrysler would have designs for such an amazing spacecraft... maybe they missed their calling.