awang has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
awang has joined #RO
Hohman has joined #RO
<wb99999999>
does anyone have a good source of information about the launch market crash in the 90s?
Probus has quit [Quit: Leaving]
Guest6727 has quit [Ping timeout: 183 seconds]
<awang>
Are you supposed to have the 150t launchpad to be able to get to teh moon?
<blowfish>
you should be able to hit the moon on 60
<blowfish>
(hit, maybe not orbit)
<awang>
Hmmm
<awang>
Is that with 1959 orbital rocketry or 1960?
<awang>
Or even 1958?
<blowfish>
1959 I think
<awang>
I'm not exactly efficiency with my rocket designs, so I have quite a bit to learn...
<blowfish>
err, sorry, might be 1956
<awang>
wat
<awang>
How
<blowfish>
NK did id in the current series, I forget which tech he had
<blowfish>
it was definitely some variant of Thor-Able though
<blowfish>
twitch might not keep videos from that long ago though
<awang>
Dang
<blowfish>
yeah, looks like no
<awang>
Now I want to restart my career again
<awang>
Feel like I'm missing some really good rocket designs
egg is now known as egg|zzz|egg
<blowfish>
yeah, I think you could do it with a solid TLI stage on top of thor able
<awang>
Would you need to have unlocked RCS thrusters?
<awang>
I seem to remember having tried that with Baby Sargeants, but accuracy was pretty bad
<blowfish>
even with a maneuver node?
<awang>
I didn't have an upgraded tracking station
<blowfish>
that would be difficult then
<awang>
I did have the Principia flight planner though
<blowfish>
well that might help too
<awang>
Although with that the issue was that usually the required burn time would be well under the Earth's surface
<awang>
So more an issue of bad launch timing, I guess
<blowfish>
I think the thing to do is to is usually to set up a maneuver node with the exact delta-v of your TLI stage(s) and move it forward/backward until it hits the moon
<blowfish>
not sure how that works in Principia though
<awang>
I'm basically doing that
<awang>
The issue is that the burn time is so far forward that it's under the Earth's surface
<blowfish>
under the earth's surface?
<blowfish>
what do you mean?
<awang>
And I don't have enough DV in my loft stage for a higher apoapsis
<awang>
I think
<awang>
The burn point would be after the probe falls back into the atmosphere
<blowfish>
what I was suggesting supposes that you are in a parking orbit
<awang>
Yeah, about that...
<awang>
Probably poor rocket design
<awang>
But I have enough DV to get to the moon
<blowfish>
if you're trying to do direct injection, all I can say is best of luck, you're going to need it
<awang>
But not split correctly for parking, then injection
<awang>
Especially once you factor in the attitude control necessary for a parking orbit
<blowfish>
what's your LV?
<awang>
It was an old save, so don't remember exactly :(
<awang>
But I think it was a LR-89 first stage, then a RD-0105 second
<awang>
Then Baby Sargeants
<awang>
Think there was something else, but don't remember
<awang>
Don't think it matches any real-life rockets
<awang>
But it seemed like the best combination of things that would fit under 60 tons
<blowfish>
that sounds like it would work ok
<blowfish>
you wouldn't be able to chuck much probe at the moon, but a small one would work ok I think
<awang>
Just how much can you put on a TLI trajectory under 60 tons?
<blowfish>
no idea exactly
<awang>
Oh, and is there ever a reason to use the LR-79 when you have the LR-89?
<awang>
The latter seems like it has better thrust, lower mass, and equal isp
<blowfish>
is there that much of a difference?
<awang>
So I can't see much of a reason to use the former
<blowfish>
which configs are we comparing?
<awang>
At least the impression I got was that while the difference wasn't enormous, it wasn't insignificant
<awang>
Uh
<awang>
I assume the starting ones
<awang>
The ones the editor displays by default
<awang>
Not under "alternate configs"
<awang>
KSP is still booting, so I can't check at the moment
<blowfish>
hmm, 89 does appear to have more thrust and TWR
<blowfish>
like, suspiciously better TWR
<blowfish>
I wonder if the numbers it uses actually include the turbopump
ProjectThoth has joined #RO
<ProjectThoth>
How would one calculate the delta-v for landing on the Moon, if they didn't know it offhand?
