Tuareg
-
Posts
370 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Tuareg
-
-
"Buggy bugger"?
-
They need to redesign the structure to support the increased weight and loads. They need to evaluate the effect of that on the rest of the rocket. They need to reevaluate separation systems, consider how payload will be supported in the new fairing, consider what materials are suitable, and run lots of simulations and tests. The personnel involved are highly skilled, and such people don't come cheap. They then need to re-tool production systems (production lines are optimized to produce a single thing of a single design; they are not flexible, and you need to change them when changing the design of what you're making).
yeah, it was working like that around the 18th century... today you can launch a new design into production in hours...
You don't seem to understand the relationship between ESA and Arianespace. ESA is in charge of the Ariane project. It's a pan-European project. They give significant support to Arianespace, not in the form of contracts, but in the form of direct financial support. ESA literally pays a subsidy to Arianespace solely to support them financially. ESA isn't paying this cost so they can use the fairing. They spend money on Ariane so Arianespace can provide a European launch capability. Similar things happen with Airbus. To call Arianespace just a company selling to ESA is simply untrue, because simple contractors aren't paid substantial direct subsidies to enable them to stay in business. The ESA is paying for development of Ariane improvements for the commercial launch market. They aren't buying 100 million euro fairings, they're spending 100 million euros so that future Ariane rockets can better support commercial launches.or you dont seem to understand business models built on governmental lobby
but we've got very far from procedural fairings -
"The issue is *development* cost, which is huge."
yes. they have the materials set, the structure set, they just have to modify the look of it on paper and all the rest is production. there is nothing cost HUGE on it. its marketing. and ESA pays for it (well, not the agency itself, but as i've said the governments funding ESA) arianespace is a company, a multinational company and they are selling these changes to those governments through ESA. business is a complex thing. far more complex than engineering.
-
its jeb's fault, he was messing with the controls
-
Reread the article. This is pretty much the *opposite* of a one-off fairing. It's the launch provider deciding, as part of a tweak to their offerings, to offer larger fairings. The *development* is what's costing 100,000,000 euros, but it's not designed for any individual payload; it's designed to offer this for future payloads. The development isn't being funded by customers, it's being funded by ESA (who have a pretty close relationship with Arianespace). The construction isn't the expensive part; the expensive part is that it costs quite a lot of money to develop and test rocket-grade parts, and quite a lot of money to set up the manufacturing process to make fairings of that size with necessary tolerances. The marginal cost of a fairing will be well under a hundred million euros, but that's because the development has already been done for that exact fairing design, so you don't need to re-pay the price.
Yes, you could design a custom fairing for a hundred million euros. However, no one is suggesting procedural fairings be the single most expensive thing on your KSP rocket; if you're going with "it's done one-off in real life," you should realize that it's not, and if it were it would in fact *be* the single most expensive part of the launch.
To people talking about pricing for them being too wide: While that does help discourage over-wide fairings, and makes sense for gameplay, if you're talking real costs the most expensive part by far is the development, not the fabrication.
Your second paragraph is the sort of thing that's actually a decent argument for procedural fairings.
you should re-read it. esa member states (governments) will pay for the modification. they are selling it badly overpriced, like everything in the world today. do you know how much the production cost to make a smartphone? i'll tell you, about 10 eu. i guess you know their market price. the differences are exactly the same for everything. design, production etc are cheap, marketing cost billions... and ariane is just one company selling their products to esa and it absolutely doesnt matter how close relationship they are in...
-
if their payload is too large for the fairings of one rocket they have to either redesign their payload or go with another launcher.
but this is not true, we just shown cases say it different. why are u hanging on your imaginations when clearly there are examples saying the opposite? you can have a new fairings designed just pay for it. and it doesnt cost 100mill, they SELL it for 100mill which is a huge difference. just one example is the delta 2 with its 3 different fairings. they were designed BECAUSE of the payloads didnt fit into the old one... and if there would be a payload couldnt fit into it (however they probably try to fit in to those as many as they can) they have the ABILITY to design a new again and again. they will not attach their 10 cm oversized payload to a delta IV, they will create a delta 2 xyz... as they have already done it.
also we are not playing a space agency selling launches for TV satellites, were are designing our own rockets our own payloads like if we would be nasa. sure they are standardising things because thats easier, but there is the chance to make it different. and payload and fairings is one of those will have to be changed the most. again the delta family... every other parts are the same on them but the fairings... one has more boosters to fit the probably higher weight it can carry but it has the same boosters. dont even mention delta 3 which is a delta 2 with an extremely special fairing...
