<Agathorn>
need to try and figure out how to take the blue marble images and convert them to be appropriate for texturing a cube sphere
PFAVG has quit [Read error: No route to host]
PFAVG has joined #RO
<Agathorn>
conceptually I know what I need to do, but not sure how to convert the actual image
rsparkyc has joined #RO
<soundnfury>
Agathorn: write some code that does the coordinate transform on the image, probably using sinc (lanczos) filtering to deal with the source & dest discretisation and avoid moire
<soundnfury>
(and yes, this is hard)
<Agathorn>
yeah that is what i'm trying to avoid doing :p
<Agathorn>
though it is on my list as a last resort
<stratochief|remote>
Agathorn: was that a Renaissance Man reference yesterday? I've watched the movie a few times, but I don't have a memory for quotations from movies sadly. I also enjoyed the movie
stratochief|remote is now known as stratochief
<stratochief>
in Italian, they could perhaps translate it to "well rounded man", which would hopefully work as another layer of joke because Danny Devito is short and round
PFAVG has joined #RO
Hohman has joined #RO
<stratochief>
!tell Rokker #SpaceX is your safe-space from politics; grow a pair
<Qboid>
stratochief: I'll redirect this as soon as they are around.
<stratochief>
!tell CobaltWolf very nice texture on the new rocket.
<Qboid>
stratochief: I'll redirect this as soon as they are around.
<stratochief>
man, reading the details of the abort/backup options for Mars direct really makes me want to set those up for a game. IMO, abort/back-up options are the detail that really make BARIS and BASPM for me.
<gazpachian>
It's what's so great about test flight, in that you have a reason to actually consider an abort
<Pap>
stratochief: what do you mean by abort/ back-up optins in BASPM? I always thought that my missions would fail when I reached acertain point and something didn't work
<stratochief>
my memory on BASPM is more fuzzy than Baris, but wasn't there some abort options, like if a crewed craft failed to reach orbit, it would take an alternative path of checks and have to succeed at re-entry, chutes, and recovery to get a partial instead of complete failure/lose?
<stratochief>
gazpachian: yeah. more TestFlight configs could push that even further. TestFlight makes KSP a hell of a lot more real. although I prefer to handle in-flight failures with planning and checks instead of "shit my pants" reactions in live, manually controlled KSP :P
<gazpachian>
!tell CobaltWolf vis a vis Europa 34L center engine, ground or air lit: That launch config was 'invented' for eyes turned skywards afaik. The graphic you posted in the thread is at the very least made by a regular contributor to the thread on the alternate history forums. As such I'm not entirely sure there even is an answer to that question, since the designs in that TL were largely chosen based on payload capacity according to
<Qboid>
gazpachian: I'll redirect this as soon as they are around.
<gazpachian>
algorithms, rarely getting down into the muddy details of staging of the vehicles. Run the numbers, if the side boosters give you a decent pad TWR on their own you can say the core stage is air lit without stepping on anyone's toes. :P
<gazpachian>
it'll just redirect the first message, right?
<stratochief>
I mean, you can achieve something similar by coding your craft with kRPC or kOS to handle failures, but then you're coding and all that craziness, making mission planning even harder and taking more time
<stratochief>
just the first, yep. second needs a second tell
<gazpachian>
!tell CobaltWolf ... algorithms, rarely getting down into the muddy details of staging of the vehicles. Run the numbers, if the side boosters give you a decent pad TWR on their own you can say the core stage is air lit without stepping on anyone's toes. :P
<Qboid>
gazpachian: I'll redirect this as soon as they are around.
<gazpachian>
stratochief: well, mission planning is part of the fun for some! :)
<stratochief>
I like to plan the mission, I enjoy carrying it out less, and having to code during my play time even less
<gazpachian>
well, it's still better than flipping burgers
<gazpachian>
Gotta head to work, catch you all later!
<stratochief>
I... might prefer to flip burgers in my free time than to code P
<stratochief>
adios gaz
<gazpachian>
you're welcome to substitute anytime! ;)
<Pap>
I would like to add more failures to TF for RO like having things fail in Command Modules, but there is no ability to Apollo 13 something and fix it, that is the biggest limiationt I see
BadRocketsCo has quit [Ping timeout: 186 seconds]
<xShadowx>
Pap: i almost did apollo-13 failure, just to screw with people, i was going to just go with a basic checklist of conditions (current path, systems onboard, etc), then woops :D
SigmaPlane is now known as SigmaUK
SigmaUK is now known as Sigma88
Sigma88 is now known as SigmaUK
<stratochief>
Pap: there is an odd trade-off you could have there, with failure and repair options. IIRC, Agathorn said someone could code that in, either testflight already allows that to be done, or he made it so someone could straightforwardly add it? no wait, I think he removed it and suggested someone make a mod to handle crew repairs
<xShadowx>
ya he took out repairs, and need another mod
<stratochief>
and really, that might be a thing worth coding. the same mod could also be used to have properly prepared/skilled engineers add ignitions to engines, for example. perhaps with a chance of breaking it entirely :P
* xShadowx
thinks stratochief is turning evil
<xShadowx>
the make-somthing-fail side is super easy to do though
<stratochief>
well, I think it is micromanagement I wouldn't care for (same reason I don't use RT), but I understand other people might enjoy that and I encourage them to mod it
<xShadowx>
and i seem to recall apollo-13 didnt 'fix' it, just bandaid it
<stratochief>
worst case, we describe a mod idea and get it marinating in rsparkyc's head, and if he likes the flavour he codes it after EMR is done :P
<Pap>
DangIt has some functionality of crew repair, thought I can't say I've ever used it
<xShadowx>
dangit is flat roll per tick to fail
<riocrokite>
or something like sims and tharsis - assign kerbals to inspect / troubleshoot damages stratochief
<xShadowx>
going beyond moon you have a broken ship ;p cant do mars
<stratochief>
xShadowx: yeah, depending on the type of failuring and skill of crew, everything from "unrecoverable failure" to "complete crew fix, better than before!" could be a potential outcome as the result of the failure type and fix type/abillity of crew
<stratochief>
riocrokite: indeed
<riocrokite>
assigning more experienced or more kerbals to a problem = higher chance to fix it in shorter time
TM1978m has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<Pap>
stratochief: I know you have been crazy busy, any chance to push some commits this weekend? (not pressuring, actually just asking)
<stratochief>
I'd go with the soviet ship. it breaks often and is inefficient, but is easy to fix so where is problem?