SRBuchanan has joined #RO
<SRBuchanan>
Does *anyone* know where I can get an RSRM with in-game-configurable thrust curves?
<ProjectThoth>
I should specify, from a given altitude, assuming the deorbit burn's over.
<ProjectThoth>
Hmm, that was weird.
<wb99999999>
hmm, guess I'll ask again
<wb99999999>
does anybody have sources on the 90s launch market crash?
<ProjectThoth>
wb99999999: Entirely anecdotal, but I know a guy.
<wb99999999>
I would like to know about what part of the market crashed
<wb99999999>
since not every class of launch is effected
<UmbralRaptor>
ProjectThoth: I recall seeing analytic solutions for finding landing ΔV costs on any airless body on reddit a few years back. But not sure if it's still up.
<ProjectThoth>
UmbralRaptor: I'm still trying to answer the question I have about terminal velocity and gravity drag.
<UmbralRaptor>
wb99999999: I think part of it was comm sats?
<ProjectThoth>
UmbralRaptor: I'm assuming a rocket falling at terminal velocity doesn't experience it, because there's effectively no acceleration going on.
<ProjectThoth>
wb99999999: It was mostly driven by the dot-com bubble, as I understand it.
<wb99999999>
yes, but what your said is as specific as I can find
<ProjectThoth>
People were expecting satellite internet to take off (heh) and it generated a launcher speculation bubble for the 2-5 ton to orbit market.
<UmbralRaptor>
(and of course globally, the breakup of the Soviet Union and possibly replacing film sats with CCDs)
<ProjectThoth>
Then Iridium sort of went under and the rest dominoed out from there.
<Bornholio>
dotcom bubble burst
<wb99999999>
2 to 5 ton to what orbit exactly?
<ProjectThoth>
wb99999999: LEO.
<UmbralRaptor>
Oh, right. I think US gov demand for big spy sats also decreased? (hence low Titan IV launch rate)
<ProjectThoth>
UmbralRaptor: Yup.
<wb99999999>
this is the confusing part
<Bornholio>
plus space shuttle unitary launch platform push
<wb99999999>
I have heard the target orbit is actually MEO
<UmbralRaptor>
I thought that was over earlier?
SRBuchanan has quit [Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.93 [Firefox 40.1.0/20151110185753]]
<UmbralRaptor>
Like the shuttle as the US launcher was no longer taken seriously after Challenger?
<ProjectThoth>
The Shuttle push happened in the 70s and 80s. Not so much after Challenger. Centaur-G was basically the last gasp of that.
<ProjectThoth>
Not something that came up in conversations with Gary Hudson, sadly.
blowfish has quit [Quit: Leaving]
<wb99999999>
what is the crew composition if they were to launch commercial payload withe the shuttle?
<wb99999999>
is there a need to fully crew the shuttle?
<Bornholio>
bush started trimming regan era space and then bill stomped it for gov funding
<ProjectThoth>
wb99999999: Probably.
<ProjectThoth>
Has anyone done any powered landing experiments in RO in here?
<ProjectThoth>
Wait, nvm, I could do them in stock...
<ProjectThoth>
Will report back, hopefully it's a useful model.
<awang>
Uh
<awang>
How does MJ calculate drag losses?
<awang>
Sometimes I have 0 drag losses
<awang>
But with an Aerobee I'm getting over 600 m/s a second of drag loss
<awang>
13 seconds in, I have over 10000 m/s of drag loss, supposedly
<awang>
By engine cut-out I have ~72000 m/s of drag loss
<UmbralRaptor>
I'm going to assume that KSPI models Gargantua, rather than that you found a bug with MechJeb.
