Squadcast Summary (24/01/2015) - The Valentina Edition

[basic.syntax]

I real life I would have to assemble it on site or in orbit. If SQUAD allows me to attach wheels to assemblies in space I would rejoice and stick to standard sized fairings once and for all.

While I'd love to go "space engineer" (*there are no other games but KSP,* saying it three times as penance) and hard-attach parts in space, the work-around for getting a heavy rover into space without proc fairings (Stock game,) is to simply accept extra drag (in 1.0) affecting your launch, and "use moar boosters!" - hehe.

[tajampi]

Nice they have RoverDude working on the resources, karbonite is awesome

Cheers!

[Jouni]

That is not extremely large. This is what I mean when I say 'extremely large'. Besides, your rocket has the length to help stabilise it.

Mushroom II then.

This was a bit harder to fly than Mushroom I. SAS could no longer handle the gravity turn on its own, so I had to actively control the rocket. Still, it got to orbit on the first attempt. Terminal velocity was 350 m/s at launch, which was the lowest figure I've ever seen in FAR.

[magnemoe]

In real life, the payload has to work with the rocket, not the other way around. So very few new fairings are made, that would be too expensive...

Yes, however this would require something more like infernal robotic to fold up more than landing legs and antennas.

- - - Updated - - -

While I'd love to go "space engineer" (*there are no other games but KSP,* saying it three times as penance) and hard-attach parts in space, the work-around for getting a heavy rover into space without proc fairings (Stock game,) is to simply accept extra drag (in 1.0) affecting your launch, and "use moar boosters!" - hehe.

Jet based first stages might be relevant here too get up to 20 km, their fuel use is so low you don't care if it goes slow, you drop it and only need 2.5 km/s to reach orbit.

Reach orbit empty and send an spaceplane with fuel or mine fuel somewhere.

[cicatrix]

While I'd love to go "space engineer" (*there are no other games but KSP,* saying it three times as penance) and hard-attach parts in space, the work-around for getting a heavy rover into space without proc fairings (Stock game,) is to simply accept extra drag (in 1.0) affecting your launch, and "use moar boosters!" - hehe.

I use FAR and thus I'd have unsymmetric drag. The ascent would be painful if it even succeed.

[basic.syntax]

Jet based first stages might be relevant here too get up to 20 km, their fuel use is so low you don't care if it goes slow, you drop it and only need 2.5 km/s to reach orbit.

Reach orbit empty and send an spaceplane with fuel or mine fuel somewhere.

Yay for other ideas and more creative thinking! That's what I like about KSP

I use FAR and thus I'd have unsymmetric drag. The ascent would be painful if it even succeed.

Nice Once you start adding overhaul mods like FAR, there is no end to what you can do, or want next

[cicatrix]

Nice Once you start adding overhaul mods like FAR, there is no end to what you can do, or want next

Still, with new stock aero this should create unsymmetric drag as well.

[basic.syntax]

Totally agree. Asym. drag should be a Thing in stock game. A new consideration, added to where center of mass is. Can't wait to see it and fight with it

[Wjolcz]

I hope for cargo ramps to be added. Would make me happy. There wasnt any word about those, was there? : (

[TheOrqwithVagrant]

I'll just leave this here for all the people who think they know what fairing sizes and shapes are 'realistic':

http://www.ata-e.com/asymmetric-payload-fairing

The real-world rocketry indstury has been very, very 'conservative' for a long time. There are a huge number of cool/crazy things that we could do IRL that we just haven't due to cost/risk. Kerbals, otoh, are not exactly risk-averse, and part of the fun of KSP is to do the kind of things in space that we humans COULD do if we had unlimited funds and weren't afraid of risk. Complaining about ridiculously shaped fairings being allowed in a game where your KSP personnel will happily OK launching whatever insanity you put on the launchpad even if it has 5 SRBs with their business ends pointed straight at the capsule in the middle rings pretty hollow. Also, a lot of pFairing protesters seem to think fairings are some kind of magical hard-coded drag-eliminators. They're not - at least in FAR, and I would presume in the upcoming stock aero model as well, they are subject to the same drag calculations as the uncovered payload - for them to perform better, they actually have to provide an 'aerodynamic advantage' to the non-covered payload. If sanely sized, they will, but some of the examples here would probably get to orbit with much more dV left if flown without the fairing - though those sticky-outy girders just might get torn off if you pick up too much speed too low in the atmosphere.