<riocrokite>
hmmm or something like available kerbal time pie chart, failure fixes need to be maintained = taking time from overall pool available
<stratochief>
Pap: 30-50% chance. depending on weather and how my girlfriend is feeling. 'look at KSP' is one of my abort options for the weekend :P
<xShadowx>
time to fix always got shot down by people as a punishment, even i lean towards insta fix (even if change to fail)
* stratochief
pokes SirKeplan to take a look at PRs
<Pap>
lol stratochief
<riocrokite>
xShadowx: on a good note almost got depletion to work
<stratochief>
hell, for all I know he already has been. I've been entirely unable to look at KSP this week
<xShadowx>
riocrokite: with code fixes or ?
<xShadowx>
stratochief: choosing a girl over ksp? pfft
<riocrokite>
just replaced one method seems to somehow work
<xShadowx>
:)
<riocrokite>
well couple of methods
<riocrokite>
to be honest I would push all the depletion mechanics out of stock game
<stratochief>
xShadowx: she doesn't take 15 minutes to boot, and she's got better graphics :)
<riocrokite>
would be easier to fiddle with
<xShadowx>
stratochief: hah
Shoe17 has joined #RO
<SirKeplan>
stratochief: intending to do just that in a bit :P
<riocrokite>
I set depletion node every 35m so you actually have to move while harvesting lol xShadowx
<Pap>
stratochief: you must not have seen the Extreme Graphics Overhaul mod for RSS, it would be a close one for me, and my wife is hot
<stratochief>
SirKeplan: awesome. good to see you speak on the chat as well. it has been a while :)
<riocrokite>
no more driving in circles
<SirKeplan>
:)
<stratochief>
Pap: lol. well, did i mention my lady also doesn't require me to upgrade my ~5 year old computer?
<riocrokite>
the thing is that nodes are kept in a list so the more nodes are created the more it takes to get the node for update every frame
<Pap>
That is true stratochief!
<riocrokite>
with 1000' nodes in late game it might be taxing
<stratochief>
no chance I could run a better beautification mod for KSP. I can barely handle RSSVE, and I know how to tweak things to make that run alright-ish
<xShadowx>
riocrokite: the entire resource system was the old regolith mod pushed into stock, bugs and all, a mod should be able to even disable it from loading, then run the old regolith mod / make fixes, as a worst case option o.O
Thomas|AWAY is now known as Thomas
<riocrokite>
well interesting option but don't have time for that lol
<riocrokite>
and I have last regolith version before it was deleted and moved into stock, it lacks a lot of things
<xShadowx>
riocrokite: 1) nodes not sorted to their own list per body? and thats what dictionary is for, to find stuff fast, though a proper caching of the active nodes to a sublist would help even more
<riocrokite>
1) sorted in list per body
<riocrokite>
yah you need to help me man, you have more knowledge about that stuff
SirKeplan is now known as SirKeplan|AFK
<xShadowx>
not really ;p
<riocrokite>
:P
<xShadowx>
i avoid RD code lol
<xShadowx>
he makes classes jump everywhere and more complicated than needed ;/
<riocrokite>
I would agree it is a tradeoff between functional classification and readability
<Pap>
stratochief: I have some time at work today, give me a project to work on?
<CobaltWolf>
so apparently some people are already pissed off that my new mod is going to be called British Rocket EXpansion and Integration Technologies
<Qboid>
CobaltWolf: stratochief left a message for you in #RO [19.05.2017 13:05:04]: "very nice texture on the new rocket."
<Qboid>
CobaltWolf: gazpachian left a message for you in #RO [19.05.2017 13:16:36]: "vis a vis Europa 34L center engine, ground or air lit: That launch config was 'invented' for eyes turned skywards afaik. The graphic you posted in the thread is at the very least made by a regular contributor to the thread on the alternate history forums. As such I'm not entirely sure there even is an answer to that question, sin
<Qboid>
ce the designs in that TL were largely chosen based on payload capacity according to"
<Qboid>
CobaltWolf: gazpachian left a message for you in #RO [19.05.2017 13:17:37]: " ... algorithms, rarely getting down into the muddy details of staging of the vehicles. Run the numbers, if the side boosters give you a decent pad TWR on their own you can say the core stage is air lit without stepping on anyone's toes. :P"
<CobaltWolf>
oh
<CobaltWolf>
yeah so people are mad about the name of the mod
<xShadowx>
i choose to blame CobaltWolf for the spam, he talked :P
<CobaltWolf>
stratochief: I had to bail on it right as I was getting to the good part of the texture...
