<Bornholio> 021in.3
<Bornholio> my cat sent that
<xShadowx> smart cat
<Bornholio> yes he is, mouse count is up to 28 this season, dumb grey birds up to 4 .sigh
<UmbralRaptor> kitty!
Wetmelon has joined #RO
<lamont> awang: nope, that heading is wrong, the implementation you’ve got is at least mildly broken
ferram4 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
ferram4 has joined #RO
ProjectThoth has joined #RO
Wetmelon has quit [Ping timeout: 183 seconds]
Wetmelon has joined #RO
TM1978m has joined #RO
blowfish has joined #RO
ProjectThoth has quit [Ping timeout: 207 seconds]
ProjectThoth has joined #RO
ProjectThoth_ has joined #RO
ProjectThoth has quit [Ping timeout: 183 seconds]
ProjectThoth_ is now known as ProjectThoth
Wetmelon has quit [Ping timeout: 183 seconds]
wb99999999 has joined #RO
<wb99999999> NASA launched another Delta II
<wb99999999> surprised me
<wb99999999> I thought old trusty is going away but apparently no
<blowfish> they stopped producing them but still sold the ones they had lying around
<blowfish> there is one more launch scheduled
<blowfish> (because they have one more rocket)
<wb99999999> and that's the last of it?
<blowfish> yup
<blowfish> that flight will be the final thor-derived LV to ever launch
<wb99999999> at least we have Minotaur to keep the ICBM legacy going XD
blowfish has quit [Quit: Leaving]
<TM1978m> are there any plans for RO/RSS to come back to CKAN?
BadRocketsCo has joined #RO
<BadRocketsCo> Howdy
* TM1978m waves
<BadRocketsCo> goo.gl/qdLqoB
<BadRocketsCo> A pretty cool paper
<BadRocketsCo> Apparently they planned a 1.5STO Saturn derivative
<TM1978m> yeah the AAP had some really cool ideas... and some really kerbal ideas
<TM1978m> lol
<ProjectThoth> BadRocketsCo: yee
<ProjectThoth> Estimates put the development lead time as low as 36 months from go-ahead.
<ProjectThoth> There were also plans to bring back the skirt (4x F1s), which would have probably resulted in a reusability level and payload similar to the Shuttle.
<BadRocketsCo> Higher payload actualy
<BadRocketsCo> 20t higher
<ProjectThoth> It would have been a much better option than going for the Shuttle or continuing the extant Saturn lines.
<ProjectThoth> (IMO)
<BadRocketsCo> Agreed
<BadRocketsCo> Shuttle's payload capacity was 30t, right?
<ProjectThoth> Eventually, an orbiter could have been developed, I think, out of S-IVB/X-15/Dyna-Soar tech.
<ProjectThoth> BadRocketsCo: I think it was about 22 tons in reality, due to CoM and post-Challenger issues.
<BadRocketsCo> Ah, makes sense
<ProjectThoth> I could envision something like Saturn-Shuttle arising out of S-ID go-ahead.
<BadRocketsCo> That would've been so much cooler (and safer and simpler)
<TM1978m> I dont really see that the shuttle program really was that practical. I mean sure it worked but I dont think that was nessarly the best way to go.... with the COm issues and the fact that the wings would generate lifet on once you had a enugh air speand on a lauch.... the They Skylar with the saber engine does sound interesting
<ProjectThoth> Assume a universe in which Nixon kills every Apollo mission after 15 and the remaining Saturn IB stock is used to fill the resultant spaceflight gap.
<ProjectThoth> So you'd have... five Saturn Vs and five Saturn IBs, as well as two Skylabs.
<ProjectThoth> (and spare lunar mission hardware)
<BadRocketsCo> I wonder what the cost of a S-ID would've been
<ProjectThoth> Could probably have used the IB stock through 1978 or later, and launch both Skylabs in that timeframe while S-ID production begins.
<ProjectThoth> I mean, the Shuttle took 12 years from go-ahead to first flight, but they were also starting from scratch.
<ProjectThoth> The biggest mistake the program made was, really, assuming that the flight rate would be high enough for the reusable vehicle dev costs to offset it.
<ProjectThoth> If you could just kick the can another half-decade downrange, the resultant Shuttle would probably be a little more wallet-friendly.
<TM1978m> well that and you did practicaly have to rebuild the shuttle to referbish it
BadRocketsCo has quit [Ping timeout: 383 seconds]
<ProjectThoth> TM1978m: The engines were probably the most minor problem the program faced.
<TM1978m> oh its not the engens that where the problem they are vary imporssave
<ProjectThoth> The Shuttle wasn't inherently bad, it just wasn't particularly extraordinary at any one thing.
