Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'spaceflight'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • General
    • Announcements
    • Welcome Aboard
  • Kerbal Space Program 2
    • KSP2 Dev Updates
    • KSP2 Discussion
    • KSP2 Suggestions and Development Discussion
    • Challenges & Mission Ideas
    • The KSP2 Spacecraft Exchange
    • Mission Reports
    • KSP2 Prelaunch Archive
  • Kerbal Space Program 2 Gameplay & Technical Support
    • KSP2 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
    • KSP2 Technical Support (PC, unmodded installs)
    • KSP2 Technical Support (PC, modded installs)
  • Kerbal Space Program 2 Mods
    • KSP2 Mod Discussions
    • KSP2 Mod Releases
    • KSP2 Mod Development
  • Kerbal Space Program 1
    • KSP1 The Daily Kerbal
    • KSP1 Discussion
    • KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
    • KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas
    • KSP1 The Spacecraft Exchange
    • KSP1 Mission Reports
    • KSP1 Gameplay and Technical Support
    • KSP1 Mods
    • KSP1 Expansions
  • Community
    • Science & Spaceflight
    • Kerbal Network
    • The Lounge
    • KSP Fan Works
  • International
    • International
  • KerbalEDU
    • KerbalEDU
    • KerbalEDU Website


There are no results to display.

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



Website URL



About me



Found 25 results

  1. The title is pretty self-explanatory. On the anniversary of a milestone of aviation and spaceflight history, post about it here. It can't just be events you think are significant; the name of the game is "This Day In..." The event in question has to share the same month and day as the current date. e.g. if it took place on December 17, 1903, you'll just have to wait until December 17, (whatever year it is now) to post about it. Replies discussing events already posted DON'T have date limits; just the events themselves. In other words, you're free to talk about any events mentioned on here as far long or as late as you wish. Links to sources are highly encouraged. Even if you first learned about it from the Air Force Museum calendar, we would all benefit from some corroboration. It can be as significant as a first test flight or a shuttle crash to something not-so-well known - such as the Army Air Corps delivering mail for the first time or the first successful V2 rocket launch. The choice of event is yours, but the "Anniversary Posting" rule still stands. Have fun, and I can't wait to read what you all come up with. I'll start us off. October 14th, 1947 - U.S. Air Force Captain Charles "Chuck" Yeager becomes the first man to break the sound barrier using the X-1 rocket plane. Source: https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/breaking-sound-barrier-75th
  2. We have a thread for KSP memes, and a thread for forum memes, but no thread for general spaceflight memes. So I made this thread. Here's one to start off: Here's the original film poster, just for reference
  3. Hallo! Welcome to the thread. If you're new to it, welcome aboard! If you're old to it, still- welcome aboard! I've included a "Table of Contents-like" thing to make navigation easier. You can use this for whatever you need: pictures, books, schoolwork maybe, and much more! Here's everything by month: (It starts with July 16 right underneath this) August: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/143974-this-day-in-spaceflight-history/&do=findComment&comment=2700011 September: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/143974-this-day-in-spaceflight-history/&do=findComment&comment=2738034 October: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/143974-this-day-in-spaceflight-history/&do=findComment&comment=2783242 November: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/143974-this-day-in-spaceflight-history/&do=findComment&comment=2835524 December: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/143974-this-day-in-spaceflight-history/&do=findComment&comment=2871511 January: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/143974-this-day-in-spaceflight-history/&do=findComment&comment=2908964 February: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/143974-this-day-in-spaceflight-history/&do=findComment&comment=2941074 March: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/143974-this-day-in-spaceflight-history/&do=findComment&comment=2972834 April: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/143974-this-day-in-spaceflight-history/&do=findComment&comment=3007253 May: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/143974-this-day-in-spaceflight-history/&do=findComment&comment=3042236 June: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/143974-this-day-in-spaceflight-history/&do=findComment&comment=3116760 On July 16, 1969, the Apollo 11 crew consisting of Buzz Aldrin, Michael Collins, and Neil Armstrong lifted off in a Saturn V rocket on their trip to the Moon on the most ambitious journey ever attempted by humankind. Make sure to check back every day or so on this post for an update!