<Pap>
That was the point of the name of the mod though, wasn't it CobaltWolf?
<CobaltWolf>
yeah but Foxx is upset and I actually care what he thinks
<xShadowx>
whats wrong about it?:|
<CobaltWolf>
gazpachian: yeah E of Pi hangs out on my Discord these days, I asked him about it and he ran the numbers. The boosters can easily loft the core stage and air start it.
* xShadowx
is missing something
<CobaltWolf>
xShadowx: Its called British Rocket EXpansion and Integration Technologies. Any abbreviations or political implications thereof are the onus of the user.
<Pap>
xShadowx: that seems to have all of the features we were just discussing
<Pap>
Damn
<Pap>
xShadowx: BREXIT is a controversial issue in Europe, that is the name of the new mod
<CobaltWolf>
you only gave him 3 minutes to figure it out?
* xShadowx
has no idea what BREXIT is and aside from 3 seconds of "wtf why care about an acronym" didn't put into it
* xShadowx
got distracted by plans to get a cnc router
<CobaltWolf>
Right wingers in Britain convinced the British to vote themselves out of the EU
<CobaltWolf>
etc etc etc
<xShadowx>
Pap: i dont think thats even examples for all the existing failures, if you do by chance make any and need help just ask :P
<Agathorn>
"<stratochief> I like to plan the mission, I enjoy carrying it out less, and having to code during my play time even less" - That's why I am making Stellar Trail. I enjoy managing and planning, not actually flying the mission
rsparkyc has joined #RO
ferram4 has joined #RO
<Agathorn>
stratochief: yes repairs were removed from TestFlight and substituted with an API to allow an external mod to handle it. I did that because I felt a repair system was worthy of its own fleshed out mod rather than something tacked on
<stratochief>
CobaltWolf: what about BRE-X, that would make the canadians chuckle :P
<CobaltWolf>
what does that mean?
<stratochief>
CobaltWolf: just a reference to a gold mining scam in the early 90s
<stratochief>
Pap: rover contracts? have you already created those? and if so, how do they work/what do they ask the user to accomplish?
<CobaltWolf>
stratochief: ah
<stratochief>
CobaltWolf: if someone is super unhappy about the acro-name of a mod, they better be prepared to suggest a potentially superior alternative
<xShadowx>
BRIE :P
<CobaltWolf>
stratochief: it's more some of my friends have messaged me that they're worried I'll get in trouble for rule 2.2
<CobaltWolf>
2.2 Forbidden content b: Political, ideological or religious posts unrelated to Spaceflight, or of a nature deemed likely to result in behavior banned under rule 2.2D; d: Insults and threats, stalking, bullying or any other behavior construed to be of a potentially rude, slanderous, accusatory, combative or otherwise harassing nature to/of another person;
<stratochief>
what about Commonwealth Rocketry Expansion Pack?
<CobaltWolf>
CREP?
<xShadowx>
the mun is made of cheese afterall, so BRIE fits
<CobaltWolf>
idk they want to do BADWOLF
<CobaltWolf>
which is a reference to some old show or something
<Pap>
stratochief: Rover contracts are done, it asks you to land a rover at a specific place on a planet, then to research two other areas
<stratochief>
I think badwolf is a reference to the UK's national anthem, or something :P
<stratochief>
Pap: what does 'research two other areas' mean?
<stratochief>
Pap: ideally, the very first rover contract would just ask you to land something with wheels, confiriming it can then move to another spot on the surface more than 50m away or something
rsparkyc has quit [Ping timeout: 204 seconds]
<Pap>
stratochief: there are randomly generated waypoints that are produced that you have to travel to
rsparkyc has joined #RO
<stratochief>
I can't hit targets worth shit. I'm also uncertain how much you can expand "close enough to target" with CC
<Pap>
They are all within 500-1000 metesrs of each other
<Pap>
The problem with a contract like that stratochief is the waypoint generation
<stratochief>
Pap: ahh, that sounds good. cool! perhaps the first contract gives 1 or 2 wayspoints, then once accomplished a more challenging one gives them 4-5 waypoints, longer distance?
<Pap>
stratochief: That could be done, right now the contracts are all pretty standard for the rovers
<stratochief>
hmm. it can't generate the waypoints after you've landed somewhere?
<Pap>
stratochief: it can, but you have to have a separate contract that auto-accepts after the player lands a rover on a body and then changes the type to a Rover
<stratochief>
Pap: for something historical-like, a sescond or third level of rover contract could require a rover to hit some waypoints 14-28 days after landing on the Moon, ie. demonstrating that it can survive a lunar night?
<Pap>
It can be buggy, that is why I did it a different way
<Pap>
That is a cool idea stratochief
<stratochief>
Pap: at the point where people are offered a contract for a human orbit of Mars or Venus, are they also offered an opportunity to flyby and recover a crew? that could be an interesting alternate contract
<stratochief>
for people unprepared to commit to a full orbital mission of another planet, but wanted a stepping stone towards it?
<Pap>
Yep, there are human flyby missions of Mars, Venus, Mercury, Jupiter and Saturn
<stratochief>
cool! and, those are offered at the same time orbital contracts are offered?
<stratochief>
is it possible for crew stay times on the Moon to be done as 'world firsts', or no? like, a sub-H class "on the moon for a minute", then H class, then J class, then 2 weeks, month, 2-3 months, etc?
