We will not weaponize space

[DoctorEvo]

Plan: calculate exactly how much delta-V a single SRB with command pod and SAS has, get into whatever orbit has an orbital velocity of exactly that, and then use your SRB to stop dead right over the launch pad. You\'d need to time it perfectly, the orbit would probably be an insanely-high one, and it\'s very hard to be precise about when you are over the pad...

So basically exactly what Max did?

[frenchie16]

So basically exactly what Max did?

Yup. Sometimes I forget to check for additional pages before posting a reply >.<

I need to start getting more sleep.

Anyway, working on doing the same thing myself (I did come up with the idea independently of him, after all). I\'m leaving out the SAS on the last stage for a delta-v of 1630m/s which should result in a MUCH more manageable final orbit of 729km and less mass to boost there.

[frenchie16]

Just made an attempt at this. Got all the way into the exact right orbit, after 2.5 hours. Ignited SRB, and it overheated and exploded a few seconds after ignition. > > > >

I really should have read the earlier posts in the thread.....

Anyone want to explain WHY, without winglets, this happens? ???

Here\'s my log:

SL-PI 001

(Satellofter-Precision Impact 001)

Mission: Orbit Kerbin at least once, deorbit with one standard SRB, crash as close to the

space center as possible.

Plan: Attain highest orbit possible while using as little propellant as possible, then

transfer to such an altitude that the orbital velocity is equal to the delta-V of the final

stage. When above the space center, activate final stage to come to a complete stop relative

to Kerbin.

Calculations:

Delta-V of final stage: 1629.818m/s

Orbital Altitude: 729061.1m

Log:

t+00:47:09 achieved initial stable, circular orbit of 586.2km at 1725m/s flying \'by feel\'.

initiating hohmann transfer to 729.061km. Accelerating to 1773.478m/s...

t+00:47:38 hohmann transfer insertion complete. Expect final orbit insertion at t+01:26:39

(or slightly before, accounting for burn time)...

t+01:14:27 preparing for final orbit insertion, passing over again to the dark side of kerbin

(into second orbit). Expected final orbit insertion parameters: initial v should be 1582.9 at

altitude 729.061km, accelerate to 1629.8m/s

t+01:30:04 after a lot of painstaking adjustments, orbittinga t 729065m, dead 0 vertical

velocity, 1629.8m/s. If only I were 4m lower... but I\'m happy with it. Now, ve play ze

vaiting game. Well over the dark side, but sun still visible, so... it\'ll be a while.

t+01:31:35 sun JUST disappeared beneath the horizon. Probably could use that to calculate

exactly when to drop, but I\'m not in the mood for THAT much precision (and by \'precision\' I

mean \'trigonometry\').

t+01:59:07 tiny bit of orbital maintenance. Altitude down to 728.69km, velocity up to 1630.2.

Adjusted to very-small-positive vertical velocity and 1629.8 overall velocity.

t+02:19:17 same as last

t+02:25:19 getting very close to drop point. Will perform final adjustments to orbit and prepare to activate the SRB.

t+02:25:19 just about there. Velocity 1629.7, vertical just a hair above 0. Performing deorbit burn now or in a few secs.

t+02:26:27 Darnit. SRB overheated and exploded after only a few seconds of burn. What the heck? Will see where I land, not optimistic. Velocity 875m/s, angle about 3-5 degrees below horizon. Not happy about wasted 2 and a half hours.

[Niarro]

I guess the winglet act as radiators, shunting the heat away from the SRB. I suppose the theory would be, the more surface area you have exposed to cooler temps, the faster you can cool down.

[DoctorEvo]

Just made an attempt at this. Got all the way into the exact right orbit, after 2.5 hours. Ignited SRB, and it overheated and exploded a few seconds after ignition. > > > >

I really should have read the earlier posts in the thread.....

Anyone want to explain WHY, without winglets, this happens? ???

Because someone thought it\'d be a good idea to model engine overheating. :

[frenchie16]

Because someone thought it\'d be a good idea to model engine overheating. :

I understand why engines overheat, just not why they overheat in this particular situation, but not if you add winglets or (apparently?) an SAS module. I guess it makes sense that the extra parts act as heat sinks… I always thought of overheating as just 'don\'t put too many engines at full throttle right next to each other', but I guess it\'s a little more complex than that.