  4. here's the idea, you and a friend who both have ksp start two seperate science playthroughs at the same time and on scheduled days of the week you both work to unlock the tech tree simultaneously, whoever unlocks the whole tech tree first wins you could also do this in career mode if you want
  5. So, I just created a new SSTO that has about 5,000 meters per seconds of deltaV, but I can't get it into orbit. It goes well until I hit the higher atmosphere, and then it screws up. Can someone please help? Craft Image
  6. Hey guys! So today I was playing some KSP and I built a rocket which is meant to orbit Kerbin at a low altitude first and then increase the Apoapsis up to 1 000 000 km (So I can get some sweet science from low and high Orbit). After having achieved the 1 mil km I did a stupid mistake and I had to revert to start.This time, I decided to go for a more lazy approach. I decided not to achieve Orbit and just fly straight up. Now something happened which doesnt make any sense in my current understanding of the world. I was only able to achieve about 400 000 km - less than half the amount I was able to reach when flying in orbit. I dont know how this can make any sense: In my first flight I was spending way more time in atmosphere, why I should have lost more speed than in my second attempt. Also I just dont understand how flying vertically results in much lower altitudes than flying horizontally "only". I would be very happy if someone could explain the mathematics behind that. TY very much in advance!
  7. Back in 1965, the military made a short film about reentry (seemingly animated by Fred Ward, the creator of Bullwinkle). It's a useful tutorial on the same tradeoffs we meet when we reenter a command pod or spaceplace in KSP -- the twin enemies of heat and acceleration. Here's the video:
  8. A few months ago I was browsing through Atomic Rockets when I stumbled upon a passage from a blog discussing the idea of developing a base on the moon with the help of an international authority-type organization to lead it all. The blog itself is based on a report titled "Economic Assessment and Systems Analysis of an Evolvable Lunar Architecture that Leverages Commercial Space Capabilities and Public-Private-Partnerships"—or just Evolvable Lunar Architecture. Recently I took a thorough read through the second part of the report for a big project I was working on, the part discussing the idea of an authority to help develop the Moon (the first discusses the more technical aspects of a moon base). With their approach, they believe it is possible to put people back on the moon in 5-7 years for $10 billion, and build a moon base a decade after that for $40 billion, considerably cheaper than any other approach. The authority seems to solve the issue of unsustainable long-term planning in government and the high risk factor for private enterprises. I can't say I find any major issues with the idea apart from the few outlined in the report, but I can't say I have a thorough understanding of business either. I'm curious as to what everyone else thinks of the idea. Personally, it seems like implementing the ideas from the report would make space travel in general a lot cheaper, and with it a lot more development in space with propellant depots and larger, more permanent space stations. The system could probably be applied to other projects as well. Edit: If you don't what to read the report, this podcast has the PI of the report discuss the key points of it. Here are two links to articles on the report as well.
  9. So umm, a couple months ago I was lazy and used mods like Kerbal Engineer for data readings. Soon I became interested in collecting those data values myself. Soooo I headed to the cheat sheat in the KSP wiki. I learn’t ‘The Rocket Equation’ quite easily and then moved onto TWR. But whenever I plugged in the numbers it would turn out wrong. So I spent hourrs trying to solve this problem with no results. Here is the formula off the wiki: Where Ft is thrust m is mass g is the gravitational acceleration I’m also using a scientific calculator for these calculations. Any help would be appreciated whatsoever!!!
  10. Hi all! hope you are having a great day! I just wanted to share a cool new interactive feature by NASA that shows all the incidents and close calls ever occurred in human spaceflight! I am still discovering the microsite myself but I can tell you already it is really cool! https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/outreach/SignificantIncidents/index.html Hope you enjoy it!