<stratochief>
I'm also not sure if a 'lunar base' type contract exists yet in your updates. I'm also not sure how a lunar base would be defined :P
<stratochief>
maybe lunar space station contracts could be defined as well? more or less borrow-able from the earth orbital ones?
<Pap>
Flyby missions for Venus and Mars are available at the same time as orbits, the player has had to have landed on the Moon at least twice and sent an unmanned Probe to flyby each one
<Pap>
Lunar Space Station contracts are done
<Pap>
I will look into the duration records on the Moon, that is interesting
<stratochief>
I've got ideas, but I apologize profusely for mentioning things you've already done. I really haven't had a chance to look yet :(
<Pap>
Surface bases are not completed yet, they are difficult to implement really well and I was going to wait to implement them until down the road when the rest of the contracts were well tested
<Pap>
NP, I like hearing all the ideas so I can add everything to the lists
<stratochief>
an autonomous docking mission might be interesting, particularly for people who use RT (everybody but me)
<stratochief>
tricky to plan and carry out a rendesous and docking, having to keep track of ground stations, ensure you'll have control of the craft where they craft meet up
Wetmelon has joined #RO
<stratochief>
I wonder how hard it would be to define a contract to make someone demo a re-usable first stage? like, must achieve a certain speed/altitude, can't have a heatshield, must land with engines running or something? just offer that to people right off the bat, daring them to try :P
TM1978m has joined #RO
<Pap>
That could be possible...runs off to write crazy code
<Agathorn>
CobaltWolf: it is, or at least used to be, a KSP forum rule that your mod can't be an offensive acronym so you might want to take that into account.
<Agathorn>
I recall someone having a mod deleted or something because of that
TM1978m has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<xShadowx>
Flying Uncontrolled Carrying Kerbals?
<xShadowx>
:3
<xShadowx>
Flight Under Controlled Konditions
Senshi has joined #RO
<stratochief>
Fun, Unplanned Rapid Disassembly. FU RD
TM1978m has joined #RO
TM1978m has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Wetmelon has quit [Ping timeout: 204 seconds]
<CobaltWolf>
anyone have suggetsions for new names for BREXIT? Our current front runner is CRAP - Commonwealth Rockets and Projectiles
<github>
[RealismOverhaul] SirKeplan pushed 2 new commits to master: https://git.io/vHfl1
<github>
RealismOverhaul/master e7b39dd Ryan Caskey: Fixed J2 test flight config (had 2 configs for J-2S and none for just the J-2)
<github>
RealismOverhaul/master 344f01a SirKeplan: Merge pull request #1639 from rsparkyc/J-2TestFlightFix...
<xShadowx>
CobaltWolf: notto be an idea killer, but 'and' is often left out, leaving CRP which is a mod, and might turn confusing :(
<xShadowx>
bad stratochief :P
Hohman has quit [Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.93 [Firefox 53.0.2/20170504105526]]
<CobaltWolf>
we think we might just go out of our way to only refer to it by the full name
<CobaltWolf>
just to be obtuse
<xShadowx>
i vote BREXIT, im not british, and if someone thinks theres an issue with it then pass it by forum staff first, too many diff acronyms can be twisted to bad things, forcing the opinions of a few onto the world in a game that has nothing to do with them :|
<CobaltWolf>
I feel like the obvious rebuttal to that tho is if I have to ask the moderators, then it probably is a bad idea
<Agathorn>
IMHO you named it specifically to get that acronym so the onus is on you
<Agathorn>
it isn't a case of mistaken acronym, you did it on purpose
<CobaltWolf>
yeah exactly
<CobaltWolf>
and it *was* meant to stir up something, but we were going to basically officially ignore it and laugh a little behind the scenes
<CobaltWolf>
but we don't want to actually violate the forum rules at all
rsparkyc has quit [Ping timeout: 204 seconds]
<Agathorn>
maturity man
rsparkyc has joined #RO
aradapilot has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
aradapilot has joined #RO
<CobaltWolf>
Yeah exactly. 'swhy I'm looking for a new name
<xShadowx>
British Rocket and Innovations Expansion, BRIE :)
<CobaltWolf>
I think someone else suggested that on my Discord already haha
<xShadowx>
i did earlier but in irc i thought.....
<xShadowx>
cuz moon is cheese ;3
<CobaltWolf>
wait yeah that was you
<xShadowx>
:)
<xShadowx>
atleast i'm tryin :)
<xShadowx>
Transportation Rockets and UnManned......ok i cant tjhink of a P
<CobaltWolf>
someone had one on discord
<CobaltWolf>
Royal Orbital Boosters? ROB?
<xShadowx>
which discord chan?
<xShadowx>
nvm found it
<CobaltWolf>
Tantares Revamp UK More Parts
<CobaltWolf>
British Retrograde Inverse Tragectories (BRIT)
<CobaltWolf>
:P
<Agathorn>
or you know you could just call it British Rockets
<CobaltWolf>
that's actually already a mod I think
<CobaltWolf>
and no
<CobaltWolf>
it has to have a stupid name
<riocrokite>
BRIT is okay
<riocrokite>
since abbreviation is easy to memorize
<Agathorn>
of course no one will actually know the name of the mod
PFAVG has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<riocrokite>
british rockets including ....
PFAVG has joined #RO
<riocrokite>
transport :/ meh
<CobaltWolf>
does anyone think of FASA's name?