-
Except, again, there is only 1 company making a given part.
this. while the idea is good, there is simply no competition because different companies are selling entirely different things...
-
There's something else about that new fairing as well, it's being proposed to allow the rocket to carry a pair of large satellites instead of one large and one small, so it's intended to meet a projected need in the future.
It is not being proposed to allow for one customers payload, as that would be preposterously cost inefficient, so it still doesn't come anywhere close to proving that new fairings can just be made when needed.
A lot of time, money and effort has to go into designing, testing and certifying any new space hardware, even payload fairings, it's not something that is taken lightly or done on a moments notice to satisfy the needs of a customer with an oversized payload.
Current and future customers will still have to ensure their payload can fit within the offered fairing sizes, or they won't go to space today
You can argue as much as you like Tuareg, it won't change things.
just like u can argue it wont change things that there are many many different rockets with many many different fairings in service and that the ABILITY to design new ones at any time. there are no 3 fixed sizes for every missions...
-
A new fairing that will take two years and over €100 million to bring to market, that is very, very far from an employee on a monthly wage making a new steel box
A new larger fairing will be able to carry a larger payload, but if your satellite still exceeds the offered standard sizes then use a bigger rocket
haha, and you think that design cost 100mill or that they are selling it to esa? would it still cost 100 mill if they would go to launch it? well seen u never worked in outsourcing
on the other hand, they are still designing new fairing even for order... so why shouldnt we be able to do it? -
Based on quick googling, the development of a bigger payload fairing for Ariane 5 was expected to cost almost €100 million and take two years. The price of one Ariane 5 launch is around €150 million.
yeah, this is how you sell things if you are a business and its completely different if you do it for yourself... and thanks for the link which say they DO design new fairing for new payload
-
My impression is that the development cost of a new payload fairing is roughly equivalent to a single launch of the rocket it's going to be used with. After all, rockets are quite cheap compared to development costs and payloads.
what? you imply that their own employee who gets fix monthly wage wouldnt design a new just somewhat bigger steel box cheaper than sending up an unnecessarily big rocket? yeah, as sal said imagination is a wonderful thing... and strange in some cases lol
if this would be the case the world would have 3 size of rockets...
-
Well, imagination is a wonderful thing, but if your payload won't fit it's not going to space
so why they designed the h10l when the only difference is the fairing? omg man...
-
They still don't make them to order though, they have standard sizes, if your payload is too big, pay for a bigger rocket
i can hardly imagine that if nasa would have a multibillion equipment to launch just dont fit the delta II 7925 fairings they would scrap it instead of designing a 7925-H10L with a different fairing just for a few dollars. i think thats how those new versions were born... i dont have a hot line to nasa but i think they dont just launch a double sized rocket so they dont have to design a 10cm bigger fairing.
-
I think they have actually a use as fuel depot and may get another one if resources are implemented - as space rafineries and (if you can harvest resources in space) as fuel factories.
But yes, new parts for them would be nice.
sadly fuel harvest was announced to be a single part magiccreate fuel on asteroids so no bases will be built on that. as there is nothing to do on planets, as long as it doesnt change, there is no reason to have bases other than it looks cool...
-
Hmm, on the subject of realism of fixed fairings, it seems that rocket payload fairings are indeed manufactured to a small number of standard sizes per vehicle, and not made to order.
Either your payload fits or you use a bigger rocket
Atlas V has 4 and 5 metre standard fairing sizes.
RUAG Space makes a 5 metre fairing for the Ariane.
SpaceX use a 13.1 by 5.2 metre fairing.
And the Proton offers two lengths as standard, 13305 mm and 15255 mm.
while nasa's delta family has at least 11 members in use with at least 7 different sized or shape fairings and payload...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_%28rocket_family%29#mediaviewer/File:Delta_EELV_family.svg
i guess they didnt just make standardised size rockets randomly, they have designed them for different requirements and payloads, they simply just dont design one every week... but they also dont launch 10 rockets in 5 minutes.