  11. My Brother and I have an idea to make a rocket that will beat all other armature rockets. and since we play KSP we will be doing it the hard way yes a feat no other person will beat. we will go to orbit. quote " not because it is easy but because it its hard and that goal is one we are willing to accept and one we are unwilling to postpone." so assuming that I live in the Oconee County Region of South Carolina and have a shop will all of the (necessary tools with in reason) to build this rocket. I want to use a liquid fuel and an oxidizer as the first stage. then solid rocket fuel will be next since it is easy to ignite like the explore 1 probe.. payload will be a camera, G.P.S unit, radio transmitter, and some other goodies. now I know that there are some aspects that KSP doesn't teach like rocket plumbing, reaction wheels, etc. I am the senior rocket scientist on this project and my brother will help out in ways he can be useful like helping me do all the work. and to think this is a crazy idea I am trying to keep cost a minimum by using high grade aluminum alloys that I will make my self from soda cans. yes soda cans. from there I can melt them down add copper, zinc, and magnesium, to make a high grade Al 7075-T651 alloy. this may take a long time. now for thermal protection. I have no idea how hot it will get and the only high durable heat resistant material I have Is steel. remotely controlling our craft is another thing unless orbital decay but we have to dual coat the heat shield and have all of the components in a ball and coat it and have a heat shielding coat on it and a parachute recovery system. but I would like a controlled recovery system. preferably a splash down with floats. I will post more later
  12. Hello All. Enjoying my time with KSP very much. I have learned a lot. However, I am currently stumped on a contract I can't get in position for. I am trying to measure temperatures while in space flight above the Mun, but I cannot seem to get into position. I plan a maneuver that appears to line up with the zones needing measured, but when I come around my orbit where I thought I would be above the correct positions I am always off, and not by small amount, but several degrees off. Any pointers on this matter?
  13. I'm in a situation. I sent a space station with a small lander to the Mun, and realized it would be easy to put it into a polar orbit. That way, I could end up above every biome on the Mun. Now I have a contract that says to bring a Kerbal back from orbit of the Mun. Cool. On any equatorial orbit, my lander would have plenty of dV to get back into a decent orbit of Kerbin. BUT I can't figure out how to exit a polar orbit without using so much thrust that I'm in a ridiculous orbit on exit. So, the question: what is the most efficient way to exit a polar orbit of the Mun, given that I can wait any amount of time for the Mun to change position around Kerbal?
  14. Today three members of the Expedition 48 crew successfully reached Earth orbit and are on the 2 day journey to ISS. This launch is somewhat special, because it features new version of Soyuz spacecraft. I want to share some videos related to launch and new Soyuz: Launch video (in English): Soyuz-MS features highlight (from popularmechanics.com article ): Video about Soyuz-MS spacecraft (in Russian, but you can try English subtitles): 360 degree video from launch pad (watch the box!):
  15. So, we know that the technology for the NERVA has existed for a long time now, and fully functional test engines were built. Now we all know how much easier Interplanetary travel is with these things, so how come they have never actually been applied to a real space mission? Is it because of radiation concerns?
  16. "Spaceplane" is a fairly well-defined term. Everyone basically agrees that a spaceplane is a vehicle which is capable of aerodynamically-controlled flight in the atmosphere but can also operate above the Karman line. "Spaceship" and "spacecraft", on the other hand, are a little less neatly defined. NASA seems to prefer the latter term, but I have seen several media sources referring to a variety of vehicles as spaceships, including the Dragon V2 and others. Now, I no there's really no rhyme or reason to this; it's just a matter of preference/convention. But if we were going to officially distinguish between the two, how would we go about doing it? Would spaceships be a subset, a distinct type of spacecraft? Do we say that a spaceship is manned and a spacecraft is unmanned? Or do we choose more stringent requirements for spaceships, like having ascent engines, maneuvering/transfer engines, and extended life support? Other suggestions?