<Agathorn>
its NASA but from Friz
<CobaltWolf>
I'd wager that most people just say RP-0 in their head and not the full name
<Agathorn>
so yes
<CobaltWolf>
idk, having it be known just by the acronym is fine
<Agathorn>
yeah but you have to bea able to search and find it
<riocrokite>
Agathorn: nah, just personal chat history of CobaltWolf ;)
<Agathorn>
though I always considered the use of the word boii unstead of boy to be yet more internet immaturity.. but what do I know.. I just sit hear yelling at kids to get off my lawn all day
<CobaltWolf>
how old are you again?
<Agathorn>
heh 42? yeah 42
<riocrokite>
42 is new 36
<Agathorn>
that's random
<CobaltWolf>
holy crap I didn't know people lived that long. Do you eat a lot of kale?
<Agathorn>
lol
<riocrokite>
only if you live in UK
TM1978m has joined #RO
<github>
[RealismOverhaul] pap1723 opened pull request #1641: SSTU: Add Cross-feed Enabled as Default on Tanks (master...patch-7) https://git.io/vHfDj
TM1978m has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<riocrokite>
which I totally harvested in my garden when I lived there lol
<stratochief>
british orbital rocketry guild. we are the BORG. resistance would be... ungentlemanly
<stratochief>
really, you're going with boi? fuck, boi
<CobaltWolf>
I think we've settled on : British Rocket Integration Technologies for Important Space Hijinks
<stratochief>
shuffle that around a bit, you'de get BRITSHIT
<stratochief>
Agathorn: old enough to remember chernobyl, the first shuttle failure, and the soviet union?
<stratochief>
I like BORG :P
<CobaltWolf>
Yeah but I've never watched Star Trek
<CobaltWolf>
Kinda the same reason why I didn't want to name it BADWOLF
<CobaltWolf>
which is from some British show I've never seen
<soundnfury>
British Empire Nuclear & Chemical Rocket Engines, Delivered Immediately By Launch Engineers.
<Agathorn>
stratochief: I was watching Challenger live in school like millions of other kids :(
<CobaltWolf>
soundnfury: xD
<soundnfury>
Agathorn: is that what inspired you to make rockets fail?
<Agathorn>
unfortnately unlike many other kids I had seen many shuttle launches before and instantly knew something was wrong even before they made it official
<stratochief>
soundnfury: LOL
<stratochief>
I don't remember how fabergasted/flustered the news was for 9/11, but I imagine it was much the same. doesn't take a rocket scientist to know planes shouldn't be hitting buildings
<stratochief>
right, I made a ton of brown rice. time to eat beans n rice I suppose
TM1978m has joined #RO
<stratochief>
I wonder if Gemini-like ejection chairs w/chutes would have been enough to save the crew of Challenger
<stratochief>
of course, as with SLS you have the risk of solid fuel debris damaging a chute
BasharMilesTeg has quit [Ping timeout: 200 seconds]
<soundnfury>
stratochief: probably not. What did for them was anoxia
<soundnfury>
so unless they manage to pull the ejector handle before passing out, they're done for
<Agathorn>
prety sure they had done a study for ejection seats on the shuttle and they were a no go
<stratochief>
soundnfury: who would make an emergency ejection system manual-only?
<soundnfury>
(and I think they only had a few seconds of consciousness)
<CobaltWolf>
we were talking about it the other night on discord
<CobaltWolf>
they could have done ejection seats
<CobaltWolf>
the first 4 flights had them
<soundnfury>
stratochief: well, idk about manual-only, but wossname in Gemini didn't pull the handle that time
<Agathorn>
CobaltWolf: It wasn't a matter of could they do them it was a matter of would they be of any use
<CobaltWolf>
they even had a system for getting people out of the lower deck - the chairs would basically slide on rails to get out
<soundnfury>
CobaltWolf: they couldn't have done ejection seats for anyone but the two pilots
<stratochief>
soundnfury: yeah, I'm curious if those could be triggered manual and also automatically.
<stratochief>
under certain conditions you'd want them to fire automatically or at least be remotely operable
<soundnfury>
the lower-deck system would have been so heavy (and expensive) it wasn't a realistic option
<CobaltWolf>
I don't remember that much, I was falling asleep at the time. But I believe they said it was primarily cost that kept them from doing it
<CobaltWolf>
soundnfury: yeah
<stratochief>
CobaltWolf: shit, on rails? so, almost like a bomb deployment system? interesting
<CobaltWolf>
I personally love the Block II shuttle concept where the whole cabin is its own little plane that can just fly away if there's a problem
<Agathorn>
at the end of the day you just have to accept that you are cast as the warhead in a rocket film and there are no guaruntees
<stratochief>
IMO, Apollo demonstrated everything the US could do right with a space program, other than longevity, and Shuttle showed everything they could do wrong and threw in longevity to sweeten the deal
<Agathorn>
i think thats harsh
<CobaltWolf>
stratochief: I tend to agree. Hindsight is 20/20 but that doesn't mean we can't pass judgement
<stratochief>
they picked the worst of the shuttle concepts, gave it a giant stretch bay, killed 14 people, built a station to no-where, failed to deliver on a cheap, rapidly re-usable system...
<CobaltWolf>
Shuttle gets you 2 things - Downmass (hardly used to the extend it could have been) and the fact that any station modules you bring up don't have to have their own power, RCS, etc. Even if you have a tug a module would still need to have those things to some extent
<stratochief>
CobaltWolf: yeah, I can't entirely fault them. hindsight is hindsight, and institutional momentum is a real bitch
<stratochief>
CobaltWolf: of course, I'm in favour of large stations launched all in one piece, or done as a wetlab. both of which could also have been brutal failures
<Agathorn>
I think you are also judging STS with the knowledge of what other programs could have been, and are somewhat harsh because some of those others are things you wanted to see
<Agathorn>
I basically grew up along with the shuttles and I loved them
<CobaltWolf>
and you think that doesn't blind you to their failings?
