Jump to content

xcorps

Members
  • Posts

    726
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by xcorps

  1. Didn't NASA do that exact thing with one of the failed rovers?
  2. We are able. Perfectly able. We are not willing. There were a lot of trips to the moon after the first..
  3. There were no military goals. In fact, part of the reasons that NASA came into existence was to remove the influence of the military on the development of launch vehicles and mission planning. Part of the reason von Braun was not appointed to head the space program by Eisenhower was because of his ties to the Army. Ike specifically chose NACA because it was a civilian agency.
  4. Well, Kerbaloid. ..you should really look harder at the history. The space race was not a military race, it was a political race. The goal was prestige for either capitalism or communism. Your entire argument can be taken apart point by point very easily. I suggest you read "Chariots for Apollo, A History of Manned Lunar Spacecraft", "The Heavens and the Earth: A Political History of the Space Age" and "Apollo" by Catherine Bly Cox and Charles Murray. You will find that your present thinking is a bit...uninformed. The use of a single wiki article that lacks both context and perspective is telling.
  5. Mark Whatney would beg to disagree. (This post is a plug for The Martian by Andy Weir)
  6. RE: Message TO: Bug Hello Bug, While you are drilling and grinding, perhaps you could convince your masters to do a quick scan to see if you could find the brain cells I lost while I was reading your message. You thank, Xcorps
  7. I would agree that we could have done a manned lunar orbit using Gemini in 1967, and possibly a landing in 1968 ~IF~ all the EOR infrastructure was designed and tested perfectly. (Certainly a possibility). There are a lot of reasons why the Gemini capsules were superior to the Apollo capsules. There were some compelling arguments for EOR. There are also some very compelling reasons why Apollo capsules were the better approach. It can be a really nifty debate, but ultimately the engineering aspects are trumped by the political pursestrings.
  8. Before or after the EVA tests, apogee record, and manual docking? You've got a pretty long row to hoe here if you really want to convince anyone that NASA could have done a lunar landing in 1966. Especially since a Gemini landing using an EOR required the existence of a space station. Are you suggesting that a space station capable of providing the infrastructure for lunar landing could have been built between September and December of 1966 based on a single docking test AND that all of the modifications to the Gemini capsule could have been performed, tested, and proofed at the same time? That's a bit of a stretch mate. If you were saying that the EOR plan for Gemini would have gotten us there maybe a year sooner, I might be willing to take you seriously. But 1966? Come on. As for cheaper, you are probably right.
  9. I also vote for Malwarebytes, paired with Kaspersky and an installation of Sandboxie. You are basically in your own little internet bubble.
  10. I would be willing to be money that everything was turned off. The comms were not deployed, I checked SAS and verified that the engine was off via right click. If there had been ANY recharge with controls active, the probe would have stopped tumbling, or at least changed it's tumble axis. I also triple checked to make sure time compression was off, even going so far as to increase and then decrease it.
  11. I can confirm that draining bats to zero can cause you not to be able to recharge. I put a probe into Munar orbit with 4k of juice and 8 solar panels and ran it dry trying to reverse orbit. It went into a tumble on drain and even though the panels were showing good exposure and flow, I was never able to gain any charge. Ion engine was off, sas was off, and I even had time to deactivate all but one of the batteries.
  12. Exactly how do you detach cargo? Do you need to add in docking ports? (I did in fact search for answers to this)
  13. I like to use the tricoupler with jet engines with the small rocket fuel tank stripped of oxidizer and reduced fuel for an insane TWR up to about 10k. Get an AP of about 40k and the jets run out of fuel before they get air starved so there is no air starvation craziness. You get waaaay over Terminal, but you can control your next stage burn so that you save a ton of Dv. Saves a lot of headaches that way, you only need one air intake and it isn't something you have to monitor since you are only getting to the gravity turn with them.
  14. So burning through with the low TWR won't cause me to miss an injection?
  15. Let's say I have a maneuver planned using an engine with a very high TWR, but not enough Dv to complete the burn. The next stage has a very low TWR (like an Ion thruster) and needs to burn several hundred Dv to complete the maneuver. How should I approach this? Should I just plan the transfer as normal and burn it out, or should I let the orbit become elliptical and then plot a new maneuver? Mechjeb.
  16. I can't really add much to this, except to offer a +1, bump, truth...oh and I agree.
  17. I think what's being said is that we ARE in the wrong place, and that we need to burn prograde to get to the right place. And as a result there are feedback threads like this one where people express their opinions. We aren't alpha testers. We paid for a product. The fact that we agreed to pay for it before completion doesn't invalidate our opinions, and the fact that we have no idea of what the final result is going to be is guaranteed to generate discussion about what is liked and what is not. I thought that was a good thing?
  18. With respect, you are now arguing a point based on something that doesn't even exist. What we have is a game where we begin with the space age. Not the beginning of rocketry. The theory for rocket expeditions off Kerbin is already developed. Facilities and infrastructure for deployment exist. Supporting manufacturers and developers exist. What we have now is not a scientific challenge, but an engineering challenge. Engineering challenges are solved with time and funding. The development of the rocketry program is artificially hampered by requiring that the program be not only self sufficient, but fiscally productive in addition to objective completion. There is not a viable comparison to "real world" space age development, and that's my whole point. The complaints that contract are not profitable are valid. The degree of validity depends on the degree of difficulty one wishes to experience when building a rocket for flight hampered by artificial limitations that are created merely for the purpose of providing a time sink. Career mode in the early game is not about flying rockets. It's about experimentals and surveys. It needs a tweak.
  19. Pedantry will not support you here. Goddard was not an industry. Neither did he send anything to space. Industry: the aggregate of manufacturing or technically productive enterprises in a particular field, often named after its principal product:
  20. Our own space industry started with regular funding provided for RnD purposes and then from a specific agency created with political willpower and a practically open budget. Facilities were built and provided without regard to cost, with a few notable political backroom deals (that happened to work out favorably) In KSP you are limited by accomplishing contracts that don't pay out the cost of the launch. Your argument is not valid. Our space industry is not and will never be self sufficient fiscally.
  21. I agree. Don't care. Not really sure this is an issue. Agree Agree Really really don't care. Not sure this is something that is consistent with the game. No. No..just no. My addition: Make rovers worth the time and effort it takes to build, test, fly, deploy and crash. As it is now, there is absolutely no point whatsoever to rovers.
  22. I just had the same thing multiple times with the same rocket. a couple of t200's and a t400 with a 45, attached 2 baccs radially and each bacc had an RT10 on the bottom. Rocket wouldn't lift off, TWR of 1.68 Attached a pair of stability enhancers to get it off the ground and got "Rocket too high" warning. Lowered the rocket and the Launchpad ate the rocket. When I reverted to the VAB, all that was left was the capsule. Tier 2 Launchpads suck. Edit: I rebuilt the rocket and set up the staging to fire the LVT45 with the RT10's on the first stage. It lifted off. It wouldn't lift off with just the RT10's.
×
×
  • Create New...