[salsathegeek]

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/basicdesign.php#id--Heat_Radiators

Seriously good site. And I think a bunch like this would enjoy it.

[Zeroignite]

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/basicdesign.php#id--Heat_Radiators

Seriously good site. And I think a bunch like this would enjoy it.

This has been one of my favorite sites on the internet for years.

[salsathegeek]

This has been one of my favorite sites on the internet for years.

I don\'t know you, but I like you already.

Also I\'ve been trying this, rocket loses control when ever I ditch the 1st stage boosters.

[DoctorEvo]

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/basicdesign.php#id--Heat_Radiators

Seriously good site. And I think a bunch like this would enjoy it.

This has been one of my favorite sites on the internet for years.

Oh, boy, do NOT get me started on those arrogant windbags. >

[Zeroignite]

This has been one of my favorite sites on the internet for years.

Oh, boy, do NOT get me started on those arrogant windbags. >

Excuse me?

[DoctorEvo]

Excuse me?

You wanna go there? Fine.

It\'s immediately apparent that those guys read WAAAAY too much sci-fi. They are EXTREMELY biased, and their website is rife with technical inaccuracies and misinformation.

For instance, in that section on radiators and thermal management, their presumption that their own little pet-technology (nuclear-thermal rockets) are COMPLETELY immune to thermal management issues owing to the openness of their cycle, and their (probably willful) failure to acknowledge the relevance and usefulness of open-cycle cooling schemes for anything else, is just clearly indicative of the way they go about explaining things.

And I\'m sorry, but I just can\'t take seriously anyone who thinks adding ARMOR to a spacecraft is a good idea.

[rdfox]

Given that it\'s a resource for people who want to try to write 50s-style pulp sci-fi, I can accept the bias towards Rule of Cool and other such tropes...

[Zeroignite]

You wanna go there? Fine.

It\'s immediately apparent that those guys read WAAAAY too much sci-fi. They are EXTREMELY biased, and their website is rife with technical inaccuracies and misinformation.

For instance, in that section on radiators and thermal management, their presumption that their own little pet-technology (nuclear-thermal rockets) are COMPLETELY immune to thermal management issues owing to the openness of their cycle, and their (probably willful) failure to acknowledge the relevance and usefulness of open-cycle cooling schemes for anything else, is just clearly indicative of the way they go about explaining things.

And I\'m sorry, but I just can\'t take seriously anyone who thinks adding ARMOR to a spacecraft is a good idea.

Scifi bias? Sure, it\'s a site for people who want to write scifi. And, uhm, they don\'t claim adding armor is a good idea, they state pretty specifically that it\'s a terrible and useless one. There may well be some points where it\'s not as accurate as it could be but I wouldn\'t go as far as writing the whole site off.

[DoctorEvo]

Scifi bias? Sure, it\'s a site for people who want to write scifi. And, uhm, they don\'t claim adding armor is a good idea, they state pretty specifically that it\'s a terrible and useless one.

Where? Absolutely everywhere I\'ve looked, they speak as if noisy, manned, heavily-armored, nuclear-propelled warships are the inevitable future of space warfare.

There may well be some points where it\'s not as accurate as it could be but I wouldn\'t go as far as writing the whole site off.

The biggest problem is their tone - as if EVERY SINGLE THING THEY SAY IS UNDENIABLE FACT - and the fact that there appears to be no peer-review process regulating things. The end result is you have a website where fact is hard to distinguish from (alarmingly common) errors/disinformation unless you already know what to look for. At least wikipedia has a little ^{[citation needed]} tag near the bits that should be taken with a grain of salt...

[frenchie16]

Where? Absolutely everywhere I\'ve looked, they speak as if noisy, manned, heavily-armored, nuclear-propelled warships are the inevitable future of space warfare.

From the main page of the site:

This document gives some hints and equations that will allow back-of-the-envelope calculations on such matters. Though horribly simplistic, they are far better than just making up your figures.

This site was mainly intended for science fiction authors who wanted a little scientific accuracy so they can write SF 'the way God and Heinlein intended' (Arlan Andrews\'s Law). But anybody who is interested can play with the toys contained within, designing their own Planet Rangers Rocketships.

That said, I don\'t really see what\'s so appealing about the site…

[oniontrain]

If anyone\'s interested there\'s already a warhe- small reentry vehicle made by myself. It can be gotten here.