<CobaltWolf>
I grew up with shuttle too
<stratochief>
Agathorn: well, of course. I wouldn't have minded a small shuttle on the Dynasaur scale. I still don't think re-use of a fully orbital crewed vehicle should have been rushed into the way Shuttle was, but there was certainly knowledge to be gained by accomplishing it. I think it could have been done on a smaller scale, without the giant cargo bay
<Agathorn>
yes they had many many issues, and could have been better. And yes tragically two crews were lost - though out of how many missions? Like I said no one ever pretented they were 100% safe and had earlier program lasted the decades STS had, I am willing to bet someone would have gone wrong there as well
<CobaltWolf>
Agathorn: how many other crews have been lost from all other manned flights?
<CobaltWolf>
Two.
<Agathorn>
and all those manned flighrs combined I think total less missions than STS
<CobaltWolf>
only one of which can honestly be put down to the system itself - Soyuz 1 is just a complete shitshow
<stratochief>
I think the Columbia failure was fair, and dumb luck. they'd seen tiles get damaged and the same thing happen repeatedly before. but Challenger was brute "go fever", the boosters were operated out of spec, mission should have been cancelled/delayed, right?
TM1978m has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<Agathorn>
Challenger was politcal bullshit
<Agathorn>
but that IMHO is why you can't really blame it on STS
<Agathorn>
by the book that launch should have been scrubbed
<Agathorn>
weather was a no-go
<stratochief>
SRBs, right next to the crew and payload was part of the original, flawed STS design, unfortunately
<stratochief>
so I agree that most blame for Challenger was operational/politics, but still, the design enabled that failure mode with no back-up/abort
<CobaltWolf>
no matter how you cut it, shuttle is a failure of a program. It never delivered on any of its promises. It never achieved the flight rate it had to, it was incredibly expensive, hella inefficient because you have to carry this giant useless orbiter to space with you. Basically ruined the US for commercial launches until ULA/SpaceX.
<Pap>
The same could be said for Apollo however
<Agathorn>
bad design yes, but at the same time they never once had a problem to my knoweledge, at least not a severe one, minus challenger
<Agathorn>
stratochief: but the design also would have scrubbed that mission is my point
<Pap>
If the fire would not have ahppaned on the pad for Apollo 1, there is a good chance an Apollo crew died in flight due to the mistakes of the CSM
<Pap>
Also, Apollo 13 was a miracle that it was saved
<CobaltWolf>
and no, stratochief Columbia absolutely was a fault of the design. The fragile TPS is exposed for the entire flight.
<Agathorn>
as I recall Apollo 11 almost was a disaster
<CobaltWolf>
the pen thing?
<Agathorn>
lol no
<stratochief>
gerry-rigging a switch? or, computer locking up during descent?
<Pap>
Apollo 11? The LEM alarms?
<Agathorn>
Pap yeah
<Agathorn>
had some decisions been made another way
<stratochief>
because the approach radar had been left on
<Pap>
Agathorn: wasn't that chalked up to Astronaut error?
<CobaltWolf>
stratochief: I think if we had gotten Dynasoar, I don't think it would have accomplished much. It's a very limited design. But we'd have had much more realistic expectations for what a Shuttle could accomplish
<Agathorn>
error saved by an engineer with foresight :)
<stratochief>
CobaltWolf: I'd prefer a cheap 'meh' over an expensive 'meh'. I'd prefer no space-plane at all, but that is part hindsight, part having no love for planes
<CobaltWolf>
Good thing they had the foresight to plan useful abort modes into shuttle - oh wait
<Agathorn>
they did, they just coudnt' cover all possabilities
<stratochief>
I'm reading Zubrin's "Case For Mars", and I'm amazed by all the abort/back-up options it has built in
<CobaltWolf>
Agathorn: like the two that killed the crew?
<Agathorn>
again one
<Pap>
Has an LES only been used once?
<Pap>
A Soyuz, used one, correct?
<CobaltWolf>
yes
<stratochief>
I know soyuz did once, I don't know of an american use. gemini had a close call
<Agathorn>
you seem to think there shoudl be some magical 100% safety margin
<CobaltWolf>
Foam strikes were extremely common, and they had experienced SRB burn through multiple times before Challenger. Correct me if I'm wrong, since I very well might be, but weren't at least some of the previous ones happening even when using the SRBs they way they were meant to?
<stratochief>
Agathorn: desiring a design with > shuttle's level of safety does not equal a demand for 100%. lots of room between 1% failure and zero
<Agathorn>
again 135 missions, 2 failures
<CobaltWolf>
@Agathorn I'm not saying there should be a 100% safety margin, I'm saying that a design that takes abnormal risks, but still is hyper expensive and underperforms on flight rate, is a bad design
<Agathorn>
thats a bit higher than 1%
<stratochief>
CobaltWolf: was it burn through? maybe burn through of 1, but there were 2 gaskets? I do recall reading that some sign of SRB issues before Challenger
<Agathorn>
well the burn through in that case was because the o-rings have frozen and cracked
<stratochief>
Agathorn: alright, so round it to 1.5 or 2%, my point is still the same.
<Agathorn>
not sure if that was the exact same issue seen on other burn throughs
<CobaltWolf>
I believe it was one near full, and maybe three partials?