  17. The title says it all, here's my thoughts (By the way, you don't have to make it extremely detailed, and you can make your own ideas and divert from current plans, as long as they make at least some sense): 2016: SpaceX launches 18 times, with mostly reused first stages, they also successfully launch the Falcon heavy, Osiris rex launches, and Juno arrives at Jupiter 2017: TESS launches and begins looking for Exoplanets like Earth, the VAIMR thruster is placed on the ISS, Falcon 9 does 30 launches, mostly re-launches from reused first stages and Cygnus, Dream chaser, and Dragon V-2 begin their ISS flights 2018: JWST launches and begins taking over for some of Hubble's duties, and the SLS/Orion launches with a successful mission, and the Angara rocket receives full funding and support 2019: ESA begins testing the SABRE engine, the Vulcan rocket has a successful first flight, and New horizons flies past 2014 MU69 2020: SpaceX test launches their MCT, and NASA launches the Mars 2020 rover, Ariane 6 has a successful first flight and NASA diverts its Mars plans to the Moon and Venus as SpaceX/Bigelow is taking huge strides to establishing a colony, and NASA isn't needed for that, however, NASA is still supporting/giving research to Spacex/Bigelow 2021: India successfully launches their first manned space mission, Skylon is successfully flown, and Vulcan begins reusing its engine block 2022: NASA launches Astronauts to lunar orbit to get ready for the 2023 mission and the Europa clipper launches And the Angara rocket has its first test flight 2023: NASA launches Astronauts to lunar orbit to study the boulder Osiris rex brings back 2024: NASA lands people back on the Moon with co-op from Europe, China, and Russia, the ISS gets decommissioned, and JWST gets strong evidence for Alien life on an Exoplanet less than 20 ly away 2025 SpaceX launches the Falcon 9/Heavy 80 times and planetary resources begins Asteroid mining 2026: SpaceX launches 100 people to Mars, the colonization of Mars has begun and NASA/ESA/CSA/RSC establish a small lunar mining outpost I don't know of any more big missions, or potential big missions beyond 2020, so that's why it seems like only one or two things are happening. Also, yeah, a few things seem really out there, but keep in mind, this is my optimism for where we'll be in space in the next decade. And yes, I know there's a lot more planned, but I'm focusing on really big things.
  18. Nanotech now has the capability to make the space elevator and private, orbital launchers possible. It now also makes possible the long desired 'flying cars'. This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it. Nanotech: from air to space. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/1633027 For technical background see: From nanoscale to macroscale: applications of nanotechnology to production of bulk ultra-strong materials. http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2016/02/from-nanoscale-to-macroscale.html Bob Clark
  19. We have been having a running discussion in this subforum for the last year or more concerning a type of energy that does not require an apparent mass to generate momentum. Although energy can be converted into light which has momentum it has very little momentum given the energy contained within, and so finding something that has a magnitude more momentum per input energy created alot of discussion. In the end here I hope to show that it really matters little. To start off this analysis lets imagine the settlers of the mid 19th century American west. To accomplish their journey they had wagons with supplies and draft animals to pull the supply, this carried them across an expanse that was devoid of trade goods to either feed themselves or their livestock. Along the way the live stock feed, and because high energy foods spoiled they would kill animals and butcher them for meat and fat. There was a thing called winter, at which point unless you had settled in, it would not be a good thing to be in space. Conceptually speaking all major exploratory journeys are like this, if we imagine the discovery ships, they had to have supplies to last them several weeks, they might stop at islands to pick up water and supplies, and they would not want to be caught in a hurricane. Therefore the concept of expanse, resource management and risk have been dealt with. So now lets consider the trip to or any planet. Our Mississippi river is the LOE, we first have to get our ship up across the problem of drag and its desire to fight orbits. During this phase of the journey we cannot rely on any space resource and so it is a given that the initial state provides the energy and mass to create momentum. Once we have a semi-stable orbit we then can examine the problem of space. Space is a name, it has a sort of implicit