DDE Posted July 30, 2020 Share Posted July 30, 2020 One of the early Vostok prototype flights be like, "We lost something". Spoiler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted August 1, 2020 Share Posted August 1, 2020 Lev Golovin's rocketplane projects (1930s-early 1940s) https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=ru&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http://armedman.ru/samoletyi/1937-1945-samoletyi/istrebitel-raketoplan-lva-golovina-sssr.html Spoiler Interceptor. Starts from the truck-based erector-launcher with solid booster, lands by chute (whole craft). No guns, attacks by ramming, 2..3 attempts per flight. The later version with has a gun. Length 3 m, wingspan 1.75 m, wing area 1 m2, launch mass 250 kg, thrust 1 000 kgf, speed 1060 km/h, altitude 7.5 km Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisias Posted August 8, 2020 Author Share Posted August 8, 2020 Chrysler SERV and MURP. On the Kerbal way! (MOAR JETS!!!!) (How in hell nobody did something like this in KSP yet? ) More interesting info here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted August 9, 2020 Share Posted August 9, 2020 8 hours ago, Lisias said: How in hell nobody did something like this in KSP yet? @TiktaalikDreaming has a bunch of mods, some of them staying intact. Among them there is/was Convair Nexus which is something similar. https://spacedock.info/profile/TiktaalikDreaming Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DunaManiac Posted August 10, 2020 Share Posted August 10, 2020 THe ProtonM rocket failure in 2013. I think we've all been here in KSP, the rocket spinning out of control and crashing. MOAR Fins, as they say. It even exploded! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meecrob Posted August 10, 2020 Share Posted August 10, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, DunaManiac said: MOAR Fins, as they say. Nah, they forgot to change control point from the payload to the booster. I'd bet the navball was minimized for screenshots. (this is the accident they installed the gyros upside down, isn't it?) Edited August 10, 2020 by Meecrob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DunaManiac Posted August 10, 2020 Share Posted August 10, 2020 13 minutes ago, Meecrob said: Nah, they forgot to change control point from the payload to the booster. I'd bet the navball was minimized for screenshots. I know this, it just looks like the accidents I usually have with my rockets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s_gamer101 Posted August 10, 2020 Share Posted August 10, 2020 On 8/8/2020 at 9:47 PM, Lisias said: How in hell nobody did something like this in KSP yet? I‘ll try to replicate that The challenge will be to not crash it during landing because of the slow reaction time of the jets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted August 11, 2020 Share Posted August 11, 2020 8 hours ago, Meecrob said: Nah, they forgot to change control point from the payload to the booster. I'd bet the navball was minimized for screenshots. (this is the accident they installed the gyros upside down, isn't it?) Yeah, they actually hammered in at least one accelerometer upside-down. The kerbal equivalent would be the probe core installed upside down *whistles innocently* My mind expected some lag on impact as the Matrix processes the explosion.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s_gamer101 Posted August 11, 2020 Share Posted August 11, 2020 (edited) Another real life SSTO Kerbalism using a linear aerospike. The U-2 was also a little bit kerbal since it had a bicycle landing gear. I‘ve seen this on some low-mass spaceplanes that other people made in KSP. Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_U-2 Edited August 11, 2020 by s_gamer101 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minmus Taster Posted August 11, 2020 Share Posted August 11, 2020 Early concept for Russian Lunar lander the 19K prove that the soviets were part Kerbal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubinator Posted August 11, 2020 Share Posted August 11, 2020 1 hour ago, Minmus Taster said: Early concept for Russian Lunar lander the 19K prove that the soviets were part Kerbal Please tell me they didn't have to sit in it...like that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minmus Taster Posted August 11, 2020 Share Posted August 11, 2020 Just now, cubinator said: Please tell me they didn't have to sit in it...like that... Those poor cosmonauts would need to have a VERY strong stomach for this to work! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted August 11, 2020 Share Posted August 11, 2020 Unknown modern artist's lunar trip. In both senses, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDE Posted August 11, 2020 Share Posted August 11, 2020 2 hours ago, cubinator said: Please tell me they didn't have to sit in it...like that... I suspect that the interior of the forward module would be appropriately inverted from its current position: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s_gamer101 Posted August 11, 2020 Share Posted August 11, 2020 The font of the yellow letters on the left side reminds me of KSP‘s main menu. