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

[Hysterrics]

1 minute ago, Gaarst said:

That is not where I'd put the boundary and that is the problem: it is thin and subjective. But maybe if we are really nice to each other the mods will overlook this issue ! 

Yeah. I feel like the boundaries should be better stated in the rules. Oh well, I guess we're going to have to tread lightly.

Or *thread* lightly.
Get it?

I'll see myself out now.

[kmMango]

I would love to help, but I currently don't have the time. Is there anything I can do in the background to help?

[Motokid600]

I take it there's a practical limit of mod parts one can use for a payload submission? I'd like to submit one, but there isn't a stock part in sight. And nearly every part on this craft is from a different mod.

I suppose I could develop something less... Diverse.

[ZooNamedGames]

On January 21, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

Hey, @ZooNamedGames, I have a question about RSP:  I see you have positions for a mission control-style thing, but what about your rockets?  What are going to launch payloads on?  Because I would happy to collaborate on building RSS/RO rockets with you/anyone who's signed up.

(Sorry for the late reply)

I'd like to stick with real rocket mods for RSS/RO, but if there's enough push, we can go for custom rockets. Make them reliable, as we Will be using failure mods.

2 hours ago, Joco223 said:

@ZooNamedGames Idk what part of team I could be, but I know how to build some pretty good rockets (realistic-ish lookjng). I'm also playing with RF and Stockalike RF son my personal save and I made self-sustaining Mun base with USI-LS and MKS-Lite (Really proud of that :D). My PC is pretty good i5-4460. And also im running windows so i'm limited to 32-bit (Or I can install Linux as dual boot if needed). I hope I can join the team. I'm available most of the times and I live in Europe so there is a bit of time diference depending on where other people live

Just tell me what role you want to be  .

[ZooNamedGames]

1 hour ago, Sequinox said:

Certainly. I was thinking the same thing. I think we'll be alright. Companies would be easier ways of identifying things and organizing. Role playing starts when there's conflicts between companies.

(Cough cough) I have a forum to help fill the request of RP companies. (Cough cough)

[ZooNamedGames]

1 hour ago, kmMango said:

I would love to help, but I currently don't have the time. Is there anything I can do in the background to help?

You can work with any booster engineers (rocket makers) if you want. Or help with the calculations or advertise. Any of those things would be great.

[ZooNamedGames]

54 minutes ago, Motokid600 said:

I take it there's a practical limit of mod parts one can use for a payload submission? I'd like to submit one, but there isn't a stock part in sight. And nearly every part on this craft is from a different mod.

I suppose I could develop something less... Diverse.

Yeah, try to limit it. Simplicity is key.

[Joco223]

@ZooNamedGames I would like to be in rocket design and building section (I don't know what is a proper name for it)

Edited January 22, 2016 by Joco223

[ZooNamedGames]

11 minutes ago, Joco223 said:

@ZooNamedGames I would like to be in rocket design and building section (I don't know what is a proper name for it)

Then call yourself a rocketry engineer!

[Joco223]

2 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Then call yourself a rocketry engineer!

So, do I make rockets on your demand or do I make my own and send them to you? And also, list of mods that I am allowed to use to design rockets please

[ZooNamedGames]

3 minutes ago, Joco223 said:

 So, do I make rockets on your demand or do I make my own and send them to you? And also, list of mods that I am allowed to use to design rockets please

Make rockets and if they're simple, reliable and effective (and or modular) we'll use it  , if we can't then we'll store it for later.

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

2 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

(Sorry for the late reply)

I'd like to stick with real rocket mods for RSS/RO, but if there's enough push, we can go for custom rockets. Make them reliable, as we Will be using failure mods.

[...]

Such as FASA? 
I'll start working on a rocket.  What failure mods will you be using?  Also, what mods will you using for parts?

