Real Space Program [Need Launch Controllers] [Launch 1/14/17]

[Guest]

Added.

[adsii1970]

Someone asked about a specific mission patch for a cubesat mission - well, here you go...

Since it seems the cubesat missions are the "key" to a successful program and they're being used to work out the bugs, I felt the key hole shaped patch was kinda cool... Anyhow...

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

@NathanKell
Do you think you could help me with RSS/RO lifter design?  l'm building a 50 ton to LEO lifter, and according to KER and MJ, this rocket has 10 km/s, but it's still far from achieving LEO.  Here's the link, any ideas?

[NathanKell]

@Mad Rocket Scientist sure. Parts required?

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

Just now, NathanKell said:

@Mad Rocket Scientist sure. Parts required?

Thanks!  FASA, procedural parts, proc fairings, cyrogenic engines (By Nertea).

[NathanKell]

@Mad Rocket Scientist would you mind terribly reworking with just stock (VSR) + SXT? (I.e. the RP-0 requirements) Or are you using an engine like HM-7 or LR91 that we don't have any model of excepting in Cryoengines and FASA respectively?

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

2 minutes ago, NathanKell said:

@Mad Rocket Scientist would you mind terribly reworking with just stock (VSR) + SXT? (I.e. the RP-0 requirements) Or are you using an engine like HM-7 or LR91 that we don't have any model of excepting in Cryoengines and FASA respectively?

No, I'll be a minute while I install SXT and VSR, though.  I just have a weakness for the cyroengines models.

[NathanKell]

@Mad Rocket Scientist ah, thanks so much. It means I don't have to create a new install to free up the headroom.

[Dman979]

So, guys, let's not sit back on our laurels too much. We got a lot of support from this last launch, and now that we've identified some bugs we can fix them in our next launch.

I heard the idea kicked around up top about a solar escape probe. That might be a bit too ambitious. What about a lunar impacter or lander? We could do that fairly cheaply, and a lot of the ride could be done at 5x acceleration. To make it a bit more complicated, we could put some instruments on it, and run them from a new station (Science Officer) or from Payload. We could also do calculations for a specific target on the lunar surface, and mid-course corrections. To keep ∆V costs down, we could do a suicide burn instead of a lunar orbit first. We also wouldn't need to worry about having remote control- like @NathanKell said, a Communotron 16 (32?) will give us all the range we need.

Alternatively, we could launch one of the client payloads.

So, what do YOU think?

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

4 minutes ago, Dman979 said:

So, guys, let's not sit back on our laurels too much. We got a lot of support from this last launch, and now that we've identified some bugs we can fix them in our next launch.

I heard the idea kicked around up top about a solar escape probe. That might be a bit too ambitious. What about a lunar impacter or lander? We could do that fairly cheaply, and a lot of the ride could be done at 5x acceleration. To make it a bit more complicated, we could put some instruments on it, and run them from a new station (Science Officer) or from Payload. We could also do calculations for a specific target on the lunar surface, and mid-course corrections. To keep ∆V costs down, we could do a suicide burn instead of a lunar orbit first. We also wouldn't need to worry about having remote control- like @NathanKell said, a Communotron 16 (32?) will give us all the range we need.

Alternatively, we could launch one of the client payloads.

So, what do YOU think?

I think a lunar impactor (autocorrect suggests using "imp actor") is feasible.  I think we should have the impactor split off from a science collector, which would have SRBs on it to slow down to watch the impact.  Of the impactor. 

We'd need a course correction stage, with plenty of restarts (maybe RCS thrusters?).

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

I think a lunar impactor (autocorrect suggests using "imp actor") is feasible.  I think we should have the impactor split off from a science collector, which would have SRBs on it to slow down to watch the impact.  Of the impactor. 

We'd need a course correction stage, with plenty of restarts (maybe RCS thrusters?).

The engine on the satellite has infinite restarts.

[Dman979]

I was thinking RCS, but there's a 1kN engine with infinite restarts.

[Choctofliatrio2.0]

2 minutes ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

I think a lunar impactor (autocorrect suggests using "imp actor") is feasible.  I think we should have the impactor split off from a science collector, which would have SRBs on it to slow down to watch the impact.  Of the impactor. 

We'd need a course correction stage, with plenty of restarts (maybe RCS thrusters?).

Perhaps a probe that reaches orbit, then deploys the impactor? (I got Imp Actor too). Or is that not doable?

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

3 minutes ago, Choctofliatrio2.0 said:

Perhaps a probe that reaches orbit, then deploys the impactor? (I got Imp Actor too). Or is that not doable?

Actually, we could decrease DV margins by having it release the impactor, then go into orbit.

Like this:

Halfway to moon on collision course, impactor is deployed. 
Course change on satellite moves it out of collision course.
Impact happens right before satellite begins insertion burn (IB), which must happen before LOS.
SCIENCE!  (Maybe with a small dmagic telescope)

[legoclone09]

Could we use DMP to have two people controlling the stuff at once? Like one person controls the impactor and another controls the orbiter?

[Guest]

Just now, legoclone09 said:

Could we use DMP to have two people controlling the stuff at once? Like one person controls the impactor and another controls the orbiter?

Yep.

[legoclone09]

Just now, CliftonM said:

Yep.

Awesome!

[Dman979]

So, we could theoretically open up more launch positions for new members. @ZooNamedGames, what do you think?

[Guest]

This also opens up the possibility of doing a SpaceX style reusable booster!

[ZooNamedGames]

Idea. April 2nd, lets do a 1-man orbital mission over the course of 3 hours. Catch being, I'll climb down from my mission control high chair and I'll be the man in the can. Short, and manned.

Thoughts?

[legoclone09]

Just now, ZooNamedGames said:

Idea. April 2nd, lets do a 1-man orbital mission over the course of 3 hours. Catch being, I'll climb down from my mission control high chair and I'll be the man in the can. Short, and manned.

Thoughts?

Cool, can I design the lifter and capsule? I have a reliable one in my RSS sandbox save with only using VSR and SXT parts (and procedurals)

[Guest]

Just now, ZooNamedGames said:

Idea. April 2nd, lets do a 1-man orbital mission over the course of 3 hours. Catch being, I'll climb down from my mission control high chair and I'll be the man in the can. Short, and manned.

Thoughts?

That would be cool!  That'll also give me time to prep my install.

[Dman979]

@legoclone09, if we could stick to using prefabricated boosters it would be easier on my install. I think you should make the capsule and appropriate life support modules, and then we can mate that to a booster, if we decide to do that.

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

2 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Idea. April 2nd, lets do a 1-man orbital mission over the course of 3 hours. Catch being, I'll climb down from my mission control high chair and I'll be the man in the can. Short, and manned.

Thoughts?

Will a Wednesday work for everyone?

[Guest]

Just now, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

Will a Wednesday work for everyone?

As long as it's after 2:30 EST.