StupidAndy Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 BLOW IT UP! WE WANT BOOM! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The solid fuel chemist Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 1 hour ago, StupidAndy said: BLOW IT UP! WE WANT BOOM! DONT BLOW IT UP! THE REST OF US DON'T WANT BOOM! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Readerty2007 Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 The chemist doesn't want to blow stuff up? Then perhaps we should listen to the chemist. (I'm totally not biased in this, no not at all...) Keep up the good work, Kuzzter! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkOwl57 Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 In response to the landing question, I think that this is just one of those situations of: @Kuzzter does what @Kuzzter wants Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 Well, whatever happens to Enterprise, my theory on capital ships is that they don't really ever land again on Kerbin. Intrepid is certainly not designed to: that's why she has boats, and that's why there are Gliidos. Now, could a ship that's not designed to land on Kerbin land on Kerbin? I wouldn't ever rule anything out. But if Sarge were aboard such a ship I think we'd definitely see him ask permission to "speak freely". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KAL 9000 Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 23 minutes ago, Kuzzter said: -snip- Of course they can land on Kerbin! We just need to strap on parachutes, heat shields, struts, and prayers! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkOwl57 Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 44 minutes ago, KAL 9000 said: Of course they can land on Kerbin! We just need to strap on parachutes, heat shields, struts, and prayers! And hope the Kraken is merciful... OR *fn + ALT + F12* *Part heating off* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adsii1970 Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 1 hour ago, Kuzzter said: Well, whatever happens to Enterprise, my theory on capital ships is that they don't really ever land again on Kerbin. Intrepid is certainly not designed to: that's why she has boats, and that's why there are Gliidos. Now, could a ship that's not designed to land on Kerbin land on Kerbin? I wouldn't ever rule anything out. But if Sarge were aboard such a ship I think we'd definitely see him ask permission to "speak freely". If she's indeed airtight for space flight, depending on weight distribution, she should be able to withstand a water landing as long as the descent is controlled and impact with the water is not very forceful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terwin Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 If you can get a vessel to orbit without staging off any boosters, then you should be able to land it if you can refuel it. If you have enough thrust and d-v to get the fully fueled vessel off the surface and into orbit, you should have ample thrust and d-v to get out of orbit and down to a soft landing. On the way up, drag is a hindrance and on the way down it is an aid. If you were slow enough to not burn up on ascent, you should be able to slow down from orbital velocity to whatever velocity you were at when you left the atmosphere by the time you reenter. The only SSTO that might not be able to manage this is a space plane that has barely enough LFO to circularize when it's tanks are empty after relying on LF for most of the thrust. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0111narwhalz Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 35 minutes ago, Terwin said: If you can get a vessel to orbit without staging off any boosters, then you should be able to land it if you can refuel it. If you have enough thrust and d-v to get the fully fueled vessel off the surface and into orbit, you should have ample thrust and d-v to get out of orbit and down to a soft landing. On the way up, drag is a hindrance and on the way down it is an aid. If you were slow enough to not burn up on ascent, you should be able to slow down from orbital velocity to whatever velocity you were at when you left the atmosphere by the time you reenter. The only SSTO that might not be able to manage this is a space plane that has barely enough LFO to circularize when it's tanks are empty after relying on LF for most of the thrust. Consider, however, the quandrary of a tail-sitter. Its CoL is far behind its CoM, which points its nose into the airstream. On the way up, this is good. However, if you want to do a powered landing, this is a Very Bad Thing. Your nose will be pointing directly at the ground, and you will lithobrake, unless you have a lot of reaction wheels or RCS, or nose thrusters with a full TWR, in which case you have a nose-sitter. And that's really hard to justify, in engineering terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alchemist Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 Hey, don't forget the underbelly VTOL engines! You don't have to land this vessel