Here's my mod list:

Spoiler

KSP: 1.0.5 (Win32) - Unity: 4.6.4f1 - OS: Windows 7 Service Pack 1 (6.1.7601) 64bit
Filter Extensions - 2.4.1.3
Advanced Jet Engine - 2.5.4
B9 Aerospace Procedural Parts - 0.40.1
Community Resource Pack - 0.4.8
Connected Living Space - 1.2.0.1
Contract Configurator - 1.9.3.1
CustomBarnKit - 1.1.3
Deadly Reentry - 7.3.1
Ferram Aerospace Research - 0.15.5.4
Firespitter - 7.1.5
Kerbal Engineer Redux - 1.0.18
Kerbal Joint Reinforcement - 3.1.4
HyperEdit - 1.4.1
KSP-AVC Plugin - 1.1.5
KW-Rocketry-Community-Fixes - 0.4.3
ModularFlightIntegrator - 1.1.2
Procedural Parts - 1.1.11 - I know you're using this one.
RCS Build Aid - 0.7.6
RealChute - 1.3.2.6
RealismOverhaul - 10.7.3
RealSolarSystem - 10.4.1
RemoteTech - 1.6.9
Saturatable RW - 1.10.2.1
SolverEngines - 1.14
TakeCommand - 1.2
TextureReplacer - 2.4.11
TAC Life Support - 0.11.2.1
VenStockRevamp - 1.9 - This replaces stock textures/models and adds a couple of new parts.
AIES aerospace - Trimmed down to mostly engines in my install.
Asteroid day
Soviet engines
KW rocketry - Trimmed down to mostly engines.
SXT - Trimmed down to command pods and engines.

 

2 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Then call yourself a rocketry engineer!

Could I be put down as one too?

[Gaarst]

I'll take the role of Payload Officer.

Any documentation on the role, or I have to find it myself ?

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

Look what I found!

Spoiler

1. Have designs for similar earlier projects been thoroughly reviewed and understood?
2. Have principal participants In those projects been contacted? Has their advice been solicited?
3 .. Has a list been prepared of all problems which were encountered in previous, related projects, including their solutions?
4. Has the new engine system schematic diagram been reviewed for hidden "won't works?"
5. Has the number of components and the I[ complexity been reduced to a minimum, without loss in flexibility and serviceability, for maximum reliability? (In particular: has minimum of moving parts been achieved?)
6. has a thorough malfunction analysis been made? (Assessment of malfunction effects of each component on all other parts and on the complete system. Include external systems, such as the vehicle and GSE.)
7. Have all existing detail designs been reviewed for possible inclusion and or adaptation to the new design?
8. Have standard parts been used wherever possible; permissible; or as prescribed by customer specifications?
9. Has the number of external connections ("customer connections") been held to a minimum?
10. Has the location and type of customer connections been chosen In the best interest of the customer? Has he been consulted?
11. Has the need for ground support equipment (GSE) been reduced to a minimum. by number as well as by complexity?
12 Are there good reasons II support equipment used during R&D is different from the one supplied to the field?
13. Have all environmental conditions been considered. including those not likely but possible to occur? (Salt spray, sand. fungus, humidity. temperature. etc.)
14. Has resistance to vibration and shock effects been considered? In all planes? including improper handling?
15. Have acceleration effects been considered? In all planes?
16. Has the use of critical materials been held to a minimum? (Chromium. Molybdenum. Tungsten. Cobalt. etc,?)
17. Has it been made absolutely certain that no cheaper materials will do?
18. Has it been assured that no electrolytic action can occur due to attachment of dissimilar metals?
19. Can the engines be gimbaled according to specifications?
20. Can the engine be clustered. if necessary?
21. Can the engine be attached to air frames other than the one presently contemplated?
22. Has it been confirmed that all parts can be made?
23. Has it been confirmed that there is no cheaper way of making these parts?
24. Can the parts readily be assembled. with a minimum of special tools?
25. Has it been made impossible to incorrectly assemble and install any part? (Or incorrectly reassemble and reinstall them in the field?)
26. Will all parts requiring service be readily accessible. prior to and following mating of the engine with the vehicle?
27. Have all markings been called out completely and correctly?
28. Do instructions for inspection and quality control leave no gap?
29. Has it been ascertained that (without penalty) the design cannot save further weight?
30. Is the envelope the smallest possible?
31. Can the system be drained. readily and completely? (Avoidance of traps. low spots. etc,)
32. Have engine propellant feed system components. including pumps and thrust chamber been designed for minimum trapped propellants after cutoff? (Minimum wet weight)
33. Has the purchasing department been appraised of the significance of mandatory (proven) sources. where applicable?
34. Can it be transported? In one or several pieces?

