So I was googling Advanced Stability Augmentation System

[Lazro]

And I found this.

Apparently we're working with tech from the 1960's-70's.

[comham]

Well, the 60's and 70's were the space race. Everything in the game could reasonably be said to be from that era.

[Moon Goddess]

Apparently we're working with tech from the 1960's-70's.

I thought that was the whole point of KSP... everything stock looks like Gemini and Apollo, I always assumed kerbals don't have better than 1975 tech.

[Lazro]

I thought that was the whole point of KSP... everything stock looks like Gemini and Apollo, I always assumed kerbals don't have better than 1975 tech.

Point taken.

[DChurchill]

I thought that was the whole point of KSP... everything stock looks like Gemini and Apollo, I always assumed kerbals don't have better than 1975 tech.

Ahhh to be 10 again.

[legodragonxp]

D-17B computer for the Minuteman Missile is how I envision Kerbal tech.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-17B

-Lego

[0Kev]

D-17B computer for the Minuteman Missile is how I envision Kerbal tech.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-17B

-Lego

Fifteen hundred and twenty one transistors, 62 lbs! Woo! My phone has about 100,000 times that many transistors. Hah.

However, a computer like that one could probably keep working after being dropped from the roof of a medium apartment building.

[Tiron]

Yeah but the Saturn V Instrument Unit (which the large SAS looks rather like) not only flew the craft mostly-automatically, it also would recalculate the ascent path in-flight to optimize it based on observed conditions.

And the Mercury Astronauts had to yell, whine, and complain to even get the ability to fly the craft manually at all.

What we've got is WORSE than 50s tech, let alone 60s or 70s!

[DisarmingBaton5]

Yeah but the Saturn V Instrument Unit (which the large SAS looks rather like) not only flew the craft mostly-automatically, it also would recalculate the ascent path in-flight to optimize it based on observed conditions.

And the Mercury Astronauts had to yell, whine, and complain to even get the ability to fly the craft manually at all.

What we've got is WORSE than 50s tech, let alone 60s or 70s!

40s tech! At least we have rockets. (Me 163, anyone?)

[sgt_flyer]

hey Nasa keep reusing and reusing everything they made - simply because it worked

even the 'new' Space launch system is made by reusing a lot of old tech :

the side boosters are stretched versions of the Space shuttle SRB's, the core stage is a modified Space shuttle external Tank, with modified space shuttle main engines at the bottom (modified notably to save money, as they don't need to be reusable on the SLS) and the SLS's upperstage will make use of J2-X engines, which are an upgraded version of the saturn V's second and third stage J2 engines

it's the russian who where king of automation back then - everything was intended to fly automatically (heck, Buran made a fully automatic reentry and glided landing the only time it went to space)

Edited July 5, 2013 by sgt_flyer

[Tiron]

hey Nasa keep reusing and reusing everything they made - simply because it worked

even the 'new' Space launch system is made by reusing a lot of old tech :

the side boosters are stretched versions of the Space shuttle SRB's, the core stage is a modified Space shuttle external Tank, with modified space shuttle main engines at the bottom (modified notably to save money, as they don't need to be reusable on the SLS) and the SLS's upperstage will make use of J2-X engines, which are an upgraded version of the saturn V's second and third stage J2 engines

it's the russian who where king of automation back then - everything was intended to fly automatically (heck, Buran made a fully automatic reentry and glided landing the only time it went to space)

The whole 'reusing stuff' is to save money. It's cheaper to use something you already have than to make something new. That said, the J-2X is kinda an exception. It's a new version of an old engine that itself has never actually been used. And I recall that the main tank at the bottom is based on the Space Shuttle's External Tank.

[Sof]

Probably got a lot to do with the fact that there aren't factories pumping out parts like for example with cars.

That, and designing a new engine from scratch costs loads of money, and getting it wrong results in a big explosion. Better to stick with the tried and tested.

