Rory Yammomoto Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 1 hour ago, Jso said: Because the Skylab foreman forgot to divide 80 by 11,300. It's under construction, it takes time to get the numbers right. still, 904.000 kits... that's how much my Gemini-Mun rocket weighs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daelkyr Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 1 hour ago, Rory Yammomoto said: still, 904.000 kits... that's how much my Gemini-Mun rocket weighs. As Jso's reply you quoted states: the numbers were not correctly inputted. They'll get fixed. If you're struggling with the "in progress" Skylab, you might need to wait until it's finished before using it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plausse Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 Sorry for my complete ignorance... but: Looking through the compatibility patches I noted there are two USI-LS patches, one with many words and letters, and one with much fewer but the more verbose one appears commented out in its filename ".cfg.txt". I'm literally just curious, is there some magical wizardry I am unable to understand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rory Yammomoto Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 7 hours ago, Daelkyr said: As Jso's reply you quoted states: the numbers were not correctly inputted. They'll get fixed. If you're struggling with the "in progress" Skylab, you might need to wait until it's finished before using it. I don't have a problem, I'm using an older skylab. but the number is so mind-bogglingly huge that I'm hung up on it. I know it was an input error, but maybe keep it - just don't have it store as many by default. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuu Lightwing Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 Huh, I actually loaded that thing on top of Sarnus INT-21 and then was surprised that it barely lifts off ground. I didn't expect it to weight 200 tons About a third as much kits - Sarnus can actually push in orbit (in 2x solar system) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pappystein Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 (edited) On 3/8/2017 at 6:35 PM, CobaltWolf said: I think it used sea level modified J2s or HG-3s. Depending on the date or version (INT-18 or INT-17) The Saturn II proposals used non SL rated J-2s with 2 or 4 UA-1205/6 or7 SRMs for initial launch. OR Sea Level Rated J-2 engines OR Sea Level Ratted HG-3 Engines or either Sea Level rated or not J-2S engines. A later NOTE (not an actual proposal) suggested using the J-2T-250K in lieu of sea level rated J-2/J-2S on the Saturn II INT-17 proposal. The INT-19 proposal was a little more modified. it used SL rated J-2S only (no alternative was listed in any of my documents,) with a varied amount of Minuteman based SRMs (between 4 and 8 at launch with up to an additional 4 after the first SRM burnout.) To the original question, The SSME is a direct enlargement of the J-2 via the HG-3 and the J-2S programs. the Base RS-25 pumps and plumbing are literally a scaled up HG-3 plumbing with modifications to maintain mixture stability. The HG-3 is an enlarged J-2S. The J-2S has new back end (pumps and plumbing) attached to the standard J-2 engine bell/chamber. Personally I have been flying INT-18s in either BDB or FASA parts base since 2014ish. I use them as my main station launcher. They launch even better with the Hercules USRM in-lieu of UA-1207s Also I should mention I do not know of any mod that currently has a HG-3 engine. I have not downloaded the latest BDB yet so.... Edited March 12, 2017 by Pappystein Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drakenex Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 Started a new thread on mission reports about ETS missions, pay a visit and make suggestions! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jso Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 8 hours ago, plausse said: Sorry for my complete ignorance... but: Looking through the compatibility patches I noted there are two USI-LS patches, one with many words and letters, and one with much fewer but the more verbose one appears commented out in its filename ".cfg.txt". I'm literally just curious, is there some magical wizardry I am unable to understand? The original many words and letters were not working right (or so I'm told) so the file was disabled by giving it a .txt extension. Eventually a new set of fewer words and letters was created that judging by the lack of complaints is working out. No magic was used that I'm aware of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CobaltWolf Posted March 12, 2017 Author Share Posted March 12, 2017 3 hours ago, Pappystein said: ~snip~ Also I should mention I do not know of any mod that currently has a HG-3 engine. I have not downloaded the latest BDB yet so.... I think he was talking about the Saturn II from ~2005 in the Eyes Turned Skywards timeline. No, I haven't made the HG-3 yet. I can't find any reference for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hay Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 14 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said: I think he was talking about the Saturn II from ~2005 in the Eyes Turned Skywards timeline. No, I haven't made the HG-3 yet. I can't find any reference for it. I found this, don't know whether or not this is useful. http://www.astronautix.com/h/hg-3.