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted August 11, 2020 Share Posted August 11, 2020 The Soyuz habitat already has a round EVA hatch. Also it's the only way to get in/get out of the ship. Why add a square hatch below. CoM makes it unstable. Why should it have the LEO service module with < 1 km/s of delta-V. What is this biconical thing below, surrounded by the spherical tanks? Why any the early lunar program included several (four ?) dockings and LK lander? How should they take seats when the seats are on ceiling? The picture depicts some 200x amateur "project", not a real space project. Actually, the Soyuz with its habitat looks very similar to the early Apollo D-2 project and probably was designed with possible direct ascent in head, so the Soyuz habitat looks like a ready-to-use lunar compartment. But it would never be overturned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisias Posted August 11, 2020 Author Share Posted August 11, 2020 1 hour ago, DDE said: I suspect that the interior of the forward module would be appropriately inverted from its current position: That's a relief. For a moment, I thought that their toilets would be on the ceiling. Oh, wait.... 1 hour ago, kerbiloid said: The picture depicts some 200x amateur "project", not a real space project This is what I initially though, but them I found this on the the site from where the poster came: The renderings are artistic, but the project really existed. The internals of some modules would need to be reconfigured, or at least on-the-fly reconfigurable. Interesting enough, this approach would required two 21k tanker ship, launched separately, that would require a docking in orbit for refuelling. So, if a docking in orbit would be unavoidable (and the cosmonauts would be dead the same as the astronauts if the docking fails or the tank ship is lost on the launch on by malfunction), the Apollo approach had the merit of saving two launching vehicle, doing the same job that the soviets was planning to do with three! Quote For example, the 19K expeditionary complex would stay on the ground until both 21K tankers were safely in orbit and ready to re-fuel it in orbit, while the aborted launch or docking of the crew with the 19K vehicle could theoretically be repeated with a backup L3 vehicle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted August 11, 2020 Share Posted August 11, 2020 (edited) Shocked. Edited August 11, 2020 by kerbiloid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisias Posted August 11, 2020 Author Share Posted August 11, 2020 MUSTARD - Multi-Unit Space Transport And Recovery Device Please remember forum rules before commenting - I rewrote this post three times and then just quit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SciMan Posted August 11, 2020 Share Posted August 11, 2020 (edited) IDK how, but nobody has mentioned the OTHER soviet moon rocket (sadly it never left the drawing board). The UR-700. Just like in Kerbal, they wanted to use fuel cross-feed. Just like in Kerbal, it seems to have been created at a time when they did not have the tooling to simply "make a wider cylindrical fuel tank" instead of clustering smaller tanks and engines. It even had a proposed nuclear variant that would have been able to put 700 tons in LEO. IIRC, it was fueled by hypergolic fuels, so you also get the "infinite restarts" found in KSP. Having a hard time linking the picture from Wikipedia, but there's a model of it in a picture if you follow the link. Thing's crazy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Rocket#UR-700 Also found on Astronautix here: http://www.astronautix.com/u/ur-700m.html Edited August 11, 2020 by SciMan more info Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s_gamer101 Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 15 hours ago, Minmus Taster said: Early concept for Russian Lunar lander the 19K prove that the soviets were part Kerbal It looks somehow like they built an Appolo style mission in KSP and forgot to undock the command module before landing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 (edited) The picture is overturned. They just docked to the Moon from below with that grappling unit. I can prove it. Look, they were ascending from the Earth up, flied to the Moon up, so where should be at the end? Yes, below the Moon. So. if rotate the picture 180°, the ship is its natural position. Edited August 12, 2020 by kerbiloid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisias Posted August 12, 2020 Author Share Posted August 12, 2020 (edited) (Allegebily) Spencer Heath, testing his Paragon variable pitch proppeler. Bill Kerman is proud. Source : http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/TRANSPORT/helica/helica.htm (with a lot more contraptions of this kind) Emphasis to the parking brakes! Edited August 12, 2020 by Lisias Freaking auto-correctors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 14 hours ago, SciMan said: IDK how, but nobody has mentioned the OTHER soviet moon rocket (sadly it never left the drawing board). The UR-700. It's just well-known here, so it was discussed earlier in other threads. 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.