Reimu Hakurei Posted January 4, 2022 Share Posted January 4, 2022 By the way, the Apollo LRV have plan to make it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TruthfulGnome Posted January 4, 2022 Share Posted January 4, 2022 (edited) X-20 Dynasoar Suborbital Test Flight Totally not on its way to bomb soviets Edited January 4, 2022 by TruthfulGnome Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starhelperdude Posted January 4, 2022 Share Posted January 4, 2022 1 minute ago, TruthfulGnome said: X-20 Dynasoar Suborbital Test Flight the more I read into X-20 and it's concepts, the more I like it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrbitalManeuvers Posted January 4, 2022 Share Posted January 4, 2022 2 hours ago, Starhelperdude said: the more I read into X-20 and it's concepts, the more I like it There's a fun baby brother in KSP, too: Spoiler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pappystein Posted January 4, 2022 Share Posted January 4, 2022 49 minutes ago, OrbitalManeuvers said: There's a fun baby brother in KSP, too: Hide contents While I am not the biggest fan of it, you can see the lineage of this in the old FASA Winged Gemini... I much prefer the flexible wing concept, even though it was flawed with the technology at had back in the 1960s rush to the moon. I know there is a paraglider attachment for the BDB Gemini available in a separate mod, but I don't think it has been kept up to date and does not work well in 1.12.... But going by memory there. This won't happen but I would have loved if the bottom (side opposite the ingress doors) of both Gemini and the Big-G modules were removable and could have plug in wheels/skids or science pallets. As I understand it that was a lot of work on the textures for limited gain for many players. 3 hours ago, Starhelperdude said: the more I read into X-20 and it's concepts, the more I like it X-20 was as flawed or more so than even Space Shuttle... if X-20 had flown even once... Space Shuttle likely would not have flown. However it is a very neat "what iff" concept and allows you to alt/history deep think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beccab Posted January 4, 2022 Share Posted January 4, 2022 13 minutes ago, Pappystein said: X-20 was as flawed or more so than even Space Shuttle... if X-20 had flown even once... Space Shuttle likely would not have flown. Why is that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pappystein Posted January 4, 2022 Share Posted January 4, 2022 42 minutes ago, Beccab said: Why is that? Because like space shuttle, It wasn't re-usable as landed. It would have to go through a whole "re-manufacture" process. Something not really understood until Shuttle was about to fly 20 years latter. Also The X-20 was actually too small to perform any of it's various missions well... When satellites were the size of a Basketball it was plenty big... by the point the X-20 would have flown it would have had to be at least 4x the size to perform the assigned missions. Mind you that is more opinion than "fact" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaMensae Posted January 4, 2022 Share Posted January 4, 2022 1 hour ago, Beccab said: Why is that? This is required reading for anyone who thinks the X-20 would have been a good thing...nope, it wouldn't have been. https://www.space-travel.com/reports/Cult_spacecraft_Part_One_The_Little_Spaceplane_That_Could_Not_999.html As Pappystein said, the X-20 would have turned the Air Force and NASA completely off of the idea of a reuseable winged spacecraft, and the shuttle would not have happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jcking Posted January 5, 2022 Share Posted January 5, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, Beccab said: Why is that? Life support and the liquid hydrogen used as a way to store heat from the glycol loop and fuel the APU severely limited the on orbit duration to just a few orbits, the TPS was wasteful in both space and mass and the coating used to keep the outer skin from rapidly oxidizing had to refurbished after every flight (should the vehicle be reused), all phases of EDL were piloted with the pilot choosing one of 10 air force bases to land and looking through the central screen and keeping the dots aligned using both the RCS and flaps (which are on two separate sticks), the adaptive flight control system had the same issue of masking gradual degradation of handling qualities of the aircraft until reaching its limits that played a part in the X-15-3 Accident in 67. Lastly, reusability seemed to have been a long term goal of the program, and not something that was of an immediate concern. Edited January 5, 2022 by Jcking Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CobaltWolf Posted January 5, 2022 Author Share Posted January 5, 2022 3 hours ago, Pappystein said: X-20 was as flawed or more so than even Space Shuttle... if X-20 had flown even once... Space Shuttle likely would not have flown. A classic read In other news... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucky21 Posted January 5, 2022 Share Posted January 5, 2022 5 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said: A classic read In other news... Oooooh! wow! forgive me for being dull, but what is this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidy12 Posted January 5, 2022 Share Posted January 5, 2022 54 minutes ago, Lucky21 said: Oooooh! wow! forgive me for being dull, but what is this? AARDV Mk2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beccab Posted January 5, 2022 Share Posted January 5, 2022 6 hours ago, Pappystein said: Because like space shuttle, It wasn't re-usable as landed. It would have to go through a whole "re-manufacture" process. Something not really understood until Shuttle was about to fly 20 years latter. Also The X-20 was actually too small to perform any of it's various missions well... When satellites were the size of a Basketball it was plenty big... by the point the X-20 would have flown it would have had to be at least 4x the size to perform the assigned missions. Mind you that is more opinion than "fact" 5 hours ago, AlphaMensae said: This is required reading for anyone who thinks the X-20 would have been a good thing...nope, it wouldn't have been. https://www.space-travel.com/reports/Cult_spacecraft_Part_One_The_Little_Spaceplane_That_Could_Not_999.html As Pappystein said, the X-20 would have turned the Air Force and NASA completely off of the idea of a reuseable winged spacecraft, and the shuttle would not have happened. 