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rory Yammomoto Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 17 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said: I think he was talking about the Saturn II from ~2005 in the Eyes Turned Skywards timeline. No, I haven't made the HG-3 yet. I can't find any reference for it. well, you could just make up an engine - take what the J-2 and F-1 look like and combine them into what you think the HG-3 would look like. It could look a bit like the RS-68 or the SSME, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abstract_Kerman Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 why does the mercury atlas/centaur have black and grey stripes shouldn't it be a light grey, also i saw an atlas with an orange shroud Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pappystein Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 5 hours ago, Rory Yammomoto said: well, you could just make up an engine - take what the J-2 and F-1 look like and combine them into what you think the HG-3 would look like. It could look a bit like the RS-68 or the SSME, too. Actually a scaled down RS-25 (SSME) set of pumps and plumbing with a J-2S engine bell would net us the HG-3. the line drawing that is often posted (as it is above) showing an HG-3 has such an in-efficient engine bell shape that it is beyond belief. A lot of documents out there quote the J-2S and the HG-3 having identical dimensions. However while the engine bell is mostly the same (good enough for a stock-alike build) the HG-3 Engine bell is/should be slightly larger in both length and diameter. The ISP would be lower if a much higher pressure was run through the same engine bell as the J-2S.... Not Higher as claimed by all sources. The size of the plumbing side of the HG-3 is decidedly bigger. So, @CobaltWolf et al, if you want to model just the engine bell and basic gimbal hardware without a bunch of plumbing... Just scale up the J-2S engine bell (or even just re-texture and re-scale the standard J-2 to account for different construction method.) The Turbo-pump exhaust would have to be removed however... as the Turbo-pump exhaust would be handled just like the RS-25 does. IE at the top of the bell instead of at the bell to bell extension joint like the F-1 and J-2. I would suggest 1/3rd increase in size from the J-2 engine to the RS-25 Engine, say 2.15m or so bell diameter for full/real scale. J-2 being 2.03 and RS-25 being 2.4 To be clear, that diameter is a bit of educated guesswork and not backed with factual data. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rory Yammomoto Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 (edited) I had an idea for a mission - Artemis can stay on the surface for weeks on end, right? so why not send up the lander up Crewed, land it directly, and send the Apollo up later?I have tried this in a 2.5x scaled world. With the exception of the Saturn MB for the Apollo being underpowered, meaning I have to use my Saturn 4 for it, the mission succeeded. Edited March 13, 2017 by Rory Yammomoto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abrecan Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 2 hours ago, Rory Yammomoto said: I had an idea for a mission - Artemis can stay on the surface for weeks on end, right? so why not send up the lander up Crewed, land it directly, and send the Apollo up later?(~snip) I have tried this in a 2.5x scaled world. With the exception of the Saturn MB for the Apollo being underpowered, meaning I have to use my Saturn 4 for it, the mission succeeded. In the Kerbal world it works flawlessly; but realistically not so sure... especially from a safety standpoint. with problems with LOC or LOS from no reentry capability if something occurs. Not only that, but would the crew really withstand the G's from a non-human rated rocket without escape probability? Doubtful, but in this beautiful Kerbal universe they seem to love it LOL. With life support and advanced options enabled (including random failures) an escape system for a human rated rocket is invaluable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minepagan Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 37 minutes ago, Abrecan said: With life support and advanced options enabled (including random failures) an escape system for a human rated rocket is invaluable. It's all fun and games until Dangit decides to give your LES tower a critical faliure at T+7... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abrecan Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 well.... that will ruin your day Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
e of pi Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, Rory Yammomoto said: I had an idea for a mission - Artemis can stay on the surface for weeks on end, right? so why not send up the lander up Crewed, land it directly, and send the Apollo up later?I have tried this in a 2.5x scaled world. With the exception of the Saturn MB for the Apollo being underpowered, meaning I have to use my Saturn 4 for it, the mission succeeded. Well, you successfully nerd-sniped me. I see two major drawbacks, and possibly a third depending on a question. First, as Abrecan points out, you have no abort options during the crew launch on the second lander, nor do you have any options for early return if you have to abort during the landing--you'd have to wait in lunar orbit or at L-2 until the Apollo is sent to bring you home. That's a pretty serious problem, since it means that the a far larger number of loss-of-mission incidents have risks of becoming loss-of-crew. For instance, if the Apollo fails to launch on time, the crew could run out of supplies while waiting for it even if everything else goes off as planned--the