<soundnfury>
The point about burn-through is that as designed, it wasn't supposed to happen at all.
<soundnfury>
After flight, SRBs were examined and found to have burned ⅓ of the way through
<soundnfury>
NASA described this as "a safety factor of 3"
<soundnfury>
*safety factors do not work that way*.
<stratochief>
I'm happy that the RS-25 was developed. I still don't have faith that they will be able to make new ones that are reasonably cheap enough to throw away on SLS launches
<CobaltWolf>
still tho, my sticking point isn't just the risks of the design (btw, the fact that we were lucky enough to not have more failures really doesn't excuse the lack of functional abort modes for most circumstances) it's just that it was super expensive and pushed a lot of stuff away from US launchers
<CobaltWolf>
stratochief: omg stop. I hate how they are throwing away flight hardware on the first few launches
<CobaltWolf>
SLS and Orion are stupid too
<CobaltWolf>
i hate all of it
<soundnfury>
CobaltWolf: ikr
rsparkyc1 has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
<stratochief>
I like Orion, and I'm glad they kept working on it post-Bush. changing plans repeatedly is a waste of time, energy, money
<stratochief>
lol, rsparkyc got tired of our shuttle bashery
<CobaltWolf>
I really get the impression that... who is it, Lockheed? Never actually intended to bend metal on Orion
<CobaltWolf>
honestly ditto SLS
<CobaltWolf>
they're both so... subpar
<stratochief>
Orion is useful for anything beyond LEO, whether it is advanced lunar or interplanetary bidnis
<CobaltWolf>
Agathorn: With all of that said, I absolutely will give you that we don't know how well other courses of action would work out. We only know what they were *supposed* to achieve. Same as shuttle was *supposed* to have maintenance requirements akin to a jet liner.
<CobaltWolf>
stratochief: They would've done it 4.5m but went with 5m so that Delta IV couldn't launch it, requiring development of a new launcher
<CobaltWolf>
that kinda kills me haha
<stratochief>
CobaltWolf: well, fair enough. sure, it couldn't been done better, but I still like it as is
<stratochief>
*could've been done better
<CobaltWolf>
SLS and Orion just feel like pork projects to me that were never meant to produce results. Which as far as I'm concerned is why we're not on Mars. That and constant political turnover. T.T
<stratochief>
any plan that can't be accomplished in 8 years doesn't have much of a chance in NASA. even Apollo only got to finish under Nixon because it was all developed and ready by the time he got his hands on it
szyzyg has joined #RO
<soundnfury>
stratochief: and a plan which _can_ be accomplished in 8 years will never get accepted by NASA
<stratochief>
anyway, feel free to disagree with me. Agathorn, i respect your love of Shuttle, and it produced a lot of cool records, moments, accomplishments
<CobaltWolf>
I think someone should recognize that the best way to make their mark on NASA would be to let them finish what they started :P
<soundnfury>
because they _hate_ being given specific marching orders to actually _achieve a thing_ by a _set deadline_.
<soundnfury>
(they did NOT like apollo!)
<stratochief>
soundnfury: that, that too. but that is hindsight too.
<CobaltWolf>
soundnfury: I believe it. NASA's administration ain't exactly... functional
<Pap>
A big part of the problem with the Shuttle was the overall "Go Fever" of NASA, from Apollo through Challenger, it was go, go, go, no matter what
<Pap>
After Challenger things became much safer, restrictions increased
<Pap>
After Columbia, even moreso, now to the point that it is probably too restrictive
<Pap>
Spaceflight is fucking dangerous, but we are trying to make it not dangerous
<UmbralRaptor>
NASA pulls off long term projects. They just have robots instead of humans.
<stratochief>
although NASA keeps getting terrible funding. if they were told to carry out Mars Direct and given the budget (lets say, an additional 5-10 billion per year on avg) or allowed to bank funding to build up to big projects, that would help
<Pap>
On a RO point, stratochiefwhat is holding up an official RO/RP-0 release, is it FAR only?
<stratochief>
given the contraints NASA is put under (keep all those facilities open, spread the pork to as many districts and historic military contractors as possible, oh, and don't save up for big projects)
<stratochief>
Pap: as far as I know. last time I checked
* stratochief
goes and checks if an official FAR release slipped out under his nose :P
<stratochief>
in desperation NASA tries to give as many districts/congress-people a taste, as well as military contracts. instead, that just bred a disfunctional system and didn't give the the allies they hoped for
TM1978m has joined #RO
<stratochief>
I'm a Zubrin fanboy, so feel free to mock me
<soundnfury>
stratochief: I won't mock. I'm an Elon fanboy xD
<stratochief>
soundnfury: eh, Elon is a modern Von Braun. poor souls slaving away in his factories, dreams and talks about sending a battlestar galactica ship to Mars
TM1978m has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<szyzyg>
So that spreadsheet that lists the current mods required for RO is great, but can I suggest adding in a 'date' column so I can just keep looking for updates?
<stratochief>
szyzyg: I don't think anybody has updated it in a while. it was meant for internal purposes only, so don't expect it to be spit polished and up to date
<stratochief>
szyzyg: as a viewer of it, can you see the revision history? that is what I use for other projects when I'm curious of what last changed and when
<szyzyg>
I've seen updates to it recently for sure
<szyzyg>
sometimes It's obvious from comments on the updates
<stratochief>
soundnfury: any bets on what will be spacex's payload for the first few red dragons?