<awang>
And by the time the rocket lands, I have nearly 250000 m/s of drag losses o_O
awang has quit [Read error: -0x1: UNKNOWN ERROR CODE (0001)]
awang has joined #RO
<ProjectThoth>
I just finished 11 test runs before realizing I wasn't actually testing my question. Gah! >__<
<awang>
....I think I just broke KRASH with FMRS
<awang>
ProjectThoth: ?
<ProjectThoth>
awang: Does drag assistance when doing powered landing eliminate gravity drag?
<UmbralRaptor>
No, as you're going to me spending some time below terminal velocity.
<ProjectThoth>
Well, nuts.
<UmbralRaptor>
(If I understand correctly)
<ProjectThoth>
Kinda wonder how you'd go about guessing the delta-v, then.
<ProjectThoth>
Because you figure it's then based off of the burn time (start velocity + (burn time)*g).
<ProjectThoth>
But then the burn time goes up, because you're throwing propellant out the back.
<ProjectThoth>
I'd assume it's a convergence problem, then.
<ProjectThoth>
I dunno. Math people, plz halp?
<ProjectThoth>
Dumb question - how does calculating delta-v from jet engines work.
<ProjectThoth>
?
<ProjectThoth>
I have a powered landing testbed that uses turbojets to cushion the last few meters per second.
<ProjectThoth>
The specific impulse is 4000 seconds, and when I run the delta-v equation, I get a delta-v of 3.688 km/s, which makes absolutely no sense.
blowfish has joined #RO
<ProjectThoth>
Never mind, I figured it out, it's gravity losses.
TM1978m has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<awang>
Is there a way to force the recovery dialog to appear even for things marked "debris"?
<awang>
Like the thing telling you what parts/science/crew were recovered
<awang>
Also, something's wrong with that dialog
<awang>
Says recovery of things right outside the KSC are recovered for ~85%, with a distance of 3000+ km
<awang>
So it's not just StageRecovery that has weird recovery distances
Guest6727 has joined #RO
awang has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
awang_ has joined #RO
awang_ is now known as awang
Wetmelon has joined #RO
Guest6727 has quit [Ping timeout: 383 seconds]
Niemand303 has joined #RO
Asymptote has joined #RO
qwertyy has joined #RO
qwertyy_ has quit [Ping timeout: 200 seconds]
Wetmelon has quit [Ping timeout: 183 seconds]
SirKeplan is now known as SirKeplan|AFK
Wetmelon has joined #RO
Wetmelon has quit [Ping timeout: 183 seconds]
blowfish has quit [Quit: Leaving]
BasharMilesTeg has joined #RO
BasharMilesTeg_ has quit [Ping timeout: 195 seconds]
ProjectThoth has quit [Quit: +++out of cheese error+++]
wb99999999 has quit [Ping timeout: 180 seconds]
Maxsimal has joined #RO
<Maxsimal>
o/
Maxsimal is now known as Maxsimal|Work
Qboid was kicked from #RO by *status [You have been disconnected from the IRC server]
Qboid has joined #RO
Hohman has quit [Ping timeout: 183 seconds]
qwertyy has quit [Ping timeout: 383 seconds]
ferram4 has quit [Ping timeout: 383 seconds]
qwertyy has joined #RO
riocrokite has joined #RO
ferram4 has joined #RO
qwertyy has quit [Read error: -0x1: UNKNOWN ERROR CODE (0001)]
<soundnfury>
ehh, even kh-4a is only about 2m long
<Pap>
The conical section is the Film Return area
<soundnfury>
Pap: yeah, so the camera part itself should be the about-1.5m-long cylindrical part
<Maxsimal>
Well yeah, but it's also the film system too - it should count as part of the camera.
<soundnfury>
Maxsimal: except that when you build one in game, you have to build your own film return capsule which you stick on top
<soundnfury>
maybe keep the conic frustum that's yellow in that diagram
<soundnfury>
but even then the whole thing's only about 2m
<soundnfury>
(not 3½ like we currently have)
<Maxsimal>
Fair enough.