tail-first Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deddly Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 wessel* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zhetaan Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 3 hours ago, Kuzzter said: Well, whatever happens to Enterprise, my theory on capital ships is that they don't really ever land again on Kerbin. And to do it but keep up with the tropes, it would require a replacement crew, too: Alan Kerman: This landing is gonna get pretty interesting. Nathan Kerman: Define 'interesting'. Alan Kerman: [Deadpan] Oh God, oh God, we're all going to die? Nathan Kerman: Just get us on the ground! Alan Kerman: That part'll happen pretty definitely. Nathan Kerman: ... Nathan Kerman: [On the ship's intercom] This is the captain. We have a little problem with our entry sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and then--explode. In all seriousness, I expect that you have great and glorious--and possibly not totally fatal--plans for the Enterprise, but I think the fact that it isn't going to land again is telling. I don't expect the Enterprise crew to survive in the same way that I expect the Intrepid crew to return home. On the other hand, I did notice that the Enterprise crew hasn't switched to all-red duty uniforms. I'd say that you were doing a good job of keeping everyone in suspense--but then I remembered that in orbit, it's technically free fall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soda Popinski Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 Getting it through the atmosphere will be a challenge unless they remove the other nacelle. I'd imagine asymmetric airflow would be a problem. If they have to land somewhere, I'd say Minmus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenTurtle1134 Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 21 hours ago, Just Jim said: Even Star Trek canon gets a little... fuzzy... on the subject of landing the Enterprise. I don't think she was supposed to be able to land originally, and most often appeared like she would burn up in any decent atmosphere. But later down the road, especially in the "Into Darkness" movie, not only was she landed, she was hiding underwater... and took off again into orbit like it was no problem. Spoilers for Star Trek Into Darkness... Spoiler In the first scene of Star Trek: Into Darkness the Enterprise is landed on a habitable planet, under the ocean no less. In the climactic space battle, it stabilizes itself in atmosphere by powering up its thrusters, causing a ring of tiny engines around the saucer to emit what looks like rocket fire and hold it in place. I guess exploration vessels are equipped with chemical or hybrid nuclear/chemical engines capable of generating several G in atmosphere, and the armor and shields are able to survive aerobraking. Starships only burn up in the atmosphere when they make an uncontrolled, unpowered reentry, with no thrusters to slow them down and no energy shields to function as a heat shield. This includes the near-crash of the Enterprise in Into Darkness and the crash of the Enterprise in Beyond. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soda Popinski Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 26 minutes ago, greenTurtle1134 said: Spoilers for Star Trek Into Darkness... Hide contents In the first scene of Star Trek: Into Darkness the Enterprise is landed on a habitable planet, under the ocean no less. In the climactic space battle, it stabilizes itself in atmosphere by powering up its thrusters, causing a ring of tiny engines around the saucer to emit what looks like rocket fire and hold it in place. I guess exploration vessels are equipped with chemical or hybrid nuclear/chemical engines capable of generating several G in atmosphere, and the armor and shields are able to survive aerobraking. Starships only burn up in the atmosphere when they make an uncontrolled, unpowered reentry, with no thrusters to slow them down and no energy shields to function as a heat shield. This includes the near-crash of the Enterprise in Into Darkness and the crash of the Enterprise in Beyond. That was always the assumption. But if the thing has "Impulse Drives" that can hit 0.5c, I don't see why it couldn't kill horizontal velocity, and drop down tail first. Or it could raise shields using that as an aeroshell. Those shields can defend against matter/anti-matter explosions from Photon Torpedoes, so a little atmospheric shock heating shouldn't be a big deal. Essentially the only thing stopping it from landing was a lack of landing legs. Should be fine in the water, not taking into account center of buoyancy (is that a thing?