<ProjectThoth> Most of that, in turn, was due to being born from compromise.
BadRocketsCo has joined #RO
<BadRocketsCo> Blargh, turned airplane mode on accidentaly
<ProjectThoth> It was, and still is, the most incredible piece of hardware that humanity's ever built.
<BadRocketsCo> I'm guessing we're still talking about Saturn V
<ProjectThoth> Shuttle, actually.
<ProjectThoth> I think the biggest mistake with the program was not operating an unmanned Shuttle-derived HLV in tandem with the orbiter stack.
<TM1978m> I just dont see that it really gave us any advantage..... infact I was thinking about doing a what iff historic nasa campaign and skiping the shuttle program compleatly.... though I dont really fly planes well in ksp
<ProjectThoth> TM1978m: We'll likely never have the downmass and free-flying laboratory capability that the Shuttle provided again.
<TM1978m> trying to recall what would have been the advantage to the unmaned one?
<ProjectThoth> The unmanned one, by virtue of not involving people, would have been cheaper to operate per kg (also because it wouldn't be burdened with the mass of the orbiter). So it would have been useful for high-energy missions, at the very least.
<TM1978m> well the MOL was interesting. And cant we do the same thing with the ISS, and the planed lonur station?
<ProjectThoth> TM1978m: I think the maximum downmass is barely 1/10 what it was with the Shuttle fleet.
<ProjectThoth> Which doesn't sound like much... but, consider that there were quite a few occasions when malfunctioning satellites were brought back to Earth and re-launched.
<ProjectThoth> There's pretty much nothing on the drawing board that even approaches that capability.
<TM1978m> though I have to say space x has kind of truned my idea of reusablaty of kind of a pinaca on its head since hes reusable boosters seem to be working out as quit coust effectave
<ProjectThoth> I think the cost margin is just barely 10 to 20%.
<ProjectThoth> If you ask me, the cost benefits of reuse have yet to materialize, precisely because nobody's approaching it from the right reference frame.
<TM1978m> Which refubising the shuttle parts seemed to cast alsmot as much as building a new LV but the fuel tank was not reused
<ProjectThoth> Paying off your own dev costs by flying rockets is a horrible idea.
<BadRocketsCo> The shuttle was cool but not very practical
<ProjectThoth> Selling rockets, on the other hand...
<BadRocketsCo> And honestly a bit of a death trap
<ProjectThoth> BadRocketsCo: Strapping yourself to a controlled explosion is a bit of a death trap by itself, but I get what you mean and agree.
<BadRocketsCo> Atleast you had the chance to bug out with the Apollo thanks to the LES
<TM1978m> And when you add that it was built by the lowest bidder
<ProjectThoth> There was an illusion of safety around the Shuttle, and that's how it was sold.
<ProjectThoth> It looked like a plane, so surely it must have been a plane!
<ProjectThoth> The Challenger crew wore jumpsuits and glorified motorcycle helmets.
<TM1978m> though there is evedince they hay have sruved the exposion and brake up of the space craft
<ProjectThoth> Space is always going to be dangerous. At some point, the danger will start becoming background noise and people won't really think about it (as has already happened with cars and planes), because the people before them will have been anal-retentive about safety.
<ProjectThoth> But that point is really, really far away, and at the rate things are going, it probably won't happen within this century or more.
<ProjectThoth> I'm somewhat pessimistic about long-term space exploration because of the fact that the market is currently dominated by a very small number of people (little competition), none of which are interested in selling rockets rather than flying them.
<ProjectThoth> And it comes down to simple math. A launch operator might only need three or four units to generate a stable cash flow. You can only offset the dev costs by those three or four units, so each individual vehicle incurs a high production cost on top of the actual cost of building the thing. But if you have ten or twenty operators...
<ProjectThoth> Just irks me, 'tis all.
<BadRocketsCo> Yeah, mars exploration won't be a thing any time soon sadly
<BadRocketsCo> NASA itself stated that it doesn't have enough funds to get there
<ProjectThoth> Mars is overrated. Not until we actually have a space economy.
<ProjectThoth> History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes. The first Age of Exploration was only possible because of the development of large, ocean-going merchant ships whose dev costs had been offset decades earlier.
<ProjectThoth> Shit, Columbus' expedition was conducted on ships that were between 30 and 50 years old.
<TM1978m> well there is mineral wealth out there, We could even do the durty refining of meatles up in orbet. it would make morsince since refined ore is lighter then raw ore
<ProjectThoth> Yes, though I anticipate that, much like the Gold Rush, the actual money-makers will be the rocket builders and the people who sell stuff to the asteroid miners.