crew's life is bound to not one launch, but two--the Saturn-without-LES they ride, and the other that separately carries up their capsule. Second, I think the total payload to the surface is a bit lower. I suppose that since it looks like you're using 2xH03 and some medium-with-solids variant there's not a major surprise there, but given the mass tied up in the surface shelter, rovers, surface instruments, ascent stage, and other hardware, the added benefit of 5-10% in payload to the surface has a far larger increase in available surface stay capabilities. Third, and this may be limited more by the Kerbal parts available to you than the mission concept itself, do you only have two crew landing in this mission? You show two figures next to the lander launch and two next to the Apollo launch, with all returning on the capsule, but the ones on the APollo would never have a chance to land. If that's correct, that's a major drawback since it instantly halves your surface science crew-hours. Edited March 13, 2017 by e of pi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rory Yammomoto Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, e of pi said: Third, and this may be limited more by the Kerbal parts available to you than the mission concept itself, do you only have two crew landing in this mission? You show two figures next to the lander launch and two next to the Apollo launch, with all returning on the capsule, but the ones on the [Apollo] would never have a chance to land. If that's correct, that's a major drawback since it instantly halves your surface science crew-hours. excrements. I did not think about it that way. That, combined with the facts that half the crew are practically in almost total danger for the majority of the voyage, my Medium-with-solids cannot loft a Blok V to the Mun on its own, I practically scraped by, and the first attempt did not use the cargo lander, makes this pretty impossible. I mostly just did it because I could not for the life of me get Altair/Pegasus and Apollo in the same space without 90% of the Pegasus boiling off (I sensibly went with storable propellants for my Altair/Artemis thing) So I just sent the craft to the Mun without the ship and sent up an Apollo as soon as I could get one that could complete the trip. It seems the way you did in your time-line is the best way. (I also think I need to find a better Altair/Artemis) Edited March 14, 2017 by Rory Yammomoto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pappystein Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 14 hours ago, Abrecan said: In the Kerbal world it works flawlessly; but realistically not so sure... especially from a safety standpoint. with problems with LOC or LOS from no reentry capability if something occurs. Not only that, but would the crew really withstand the G's from a non-human rated rocket without escape probability? Doubtful, but in this beautiful Kerbal universe they seem to love it LOL. With life support and advanced options enabled (including random failures) an escape system for a human rated rocket is invaluable. To be clear NASA considers a "Human Rated" rocket to meet several criteria. Only one of the Criteria is sustained G-Forces. The rest (and 99% of the standard) deals with reliability of the rocket. EG for a Titan III or IV to be man rated all that was needed was reliability improvement on the 3rd stage (except centaur as it already met it) and a way to "shut down" the SRM/USRM motors. The UA-1204 or UA-1205 had a modified nosecone designed (but not tested in RL) to allow for a man Rated 4 segment or 5 segment SRM. To be clear the Nosecone was designed to shattered which allowed the solid motor thrust to cancel itself out (thrust up = to thrust down.) The UA-1205 was designed with this feature for the Dynasoar launch capability Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rory Yammomoto Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 Does anyone have any payload mass numbers for the Sarnus Multibody Series in a 2.5x world? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hay Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Rory Yammomoto said: Does anyone have any payload mass numbers for the Sarnus Multibody Series in a 2.5x world? You can take the rocket equation and alter it a little bit to calculate it: Δv=Isp*9.81*ln(m0+x/m1+x)+... Where Δv=The required amount of Δv to reach orbit, x is the payload mass, m0 is the full mass of the rocket and m1 is the mass after the first stage runs out of fuel. Edited March 14, 2017 by Hay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abrecan Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 My Mission Today Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimothyC Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 Streaming! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaverickSawyer Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 Okay, field report time... First off, the upgraded Inon is one of my favorite engines. It's light, powerful, and fuel efficient. Perfect for landers on a tight dV budget. Yeah, the fuel is bulky, but that's able to be worked around if you're clever. Second, the 5-seat Kane is a fantastic pod for landers. Yeah, it's heavy, but at under a ton per Kerbal, it's actually not bad in terms of density. These two points together form the core of my lander packages for my Grand Tour. The cargo and heavy crew landers run on five and four Inons, respectively. I've tested them on Duna, and they work quite well. Very happy with the results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.