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zhetaan Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 But one of the big differences between Star Trek and Kerbfleet is that Star Trek has things that can damp inertia, and also fine gravity control. KSP has 'Hack Gravity'. However, considering the fact that @Kuzzter blasted his Enterprise as some kind of penance (so he says) after the row people raised for his use of 'Infinite Fuel', using 'Hack Gravity' may require him to delete Kerbin from the system and declare the Kerbulans the victors. @Soda Popinski: There is such a thing as a centre of buoyancy, but it coincides with the centre of mass of the fluid that has been displaced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobFalcon Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 55 minutes ago, Soda Popinski said: That was always the assumption. But if the thing has "Impulse Drives" that can hit 0.5c, I don't see why it couldn't kill horizontal velocity, and drop down tail first. Or it could raise shields using that as an aeroshell. Those shields can defend against matter/anti-matter explosions from Photon Torpedoes, so a little atmospheric shock heating shouldn't be a big deal. Essentially the only thing stopping it from landing was a lack of landing legs. Should be fine in the water, not taking into account center of buoyancy (is that a thing?) The Star Trek prime universe gives a lot more definitive information on this. Both the original Enterprise (ST:TOS) and the NX Enterprise (from ST: Enterprise) flew in atmosphere without difficulty. The NX Enterprise even got into a battle in atmo. The Enterprise-D (ST:TNG) was designed to be able to land its saucer in an emergency (as shown in ST Generations), though it was expected to need major repairs to be spaceworthy again. Voyager (ST: Voyager), on the other hand, was able to land and take off with relative ease, and had landing legs built into her engineering hull. They used that capability multiple times over the show's run. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Jim Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 (edited) 28 minutes ago, RobFalcon said: Both the original Enterprise (ST:TOS) and the NX Enterprise (from ST: Enterprise) flew in atmosphere without difficulty. The NX Enterprise even got into a battle in atmo. I had to really wrack my brains, but you're right... there was one TOS episode, "Tomorrow is Yesterday", where the Enterprise was flung back in time, and deep inside Earths atmosphere, and while she was banged up bad, it was from the time slingshot effect... and not the atmo. And the ones I was thinking of she was burning up in the atmo because she lost power from one reason or another and going in too fast.. My bad... OK, so that pretty much confirms the Trek Enterprise(s) can survive a landing.... the only real question now is how well she would survive? And that just depends on the episode and/or movie... And again, more importantly, is @Kuzzter even following trek canon??? There's no reason he has to... Edited February 8, 2017 by Just Jim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obney kerman Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 Scotty Kerman- THE NACELLES ARE SEVERED!!!!!!!! I'M GIVIN HER ALL IVE GOT KAPTIN, BUT WE ARE [REDACTED]!!!!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adsii1970 Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 1 hour ago, Just Jim said: I had to really wrack my brains, but you're right... there was one TOS episode, "Tomorrow is Yesterday", where the Enterprise was flung back in time, and deep inside Earths atmosphere, and while she was banged up bad, it was from the time slingshot effect... and not the atmo. And the ones I was thinking of she was burning up in the atmo because she lost power from one reason or another and going in too fast.. My bad... OK, so that pretty much confirms the Trek Enterprise(s) can survive a landing.... the only real question now is how well she would survive? And that just depends on the episode and/or movie... And again, more importantly, is @Kuzzter even following trek canon??? There's no reason he has to... In the Star Trek reboot, in the second movie: Into The Darkness, the Enterprise is not only on a planet, but submerged under an ocean. In Star Trek III, The Search for Spock, the Enterprise enters the atmosphere... and we all know the rest of that one... In Star Trek Voyager, the Voyager even has retractable landing gear and is designed to be able to land on a planet... But then again, this is @Kuzzter's tale... and of course, HyperEdit can cover a multitude of sins... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat111 Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 On 2017-02-03 at 1:14 PM, Kuzzter said: I must be feeling REALLY generous today... Reveal hidden contents WHAT?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KAL 9000 Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 I think I'm up to speed. I have only one question: Who the heck is Gregmore? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkOwl57 Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 (edited) 14 hours ago, Wildcat111 said: WHAT?! WOW You're behind! Edited February 8, 2017 by DarkOwl57 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0111narwhalz Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 Greg who? I don't know any kerb (-al or -ulan) by that name. (It's a running joke. Whatshisface is always forgotten.) 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.