<BadRocketsCo> We have had the tech for mars explorarion for 60 years
<ProjectThoth> BadRocketsCo: The tech, but not a particularly good reason to go.
<BadRocketsCo> A good reason for politicians, that is.
<TM1978m> or a good reasion for people with the money to finance it.... remember neal degase taysons 3 reasions why people spend large sums of money to do things
<taniwha> convince Trump to send illegal immigrants to Mars ;)
<ProjectThoth> There's nothing to gain from putting people on Mars, at this point in history.
<BadRocketsCo> I guess so
<taniwha> penal colonies were the main colonization effort in the past
<ProjectThoth> Yes, it'd be fantastic to do it, and it'd be a great step forward for our kind, but at the same time, it's expending billions on something that doesn't have a tangible benefit.
<BadRocketsCo> It's just sad that everything has to have a reason, heh
<ProjectThoth> BadRocketsCo: Only if you don't have enough money.
<ProjectThoth> IMO, the only way that we're getting to Mars before I kick the bucket (and I'm almost 20 and in very good health) is if someone starts to mass-produce and sell rockets.
<BadRocketsCo> The US has more than enough money. It's just a question of how to use it
<ProjectThoth> People are smart, they'll figure out what to do with those rockets.
<ProjectThoth> Build it, and they will come.
<BadRocketsCo> Space X seems to be half way there
<TM1978m> I dont want to die poor has also been a motave. and getting away form people or govts you dont like also
<BadRocketsCo> Eh, that hasn't been too much of a motive
<ProjectThoth> BadRocketsCo: I'm not thrilled with their Mars plans, because they just can't seem to open themselves up to the possibility that there just isn't a market to sell 200-300 ton payload monsters to.
<ProjectThoth> If you had a fully reusable rocket with a payload of maybe 5 tons, you'd control the launch market.
<BadRocketsCo> Even the Falcon 9 isn't used very often
<BadRocketsCo> Perhaps they could produce a slightly ligther Falcon with, say, 4 Merlins on the first stage
<BadRocketsCo> To appeal to lighter satellites
<ProjectThoth> You'd still have to sell 'em en masse.
<ProjectThoth> If SpaceX doesn't want to sell rockets, they're going to indirectly hold everyone back because of the cult of personality around Musk. To a lesser extent, same with Bezos.
<BadRocketsCo> What defines as en masse in the space market though?
<ProjectThoth> Probably at least 20 units.
<ProjectThoth> (fun fact! "Mass production" in terms of automobiles is defined as 100 units across the lifetime of a company. This number was established in 1896).
<BadRocketsCo> Yeah, I like Musk but the cult around him is crazy
<TM1978m> yes but the problem is Musk cant sell rockets. I am sure he would like to but the goverent has control over whom can lanch a rocket. and so does the UN so you cant even louch form a bardge in internatunal waters
<BadRocketsCo> ProjectThoth: heh, old laws that still are in effect can be fun at times
<ProjectThoth> The cult of Musk is incredibly dangerous, because people are way less willing to question the established order due to it.
<ProjectThoth> Musk *is* the establishment.
<ProjectThoth> BadRocketsCo: Oh yes.
<ProjectThoth> TM1978m: There's nothing explicitly stopping a US company from selling to US operators.
<ProjectThoth> Aside from a lot of paperwork, but pushing the right buttons could make that go away.
<BadRocketsCo> But hey, let's start our own rocket building company. NathanKell can be our main engineer :D
<ProjectThoth> "Not Bad Rockets Company, Inc."
<BadRocketsCo> Hahah, yeah
<TM1978m> shut up and take my money ROFL
<BadRocketsCo> Any of y'all rich?
<ProjectThoth> In personality.
<TM1978m> problem is we would still have to eather pay to use NASA lanch centers, or doset space x have on on the coast of TX or is that one owned by nasa to
<TM1978m> ?
<ProjectThoth> TM1978m: There's a couple of FAA licensed spaceports in the US.
<BadRocketsCo> Let's base our launch center here in Estonia :D
<ProjectThoth> Too cold, too much Skype.
<ProjectThoth> :P
<BadRocketsCo> I don't think we have too many laws about space exploration here :D
<BadRocketsCo> Wouldn't cold be kind of useful though?