True, it's for rocket engines, but it's definitely a good checklist for rockets.

From this PDF: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710019929.pdf

[legoclone09]

Can I actually change to rocketry engineer? I love building lifters in RSS/RO!

EDIT: I'll also make some payloads for spaceplane testing, that would be fun. I'll try to use C7 Aerospace, but not for a few days. I am on vacation (skiing though! Yay!)

Edited January 23, 2016 by legoclone09

[Dman979]

Ok, so it seems like we have a lot of rocketry engineers. I want to put this to a good use now.

@ZooNamedGames Since I'm Booster Control Officer, I think that I can use a team to keep watch/help design various rockets.

@Joco223, can you design:

1. a 2 stage, 1 tonne to LEO
2. a 2 stage, 3 tonne to LEO
3. a 2 stage, 5 tonne to LEO
4. a 2 stage, 10 tonne to LEO

@legoclone09, can you design:

1. 2 stage, 15 tonne to LEO
2. 2 stage, 20 tonne to LEO
3. 2 stage, 25 tonne to LEO
4. 2 stage, 30 tonne to LEO

@Mad Rocket Scientist, can you make:

1. 3 stage, 40 tonne to LEO
2. 3 stage, 50 tonne to LEO
3. 3 stage, 75 tonne to LEO
4. 3 stage, 100 tonne to LEO

Let's say that LEO is ~180 by 180 km.

Constraints:
You should only use mods that are compatible with the latest install of RO.
FASA and Soviet Engines are allowed. If you have another engine pack, tell me in a PM.
 

 

[legoclone09]

I'll start work Tuesday or Wednesday, I'll try to use an RS27 with 4 Castor IVA engines and a RL60 3-3A upper stage.

I really wish there was a mobile VAB app...

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

19 minutes ago, Dman979 said:

@Mad Rocket Scientist, can you make:

1. 3 stage, 40 tonne to LEO
2. 3 stage, 50 tonne to LEO
3. 3 stage, 75 tonne to LEO
4. 3 stage, 100 tonne to LEO

Let's say that LEO is ~180 by 180 km.

Constraints:
You should only use mods that are compatible with the latest install of RO.
FASA and Soviet Engines are allowed. If you have another engine pack, tell me in a PM.
 

 

Wow, I've been working on a 10 ton launch vehicle, but I think I can upgrade it to 40 tons.  How flexible are you about stages?  Say, if I only used two stages?  Or used two stages and multiple cores? 

I've updated my installed mods, adding FASA and removing all other part packs.

[Dman979]

@Mad Rocket Scientist

Staging is flexible, but should probably stay roughly the same number of stages for all 4 designs. I was thinking that all 4 designs would have some similarity to them, like a rocket family- see the Delta II, III, and IV families. All of the IV's are kind of similar and work from the same basic design, but have their own peculiarities, just like the II's, etc.

Oh, and staging doesn't include clamps, ullage, etc.

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

1 minute ago, Dman979 said:

@Mad Rocket Scientist

Staging is flexible, but should probably stay roughly the same number of stages for all 4 designs. I was thinking that all 4 designs would have some similarity to them, like a rocket family- see the Delta II, III, and IV families. All of the IV's are kind of similar and work from the same basic design, but have their own peculiarities, just like the II's, etc.

Oh, and staging doesn't include clamps, ullage, etc.

Thanks! 

[legoclone09]

30T to LEO could be a problem for me though, I can really only get a few tons into orbit. I'll try using some different designs though, might be able to get 15 and 20 tons.