-
A stock hype train
two, so jeb and bob could collide them
-
Who in this thread is restricting anyone? None of us have the slightest bit of control over what Squad does; the point of this thread is to discuss what would be better. The only people who *could* restrict anyone are Squad, who can only restrict stock KSP players, which they absolutely have the right to do (and which they do do, routinely). If people can approach this without trying to assume that their own preferred playstyle is the only legitimate one to be encouraged by stock KSP, and that anyone who prefers a different playstyle should have to deal with it themselves, this thread would be much nicer. As it is, some people are acting as if "yes, restrictions can make a game more fun" is somehow an illegitimate viewpoint. No one in this thread is going to restrict your gameplay. Saying things like "oh, I guess we should all play the way cpast thinks is good" or "people think they have a right to restrict others" is not useful, because no one here is saying anything other than "Here's ways why procedural fairings can be better" or "here's ways fixed-size fairings can be better."
As a side note, I actually *do* think procedural fairings make a lot of sense, and are probably, on balance, a better solution. But many of you guys are making really bad arguments for them.
well, that kind of discussion was over after about the 6th post. all the way since there is just, fixed fairings is more realistic (which isn't) and most ppl like restrictions because they cant restrict themselves (which is first of all not true, ppl like creative things, second of all non of my concern if somebody fails to restrict himself if there are no forced restrictions). If ppl could come up with some realistic reasons or, as you try to say, would just post things as "it fits MY gamestyle more", it would be ok, but you try to sell it as global truth and, sry for that, but it makes me annoyed... and i guess, as long as i dont start to give you names i have every right to give voice to this. would you disagree?
-
im getting fed up with these guys thinking they have a right to restrict others because they have more right to have fun then others on their failed self-restrictive way... is this going to anywhere? if ppl would enjoy restrictive gameplay minecraft wouldnt be so successful. it is because you can do generally anything in it. also the big mods for ksp wouldnt have hundreds of thousands of downloads. proc fairing, if they will happen are the first ever really good choice of squad
-
Wait wait wait...
So, you guys are saying " Don't force your way to play ( non proc parts) on us!" When you're trying to do force yours on US?
Just sayin'.
just sayin' that with proc fairing u can make standard and non standard size parts. with fixed u can make only standard. who is forcing what?
its like: "dont force ur freedome on me"...
-
But proc tanks kind of go against the lego-style of KSP...
why would? it would just mean you dont have to put 5 of the same size and looking tanks on top of each other (which would be good for physx load) and that they can be any diameter. you still have to give separate tanks for payloads and stages and the crafts would still be built legolike...
-
Standard widths are largely a consequence of part size; the player does *not* set how wide their parts are.
but they set how wide their crafts are.... anyway, i dont understand ppl who want to force others to live their ways. you dont like it, dont use it. proc fairings is an advanced version of fairings. if you dont want to use its advantages you can always build standard sized loads with standard size fairings let others to do it different. it would look far better to have limits set by realism than rules set by cpast. and its not even much bigger work, its done by modders so can be done by squad...
-
I know, I was intentionally setting up an example where we could agree. My point was that standards do not exist in a vacuum. In KSP, the player sets the standards. I'd prefer that if physics makes oddball fairings terrible, THAT is the limit.
This goes to the very nature of "realism" vs made up. Let;s assume real fairings are limited by aerodynamics, and the shots from KSP posted above (of PF) would not work in RL. I'd prefer to have them not work in KSP because they don't work given the physics model, not because we are only given 3 sizes that happen to work in RL. If that makes sense. The limit should be aerodynamic, not arbitrary.
this^^this^^this^^
-
And? have you *ever* seen a rocket launch with a fairing that was custom build for a specific payload? even if it did happen I would bet it's the exception and not the norm, I very much doubt that people behind the launcher would go through all the engineering process that requires making a new fairing design just because one of their clients couldn't be bothered to fit their payload to their existing ones.
o.O... how many times nasa sent up rockets with other's payloads and how many times did they shoot up their own rockets with their own payloads and their own fairings... you can be sure its far easier to design a cover than design any craft (probe satellite or whatever) to fit into a given space. you live in a dream. weak up, ksp isnt real, its a game. (actually in most times even the rockets are designed for the payload not just the fairings)
-
I prefer discrete parts, no procedural stuff. Fairings aren't designed for a payload anyway, the payload is designed with the space available in mind.
i wouldnt be so sure...
but we've got very far from procedural fairings
Stock fairings: Procedural or not?
in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
Posted
i would understand this if it would be an MMO and we would talk about gaining unfair advantage but this is a singleplayer game... why anybody want to restrict me how do i play my game?