UmbralRaptor is now known as NomalRaptor
<soundnfury>
however, that'd mean making a new 3D model, which means (a) I can't do it, and (b) it presumably won't happen overnight
<Maxsimal>
Can't scale the part transform in a nonuniform fashion? Could just squish the y-axis.
<soundnfury>
Maxsimal: yeah but that wouldn't give you the frustum
<soundnfury>
(I _could_ just squish it for now. But that doesn't seem like a commit-worthy fix.)
<soundnfury>
also if you squish it the camera won't be circular any more
<Maxsimal>
Oh I just meant to shorten the camera, not about adding the frustrum. And why wouldn't it be circular? You'd keep it at 1.5m diameter, just squish the vertical part down to 2m or whatever. Anyway, I like big rockets so I'm not that concerned with the size :)
<Rokker>
ferram4: are you alive
<Rokker>
ferram4: i need your infinite wisdom on all things aerospace-y
<soundnfury>
Maxsimal: there's a camera that comes out the side when you activate it
<soundnfury>
also, other cylindrical parts with horizontal axes
<Maxsimal>
Guess I should look at this thing before I comment :P
<Rokker>
soundnfury: silly idea really
<Rokker>
the later Keyholes got smarter and just stuck an opening and a mirror in the side
a_schack has quit [Ping timeout: 180 seconds]
Hypergolic_Skunk has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
blowfish has joined #RO
<egg|zzz|egg>
Pap: how are things coming along? people seem to want the moon hotfix https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/162200--/&page=32&tab=comments#comment-3170388
SpecimenSpiff has joined #RO
TonyC2 has joined #RO
<SpecimenSpiff>
o/
<soundnfury>
\o
SpecimenSpiff has quit [Quit: Web client closed]
Asymptote has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
qwertyy_ has joined #RO
Senshi has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
qwertyy__ has quit [Ping timeout: 383 seconds]
smartdummies has joined #RO
Maxsimal has quit [Quit: Web client closed]
blowfish has quit [Quit: Leaving]
<Pap>
soundnfury: so you are saying the model should be 1.25 x 2 m?
BasharMilesTeg_ has joined #RO
BasharMilesTeg has quit [Ping timeout: 204 seconds]
<soundnfury>
Pap: I'd say thereabouts, yes.
<soundnfury>
and that's including the conic frustum (probably 1m at the top?)
<soundnfury>
without it it's more like 1.25 × 1.5 m.
<soundnfury>
On an unrelated note: Tooling for an Atlas-sized balloon tank costs about 100,000 funds, whereas unlocking the FASA Atlas E/F tank costs 6,000.
<soundnfury>
Which of these numbers is wrong?
ProjectThoth has joined #RO
<ProjectThoth>
So I *think* I've figured out the powered landing problem.
Wetmelon has quit [Ping timeout: 183 seconds]
regex has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
VanDisaster has quit [Ping timeout: 186 seconds]
Technicalfool_ has joined #RO
<soundnfury>
!tell NathanKell* Tooling for an Atlas-sized balloon tank costs about 100,000 funds, whereas unlocking the FASA Atlas E/F tank costs 6,000. Which of these numbers is wrong?
<Qboid>
soundnfury: I'll redirect this as soon as they are around.
TechnicallySleeping has quit [Ping timeout: 204 seconds]
<ProjectThoth>
The equation I dug up seems to nail the delta-v within about 10 or 15% of what I expected, but you really do need reserve propellant to pull of a landing flown by hand.
<ProjectThoth>
The example vehicle I had, for instance, was able to provide about 18 seconds of hover on top of the actual landing burn. On average, landings needed about one second of hover to not end catistrophically. Also, the equation doesn't take into account non-zero landing speeds (i.e., ones where legs take up some of the shock).
<ProjectThoth>
I'll post the results if anyone wants a look at the data.