5 hours ago, Jcking said: Life support and the liquid hydrogen used as a way to store heat from the glycol loop and fuel the APU severely limited the on orbit duration to just a few orbits, the TPS was wasteful in both space and mass and the coating used to keep the outer skin from rapidly oxidizing had to refurbished after every flight (should the vehicle be reused), all phases of EDL were piloted with the pilot choosing one of 10 air force bases to land and looking through the central screen and keeping the dots aligned using both the RCS and flaps (which are on two separate sticks), the adaptive flight control system had the same issue of masking gradual degradation of handling qualities of the aircraft until reaching its limits that played a part in the X-15-3 Accident in 67. Lastly, reusability seemed to have been a long term goal of the program, and not something that was of an immediate concern. Gotcha and that makes sense, however I personally I doubt that would have kept the shuttle from existing at all: even with all the problems and failed promises, NASA still spent almost 40 years looking more and more winged spacecrafts (lockheed CEV, x-38b, dreamchaser and its predecessor HL-20, countless shuttle-derived proposals that tried to reuse parts of the orbiter...) while the air force still made the X-37 and ESA would have probably made the Hermes spaceplane with enough funds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BezKartuza Posted January 5, 2022 Share Posted January 5, 2022 17 hours ago, GoldForest said: It's also "Probe" spelled in Russian letters, which the update was all about, probes. Aaaaaaa! It's like inscriptions on Apollo. Word "probe" is written in cyrillic. hmm ... hmm ... I see ... your American jokes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EStreetRockets Posted January 5, 2022 Share Posted January 5, 2022 On 1/3/2022 at 8:26 PM, Starhelperdude said: are there some IRL concepts that use some of the more obscure amazing SSME variants that Estreet provides with his mod? like with the LRBE and SSME-35/150? There are a lot! I am going to provide a wiki page on the RMM Github (and a link on the forum) listing different projects that were proposed using the variety of SSME variants On 1/3/2022 at 8:18 PM, Pappystein said: So with @EStreetRockets new SSME engines in Beta Test and available via github on his Dev branch... I thought I would combine dev Branches... DAMN! That is an awesome use of those engines! It's great to see people using them and mixing and matching with BDB already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorg Posted January 5, 2022 Share Posted January 5, 2022 Simple structural payload adapter for S4B. Switchable between 2.5, 3.125 and 3.75m rings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaintedLion Posted January 5, 2022 Share Posted January 5, 2022 Just now, Zorg said: Simple structural payload adapter for S4B. Switchable between 2.5, 3.125 and 3.75m rings. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHverinice Can we get a Saturn-1 styled 2.5-1.875 adapter for Saturn-1 Centaur? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorg Posted January 5, 2022 Share Posted January 5, 2022 (edited) 37 minutes ago, TaintedLion said: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHverinice Can we get a Saturn-1 styled 2.5-1.875 adapter for Saturn-1 Centaur? Not sure that its worth doing since stylistically its just going to be very simple and we have the Atlas V 400 series adapter. I believe Invader might take a crack at a texture refresh at some point when they have time. Admittedly right now there's a bit of a difference in texture treatment with those parts being a bit older but the incline matches up perfectly too. Edited January 5, 2022 by Zorg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaintedLion Posted January 5, 2022 Share Posted January 5, 2022 2 hours ago, Zorg said: Not sure that its worth doing since stylistically its just going to be very simple and we have the Atlas V 400 series adapter. I believe Invader might take a crack at a texture refresh at some point when they have time. Admittedly right now there's a bit of a difference in texture treatment with those parts being a bit older but the incline matches up perfectly too. I've done that, but since the Atlas V parts are way older the textures visibly clash and I don't particularly like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorg Posted January 5, 2022 Share Posted January 5, 2022 6 minutes ago, TaintedLion said: I've done that, but since the Atlas V parts are way older the textures visibly clash and I don't particularly like it. yeah like I said there will be texture refresh at some point. Its wasteful to make another near identical part in the meantime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigyihsuan Posted January 5, 2022 Share Posted January 5, 2022 I don't really get how you build the Apollo lander into the petal adapter. Do you build the lander from the bottom up (lander first on the inside node, then ascent module) or do you build top-down and attach the docking port to the inside node and rotate it back upwards? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starhelperdude Posted January 5, 2022 Share Posted January 5, 2022 12 minutes ago, bigyihsuan said: I don't really get how you build the Apollo lander into the petal adapter. Do you build the lander from the bottom up (lander first on the inside node, then ascent module) or do you build top-down and attach the docking port to the inside node and rotate it back upwards? IIRC there is a node inside the DM that you attach on the petal adapter node, the outer things of the landing legs should log into the petal adapter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jcking Posted January 5, 2022 Share Posted January 5, 2022 10 minutes ago, bigyihsuan said: I don't really get how you build the Apollo lander into the petal adapter. Do you build the lander from the bottom up (lander first on the inside node, then ascent module) or do you build top-down and attach the docking port to the inside node and rotate it back upwards? Put the descent stage on the SLA base, attach the descent engine to the descent stage, add legs to all sides, put the decoupler on top of the descent stage, then add the ascent engine, ascent stage, and the drogue docking port on top. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starhelperdude Posted January 5, 2022 Share Posted January 5, 2022 does somebody know what this is? it's from Tiktallik's Mars lander mod Spoiler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jcking Posted January 5, 2022 Share Posted January 5, 2022 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Starhelperdude said: does somebody know what this is? it's from Tiktallik's Mars lander mod Hide contents That's supposed to be the earth entry module (EEM) featured in the Integrated Manned Interplanetary Spacecraft Concept Definition Study by Boeing. Edited January 5, 2022 by Jcking 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.