[sgt_flyer]

The whole 'reusing stuff' is to save money. It's cheaper to use something you already have than to make something new. That said, the J-2X is kinda an exception. It's a new version of an old engine that itself has never actually been used. And I recall that the main tank at the bottom is based on the Space Shuttle's External Tank.

yes, i stated that the core stage was the Space shuttle tank

nevertheless, complete digital guidance systems is something which is really recent in rocketry - the proton K with it's analog systems still flew until 2012 - even if the proton M with it's more advanced guidance system flew since 2001. (and let's not speak about the onboard space shuttle computers )

if you want top of the line technology, do not go for rockets - go for planes instead

Edited July 5, 2013 by sgt_flyer

[nlancaster]

SpaceX is attempting to get into the "Pumping them out like cars" mode of building rockets. They are doing series production of their rockets and engines. They have even stated they would sell engines if someone was interesting in buying them.

[-RanZ-]

Want a guidance computer that is modern? Mechjeb

[Sirrobert]

I thought that was the whole point of KSP... everything stock looks like Gemini and Apollo, I always assumed kerbals don't have better than 1975 tech.

Well concidering half our parts are either found on the side of the road or come from a junkyard...

[mason]

If I'm remembering correctly, a vaguely recent Omega Tau podcast had a short series of space-related episodes, and in one of them an engineer (or project manager - I forget which) commented that sometimes it's really expensive re-using parts, as you almost certainly have to modify the part, and doing so requires the full suite of tests to be run again, with the part having a different relationship to the whole than during the initial design. It was fascinating listening to it, anyway. Recommended. The level of testing and verification that goes into (in this case) satellite design is evidently rigorous way beyond what one sees in the software industry generally.

 

[magnemoe]

On 5.7.2013 at 5:07 PM, 0Kev said:

Fifteen hundred and twenty one transistors, 62 lbs! Woo! My phone has about 100,000 times that many transistors. Hah.

However, a computer like that one could probably keep working after being dropped from the roof of a medium apartment building.

So could an roughed version of your phone do, yes it would double it weight and make it 50% larger it would also be more than twice as expensive. 
Put that any phone inside an protected box and you could drop it from an plane. 

And no, kerbal electronic is not as advanced. They probably don't even have digital technology. 
 

[ZooNamedGames]

KSP's intended era is likely late 70s early 80s with some outliers that are modern, like the xenon engine. 

The game mostly revolves in a very post-moon race vibe, in the style of what Nasa was like after they left Apollo and before beginning the shuttle. That open atmosphere of possibility and exploration is where KSP lives. 

[Alshain]

EDIT Argh! I fell victim to a necro post!  This thread is from 2013!

Edited October 10, 2016 by Alshain

[Tex_NL]

10 hours ago, Alshain said:

EDIT Argh! I fell victim to a necro post!  This thread is from 2013!

Well. At least you were not the only one. The real victim of this necrobait is @magnemoe.

[eddiew]

10 hours ago, Alshain said:

EDIT Argh! I fell victim to a necro post!  This thread is from 2013!

It's becoming a daily thing... I spend ages crafting a reply to a 'new' thread, then notice the original date and delete it in a fit of pique 

[Shpaget]

And there I was wondering why the blue line was above mason's post.

"Hmm... I don't remember reading this topic..."

Anyway, a modern micricontroler based flight compuer that costs just a few bucks would easily run the Apollo mission, play solitaire and twidle its digital fingers, but rad hardening is still an issue, and smaller the microcontrollers get, the harder it is to protect them. Analog circuitry is much more robust in that regard.

That being said, the various mechanical solutions they came up with are marvelous!

[tg626]

On 7/5/2013 at 10:25 AM, Tiron said:

Yeah but the Saturn V Instrument Unit (which the large SAS looks rather like) not only flew the craft mostly-automatically, it also would recalculate the ascent path in-flight to optimize it based on observed conditions.

And the Mercury Astronauts had to yell, whine, and complain to even get the ability to fly the craft manually at all.

What we've got is WORSE than 50s tech, let alone 60s or 70s!

This is why I MechJeb

[Pecan]

1 hour ago, tg626 said:

This is why I MechJeb

MJ forgot to tell you the date, or read the previous few posts.  Can't trust computers.