[Superfluous J]

http://www.ata-e.com/asymmetric-payload-fairing

I doubt this page's veracity. Under "Features and Benefits" it doesn't even mention "You'll have the awesomest, coolest, most medieval-weaponest looking rocket EVAR"

[Daze]

Someone know when will be the next Squadcast?

[Robotengineer]

Someone know when will be the next Squadcast?

Scheduled to begin at 7:30 EST. 6:30 Squad time. Link

[Daze]

Scheduled to begin at 7:30 EST. 6:30 Squad time. Link

Thank you!

[Deathsoul097]

As an addendum, apart from modeling time and design time (and RAM, but I hope that may possibly maybe get improved at some point), I don't see why KW style and p-fairing style fairings couldn't both be stock. save p-fairings for the end? Or make them much more expensive (2x?) than using standardized fairings? They both have their places, but my main thrust is that IF WE ONLY HAVE ONE STYLE, I think they'd best fit the game if they were KW style or dimensionally limited p-fairings.

Might i say, perhaps the best option would be a combination of the two?

2 procedural fairing bases(One to fit the width of the rocket, one Expanded to 1.25-1.5 x the size of the rocket, like th kw bases.), which can scale width-wise according to tech level, and a procedural fairing, which automatically fits the base size it is attached to, and is incrementally adjustable in height, perhaps in increments of 1/2 a metre?

You get the best of both worlds, and it would give you both the freedom to design as you please, but also have a slight restriction to make you think outside the box. (Or in this case, inside the fairing)

-N-

[problemecium]

Dunno about the rest of you, but I use PFairings and I still try to fit my stuff in to reasonable diameters, if for nothing better than aesthetic reasons. Sure, I COULD make the fairing a big fat mushroom, but I choose not to.

[NovaSilisko]

Dunno about the rest of you, but I use PFairings and I still try to fit my stuff in to reasonable diameters, if for nothing better than aesthetic reasons. Sure, I COULD make the fairing a big fat mushroom, but I choose not to.

Agreed. I usually will lock fairings into a specific diameter for a given launch vehicle and then stick to it. That, or I just use the KW fairings.

[Daze]

Dunno about the rest of you, but I use PFairings and I still try to fit my stuff in to reasonable diameters, if for nothing better than aesthetic reasons. Sure, I COULD make the fairing a big fat mushroom, but I choose not to.

This^

And as i've already stated the only problem that i see is that people can't impose limitation on himself and have fear to build "mushroom fairings" because nobody say:"ehi stop you can't do this" (no meant to offense somebody )

[Deathsoul097]

Agreed. I usually will lock fairings into a specific diameter for a given launch vehicle and then stick to it. That, or I just use the KW fairings.

This^

Pfairings just makes it easier to set up lv's exactly how you want them.

[Mars Mullo]

Can't say I'm happy to see the barn back... I liked the stylish 1960's tier one hangars :-(

[Yellowburn10]

Whoa, back from the dead, eh? And I thought that the barn was, again, being held back for design reasons.

[KerbMav]

I has confusions ...

[Superfluous J]

Can't say I'm happy to see the barn back... I liked the stylish 1960's tier one hangars :-(

Source? Its total lack from all streams I've seen (No, I've not been up for 40 hours so I haven't seen them all, but I've seen a surprising number of them) implies just the opposite to me.

Though for all I know it's 99% ready but just didn't make the 1.0 cut.