<soundnfury>
stratochief: no idea
<soundnfury>
isru-related experiments, whatever science payloads nasa cooks up when they see how low the price-tag is, greenhouse... who knows?
<szyzyg>
Elon Musk started by wanting to put a greenhouse on Mars
<stratochief>
since both SpaceX & NASA want to do deeper drilling, I hope for that one. it is one of the neccessary pre-cursors for the ITS plan to refuel
<szyzyg>
legend has it when he tried to buy Russian missiles they were so dismissive he decided to start a rocket company and do it himself….
<stratochief>
szyzyg: true. but at this stage, how would that bring ITS closer for them?
<stratochief>
the orignal greenhouse idea as admittedly a publicity stunt. SpaceX now has the ability to go far beyond publicity stunts
<szyzyg>
ITS is a transport vehicle, but you need to figure everything else out first.
<stratochief>
szyzyg: like what? in my understanding just the ISRU stuff needs to be figured out before they can land refuel, return (beyond developing and testing launch and landing of both the lower stage and upper stage on earth)
<stratochief>
well, and perhaps methalox contruction equipment, which they can test out on earth
szyzyg1 has joined #RO
szyzyg has quit [Ping timeout: 186 seconds]
<Pap>
stratochief: Many, many of the Soviet engines do not have pricing. I know that trying to get pricing from the other side of the curtain is impossible, how do you want to approach that to give them some realistic values?
<Pap>
Do we base them off the costs of the US engines developed at siimilar times?
<stratochief>
Pap: that is a start, yeah. marking it as "fixme" when you do that is good. similar price for an american engine burning the same fuel per kN thrust
<stratochief>
complications include, differences in ISP, burn time, etc. :(
<lamont>
knock a bit off since the ignition system is just an overgrown match
<stratochief>
a trained monkey with a lighter and can of hairspray
Pap is now known as Pap|Dinner
Starwaster has joined #RO
szyzyg1 has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
<Starwaster>
Wow... I forgot how powerful stock reaction wheels are... I just killed Valentina with over 2300 g's just by spinning the capsule for a few seconds
<xShadowx>
:)
<xShadowx>
this is why women cannot into space~
* xShadowx
ducks from the impending objects thrown at head
<stratochief>
Starwaster: yeah, the stock reaction wheel is patently absurd. coulld the original engines in stock not gimbal, or what, i don't recall why they made such crazy reaction wheels, SAS, etc.
<CobaltWolf>
because stock players are bad at the game?
<Starwaster>
some of them gimbal some dont
<stratochief>
Starwaster: I know that is how it is now, but I don't recall how it was back in 0.22 or before
<CobaltWolf>
and to exacerbate the issues caused by the weak stock joints, the extra torque makes your rockets and stations that much more likely to rip themselves apart!
<CobaltWolf>
I hate all the players that are like 'reaction wheels only unless I'm docking'. Like that's some lame shit
<Starwaster>
tell you something though, even if I don't have any realism mods installed, my tweaks (that always go into each new installation) scale down all RW. But I'm testing some stuff on a pure stock install (stock + things I'm testing) and that's how I killed poor Valentina
<stratochief>
any chance a nozzle extension could give a J-2 or J-2S more than just 1 or 2 points additional ISP? I'm curious what the most they really could have squeezed out of J-2 tech without a substantial re-design
<Starwaster>
cobaltwolf: back around 0.19-0.90, the default breakingforce/breakingtorque settings were SOOOO weak that you could break off the NTR just by crossing into solar space :(
<CobaltWolf>
haha
<Starwaster>
I remember leaving my keyboard once and coming back and setting up a burn... and I couldnt figure out why the NTR wasn't firing.
<Starwaster>
then I noticed it floating about 50 meters away
<Starwaster>
and I'm like... WTF?
<Starwaster>
talk about rude awakenings :(
<stratochief>
kerbal: "wow, what are the chances of finding an engine, just floating around in space near us! why, it even looks just like our enigne!"
jclishwork is now known as jclishman
<Starwaster>
"I wonder if there's a finders fee for it??"
<Starwaster>
can biomes have differing temperatures? Or is it just by latitude?
<SirKeplan>
stratochief: pretty sure the J-2 actually had a pretty short nozzle for a vac engine, i assume there could have been a fair bit of gain possible
<gazpachian>
throw in a little more hydrogen and you have RL10-like performance
<CobaltWolf>
Ctrl+F and go to J-2X
<SirKeplan>
the extension was only to 55:1, modern vac engines like RL10 can get up to 250:1
<gazpachian>
alright, EARLY RL-10. :P
<SirKeplan>
:)
<CobaltWolf>
Also have to remember that the J-2X was constrained a fair bit
<SirKeplan>
yeah
<CobaltWolf>
it was basically just adding skirts to the normal J-2
<CobaltWolf>
if you combined it with HG-3 or something...
<CobaltWolf>
though, I must say
<gazpachian>
btw, in regards to starwaster, someone should add thrust vectoring to the aerospike J2 variant in-game
<CobaltWolf>
*my* favorite J-2 replacement is the J-2T. Because they're significantly shorter, you can cut the length of the interstages on the rocket. That means you can fit more rocket under the ceiling of the VAB ;)
<Agathorn>
well I got rid of most of the seams.. still a couple to squash but for the most part at least it looks like I *can* reduce or eliminate them easily enough with small uv slips
<Agathorn>
so that's a relief
<Agathorn>
sadly even with eight, 8k textures the resolution still doesn't hold up well below about 400 or 500km :(