meaning that it has no stuff in it. Actually space has alot of stuff, at least our local space, relative to the vast expanses of emptiness between galaxies. The stuff in space however tends to get concentrated into inertially defined bodies. Between these bodies are gases and for a traveler these gases are always in motion and because the gases are almost always charged (that means gas is a mixture of plasma and gas), the gas is maintained in a rarefied state by momentum and electromagnetic energy from the sun, as a consequence it can at times be non-inertial. To be clear here, the density of gas, even in the atmosphere of the sun, is so dilute it is of little practical use. That is to say in the time frame of our journey their is neither the time or a relevant volume of space to collect this an use it. The material state of vacuum space is more than an annoyance if anything, in LOE it creates drag and in interplanetary space it carries ions that can damage equipment or injure travelers. The bodies in our space fall basically into three categories. The smallest of these are asteroids and comets. Asteroids are the left overs from planetary genesis, the gas from our sun slows down and hits things out in the outer system, cools, and gases and dust that did not form large bodies eventually coalesce into dirty ice balls that get tugged by our planets and burn up, eventually. The planets clear orbits and thus are clearly inertially defined in their motion, since they are no longer colliding. Finally you have the bodies in which atomic conversion is a major character of the bodies visible appearance, at high enough energy these also emit gases. To our traveler these are the resources of space, so lets define these as such 1. Asteroids and Comets. Resources - Mass (Carbon, Oxygen, Hydrogen, Nickle, Silica, Aluminum): sub resources (metal for building, water for drinking or fuel cells, carbon for food or electronics, all for momentum), trivial amount of inertia, and transitory or impermanent destination. 2. Planets and Moons. - Inertia (as in they warp space), destinations, and the resources of #1. 3. Stars - Electromagnetism, Inertia, trivial emission of Gas and Plasma (as such also a source of electric charge) 4. Not 1 to 3 above - Quantum space - Non-zero rest energy of fields that permeate our universe (which of yet we are not fully aware or know how to exploit). So basically above we can define space as a list of virtual items, in this we can then rank them to our Space traveler. My ranking may shock but . . . A. [Quantum] space - this is the most important resource of space because it permits long distance travel and because its fields make it possible to establish travel strategies. The physical distance between destinations is in the >109 meters, traveling in drag affords speeds of 100s of meter per second, therefore matter just slows down the process. Matter also creates lots of other problems like gravitational collapses and complex body problems. B. Destinations (virtual and physical) - travelers will eventually need resources or a travel interest. C. Electromagnetic radiation - discussed below. Essentially EM is the purest source of energy, that is not to say it is the sole source of energy, but rest mass as an energy source has an investiment cost (in space this translates into mass). D. Inertially derived warping of space time - for the occasional Oberth effect. E. Mass - E = mc^2, p = m * v These are the resources what are their costs. A. Space - Not suitable for biota, no push-off mass, all* momentum must be derived within (*the status of the rf resonance cavity thruster goes undefined), energy required to reach space and return, energy taken by contamination within vacuum space. B. Destinations represent almost always a non-inertial logic, a dV required to reach them, we talk about space-time, we also have to consider dT. Destinations may have other problems like too much or too little of some other resource (Namely light). C. EM - heat dissipation with too much, energy conversion for use in propulsion and systems. D. Oberth masses - Friction or obstructions, space-time (see B). E. Mass - collection, landing, mining, conversion (not to mention cooling equipment) So basically we have a list of issues for our traveler. Breaking this down much of traveler concerns are non-inertial movements in space-time which require energy and for the most part momentum derived from mass ejection. The above is not the intent of the article, it simply breaking things down into abstractions that the next part can deal with. So what is the problem of traveling (not the traveler). If you are not going to something that cross the same space-time (in some relevant timescale) point dV needs to be applied somewhere. We derive dV Light - almost never used, but requires