[Dman979]

@legoclone09

19 minutes ago, Dman979 said:

Staging is flexible, but should probably stay roughly the same number of stages for all 4 designs. I was thinking that all 4 designs would have some similarity to them, like a rocket family- see the Delta II, III, and IV families. All of the IV's are kind of similar and work from the same basic design, but have their own peculiarities, just like the II's, etc.

Oh, and staging doesn't include clamps, ullage, etc.

If you need to, you can stretch the tanks, add SRBs, etc. Or start with the 30, and downsize.

[RyanRising]

2 hours ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

Look what I found!

  Hide contents

1. Have designs for similar earlier projects been thoroughly reviewed and understood?
2. Have principal participants In those projects been contacted? Has their advice been solicited?
3 .. Has a list been prepared of all problems which were encountered in previous, related projects, including their solutions?
4. Has the new engine system schematic diagram been reviewed for hidden "won't works?"
5. Has the number of components and the I[ complexity been reduced to a minimum, without loss in flexibility and serviceability, for maximum reliability? (In particular: has minimum of moving parts been achieved?)
6. has a thorough malfunction analysis been made? (Assessment of malfunction effects of each component on all other parts and on the complete system. Include external systems, such as the vehicle and GSE.)
7. Have all existing detail designs been reviewed for possible inclusion and or adaptation to the new design?
8. Have standard parts been used wherever possible; permissible; or as prescribed by customer specifications?
9. Has the number of external connections ("customer connections") been held to a minimum?
10. Has the location and type of customer connections been chosen In the best interest of the customer? Has he been consulted?
11. Has the need for ground support equipment (GSE) been reduced to a minimum. by number as well as by complexity?
12 Are there good reasons II support equipment used during R&D is different from the one supplied to the field?
13. Have all environmental conditions been considered. including those not likely but possible to occur? (Salt spray, sand. fungus, humidity. temperature. etc.)
14. Has resistance to vibration and shock effects been considered? In all planes? including improper handling?
15. Have acceleration effects been considered? In all planes?
16. Has the use of critical materials been held to a minimum? (Chromium. Molybdenum. Tungsten. Cobalt. etc,?)
17. Has it been made absolutely certain that no cheaper materials will do?
18. Has it been assured that no electrolytic action can occur due to attachment of dissimilar metals?
19. Can the engines be gimbaled according to specifications?
20. Can the engine be clustered. if necessary?
21. Can the engine be attached to air frames other than the one presently contemplated?
22. Has it been confirmed that all parts can be made?
23. Has it been confirmed that there is no cheaper way of making these parts?
24. Can the parts readily be assembled. with a minimum of special tools?
25. Has it been made impossible to incorrectly assemble and install any part? (Or incorrectly reassemble and reinstall them in the field?)
26. Will all parts requiring service be readily accessible. prior to and following mating of the engine with the vehicle?
27. Have all markings been called out completely and correctly?
28. Do instructions for inspection and quality control leave no gap?
29. Has it been ascertained that (without penalty) the design cannot save further weight?
30. Is the envelope the smallest possible?
31. Can the system be drained. readily and completely? (Avoidance of traps. low spots. etc,)
32. Have engine propellant feed system components. including pumps and thrust chamber been designed for minimum trapped propellants after cutoff? (Minimum wet weight)
33. Has the purchasing department been appraised of the significance of mandatory (proven) sources. where applicable?
34. Can it be transported? In one or several pieces?

True, it's for rocket engines, but it's definitely a good checklist for rockets.

From this PDF: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710019929.pdf

Hmm... Okay, I know this is both ridiculous and off-topic, but there's an unmatched left bracket in there. 

https://xkcd.com/859/

I am going to be bugged my this AWFULLY for the next four minutes.

[legoclone09]

3 minutes ago, Dman979 said:

@legoclone09

If you need to, you can stretch the tanks, add SRBs, etc. Or start with the 30, and downsize.

Wait what? Did you quote the wrong person?

On-topic, I'll try to calculate something as I'm on vacation.

[Dman979]

3 minutes ago, legoclone09 said:

Wait what? Did you quote the wrong person?

On-topic, I'll try to calculate something as I'm on vacation.

No, i just didn't feel like retyping it

and OK.