no mass (we have to assume at this point that the rf resonance cavity thruster is not this type of drive) Chemical - the fuel becomes the ejection mass - limited to bond breaking partial bond formation energy of the fuel. Basically at high temperature unfavorable bonds break the most stable reform as the cool. There is a finite limit on how much energy can be obtained from a chemical bond, it is defined in calories per mole and typically is in the form of O-O, H-H, N-O, N=O, C-C, C-H, C-N, C=C, C=N. Electrodynamic - the mass becomes energized by the input of energy and accelerates. (Ion, plasma, VASIMR, Hall effect, rf resonance*) Atomic - a source of heat is used to rarefy gas or liquid which then expands like chemical energy drive. We can see we need energy to produce light, we need to carry mass to produce chemical energy, we need to carry a nuclear reactor or we need to accelerate ions. Unless you want to carry all the energy with the craft there is a limitation of space, right now its solar power, (given the high mass issues with nuclear and cooling issues) Space gives effectively about 1N of thrust for every 233kg of solar panels (C). This gives a maximum 4.2 mm/s2 of acceleration (0.0004g), with that one needs about 233 meters of space. You can assume that a manned spacecraft this will be 10% of the mass so you are effectively limited to about 0.04g. I have created new ion drives and panels in the game to reflect this (HiPep design thrusters). The major problem is orbiting, this designed requires another source of accelation and is not suitable around low hv objects. Nuclear is worse, the reactors cost as much as the panels in terms of weight but much more in terms of cooling. if we argue that solar is kg per sqm then any means of reducing this improves the portability of the system. Modern age silicon lens are light weight and can focus light on a panel of much lower size and weight. This type of system works great in interplanetary flight, however only at a tangent to orbit, so inefficient transfers are not optimal unless the lens are placed on tracks that can move their positions. They also do not work well in non-inertial manuevers close to inertial bodies, this is because the incident angle shift with prograde motion. The mass of the ion drive is trivial (the most efficient drives of a few kilograms will easily consume all the energy we can currently produce), at 9000 dV the mass of the fuel becomes trivial (because you cant produce enough energy to eject it), the mass of energy production facility is just about everything. Find a way to lower the mass of energy production and Manned missions to (but not landing on) are possible.
  20. So I was pretty disapointed that I missed the SpaceX landing and I've looked across the web for upcoming events, though I couldn't find a lot about spaceflight (like the spaceX landing)/ astronomy events. Could anyone give some things to look forward to in 2016?
  21. Do i go at full thrust and turn sharply once in an altitude where the drag won't really matter? Do i go slow, turn gradually until sideways? Or do i shoot straight up and circularize once out of atmosphere?
  22. Welcome to Rocket of the Week! This week(12/8/15-12/15/15)'s featured rocket: Delta III Rocket of the Week is a place where we will feature one rocket that is currently operational, retired, or planned. A new rocket will be featured each week. All members are welcome to comment about the featured rocket and even make suggestions about rockets that should be showcased the following week. Sometimes polls will be held for members to vote on their favorite rocket. Also, if the rocket is available in a KSP mod, it will be showcased as well. This is a place for all rocketry enthusiasts to gather and to talk about rockets (and sometimes spaceflight)! This week's featured rocket will be the Zenit-3 rocket, which likely made its last flight on December 11, 2015. Links to previous (or current) featured rockets of the week: Delta II: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/126822-rocket-of-the-week-delta-iii/&do=findComment&comment=2315493 Delta III: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/126822-rocket-of-the-week-delta-iii/&do=findComment&comment=2315504 Zenit 3: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/127481-final-flight-of-zenit/ Rocket of the week is a place where real-world rockets will be featured. It is meant to give people more information on real-world rockets, and hopefully influence some rockets that are being built in KSP. My goal is to provide information about these rockets that will give people sufficient information on these rockets, which can be famous or forgotten. I hope to bring these rockets to life through weekly informative posts about these rockets to the KSP community. Enjoy!
  23. Could this be the last flight of the powerful Zenit launch vehicle? On December 11, 2015, a Zenit-3SLBF rocket will launch the Electro-L2 satellite. Electro L-2 is a Russian weather satellite that will be stationed in Geostationary orbit. However, many sources, including Spaceflight Now and Spaceflight 101, have published articles stating that this launch could be the final launch of the Zenit launch vehicle, because the Zenit is for the most part manufactured in the Ukraine, and since Russian-Ukrainian tensions are getting tight, Russia has decided that it is no longer interested in purchasing Zenit launch vehicles from the Ukraine. The Zenit launch vehicle was rolled out to its Baikonur launch pad on December 9, 2015. This Zenit will fly in the Zenit-3SLBF (Zenit 3F) configuration with a Fregat-SB upper stage that will inject the Electro-L2 satellite into Geostationary orbit. Zenit stands approximately 20 stories tall in this configuration. The Zenit's first stage is powered by a RD-171M engine. RD-171M is the world's most powerful rocket engine, even more powerful than the Saturn V rocket's F-1 engines (However RD-171M achieves this thrust through four thrust chambers while the F-1 only has a single thrust chamber. F-1 is the most powerful single chamber rocket engine and RD-171M is the most powerful rocket engine overall). RD-171M is derived from the RD-170 engine used on the strap-on boosters of the Energiya rocket that lifted the Soviet Space Shuttle, Buran. RD-171M burns a mixture of RP-1 Kerosene and Liquid Oxygen. It burns for approximately 2 minutes and 30 seconds. The second stage is powered by a fixed RD-120 engine and a four-chamber RD-8 vernier engine. Both engines burn the same propellant mixture as the first stage. RD-120 has also influenced the design other rocket engines with its efficient staged combustion cycle technology, most notably the Ukranian RD-810, the Indian SCE-200, and the Chinese YF-100. From left to right: RD-120, RD-810, SCE-200, YF-100 On this flight, the third stage of the rocket will be a Fregat-SB upper stage (Zenit is compatible with the Block-DMSLB and Fregat-SB upper stages). Fregat-SB is derived from the Russian Fregat upper stage. The Fregat-SB has an additional torodial propellant tank mounted below the structural frame. The Fregat-SB upper stage will propel the Electro-L2 satellite into Geostationary orbit. This will be the 83rd flight of Zenit and the 3rd flight of the vehicle in its Zenit-3F configuration. The first version of the Zenit was the Zenit-2, which was the basic two-stage vehicle. Later, with Sea Launch's arrival into the commercial launch market, the Zenit-3 family was introduced. Zenit-3 was basically a Zenit 2 with a Block-DMSL/DMSLB upper stage. Sea Launch flights flew with the Block-DMSL upper stage, while Zenit-3SLB/3M "Land Launch" rockets flew with the Block-DMSLB upper stage. The Zenit-3F is the only Zenit configuration that uses the Fregat upper stage. Developed in the former Soviet Union, the Zenit rocket "represented a new age of Soviet rocketry," as according to Spaceflight Now. Many Zenit components were manufactured by Yuzhnoye inside the Ukraine, and Russia depended on the Ukraine to ship Zenit rockets if it wanted to launch satellites on Zenit. The rocked made its maiden flight in 1985, and has flown missions for over 30 years. Reportedly, there are two more unflown Zenit launch vehicles. A completed vehicle is in storage at the Baikonur Cosmodrome. It was assigned to launch Russia's Spektr-RG observatory. However, according to Spaceflight Now, the rocket's warranty has already expired and the observatory might be shifted to a Proton-M Breeze-M rocket. Another Zenit rocket is being assembled in the Ukraine to launch the Ukrainian Lybid-1 communications satellite. However, it is unclear if Lybid-1 will even fly, due to Russian-Ukrainian tensions getting tighter. With this, a legendary product of the Cold War space race will probably make its final trip to the stars tomorrow. This is my recreation of the launch in KSP, using the Zenit-3SLB from Horizon Aeronautics. Note: The Zenit rocket shown here is in the Zenit-3SLB configuration, with a Block-DMSLB upper stage. I don't think there are Fregat-SB stages in any of the KSP mods, and existing Fregat stages are not compatible with the size of this rocket. Also, the payload being launched is a first-generation TDRS satellite, since there is no Electro-L2 replica in KSP.
  24. So I was bored, thinking about manned spaceflight and such. But then I thought about gender. What if the majority of these people on these flights were male/all were male? How would equality and feminist groups react? Would they attempt to stop/delay the launch so women could go on? What about the radicals? How far would they go to stop this if they would do so at all?
  • Create New...