<BadRocketsCo> Boiloff wise
<TM1978m> the other problem is the UN Space trity that is whats really holding people back on develping a space ecconamy.... what is the insentive of scouting astoryeds ect. if you cant stake a clame over at least the mineral rights
<BadRocketsCo> Actualy, our weather is way too bad
<taniwha> TM1978m: I heard that's a misinterpretation
<taniwha> I don't remember the details though
<BadRocketsCo> Some of us have to get into politics and change the law to be able to claim an asteroid as a mining site
<taniwha> If I understood what I heard correctly, individuals already can
<BadRocketsCo> Oh, I see
<TM1978m> I would need a lawyer of trety law to explane that. though if thats true maybe the best thing the us could do is make a taratoryal clamb on the moon or parts of it, and then send some people up there
<taniwha> TM1978m: that's something that is /not/ allowed
<taniwha> (nations making territorial claims)
<taniwha> (well, at least not without maintaining a presence there?)
<ProjectThoth> Anywhoo, I'm out. Way past bedtime. :P
<ProjectThoth> \o
<taniwha> o/
ProjectThoth has quit [Quit: +++out of cheese error+++]
<TM1978m> I would actually like to see us with draw form the triety. but thats is the problem of A nations natunales make a clame that clame falls under the soverty of that nation. if otherwise unclamed. granted that is vary old international law, but thats how The united kingem ended up with the folcklands. yes I know to make a stong taratoryal clame you need a presince
gazpachian has quit [Ping timeout: 198 seconds]
gazpachian has joined #RO
Rokker has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
<awang> lamont: I was using MJ built from your jaggers3 tag
<awang> plus the changes I PR'd to dev
BadRocketsCo has quit [Quit: Bye]
Rokker has joined #RO
TM1978m has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
BasharMilesTeg has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
BasharMilesTeg has joined #RO
TM1978m has joined #RO
<TM1978m> Ahoy
<awang> \o
<TM1978m> any one doing any thing fun in RO?
<awang> Nothing on my end, unfortunately
<awang> Pretty standard RP-0 progression
<awang> Working on a lunar impactor
<TM1978m> Yeah waiting on them to make it to CKAN. makes it so much easyer for me to track dependicies, and keep ever thing up to date
<awang> Might be a while, unfortunately
<TM1978m> yeah I think I miss the 1.2 drop sadly
<awang> 1.2 drop?
<awang> I sort of gave up on CKAN after trying to install a bajillion mods and getting crashes on launch
<awang> Been keeping track of things manually, and have been doing ok so far
<awang> Even if RO/RP-0 gets a CKAN update soon, don't know if the newest RP-1 stuff would be included
<TM1978m> yeah I havent had that issue... it just seems like theres so many mods that RO and RP-0 needs and some that I like to have
<TM1978m> RP-1?
<awang> Dev version of RP-0
<awang> With a ton of gameplay changes
<awang> And by a ton, I mean a *ton*
<TM1978m> must be a deve verson but I never heared of RP-1
<TM1978m> lilkely more dev then I would loke to mess with
<awang> It's a provisional name, I think?
<awang> So many changes from RP-0 that someone suggested bumping the number
<awang> It's actually fairly stable
<TM1978m> hmmm cool
<awang> The setup process is a bit more involved
<awang> Major new things off the top of my head are avionics, tooling, astronaut training, and science progression
<awang> Ships require avionics for control
<awang> Avionics are generally supplied through control parts, such as probe cores
<awang> Some cores don't have any avionics, such as Sputnik
<awang> Proc parts now have tooling requirements
<awang> Basically they cost a ton for a given shape until you pay an up-front cost, then the cost drops by a large amount
<awang> Intended to simulate the cost required to set up machinery/etc. to create tanks of a specific size
<awang> Astronauts now need training for certain missions
<awang> And the science tech tree has been completely overhauled
<TM1978m> which might mean there is no point in the whatching nathiankal's tutoral seraies :/
<awang> Maybe? I haven't watched them, so I can't vouch for how useful they are
<awang> I'd imagine the overall progression would be the same
<TM1978m> he is doing pretty good though I useally use FASA
<awang> IIRC NathanKell's later Twitch streams feature the dev versions of RP-0
<TM1978m> yeah I seem to be watching the same ones he uploaded to youtube
<awang> idk about those then
<TM1978m> do we have something like the Orion caspule?
<awang> Looks like Chaka Monkey has an Orion pod
<TM1978m> trying to under stand why some one moded in the Orion Nuke pulse rocket into ksp............. Which is even to crasy and idea for the kerbals
<awang> I don't think that you can call something that was actually considered in real life too crazy for Kerbals
<TM1978m> perpeling a rocket by blowing up Nukes behind it?
<awang> Yeah?
aradapilot has joined #RO
<awang> High thrust and high isp
<awang> Great combination
<awang> It got far enough for design studies, including engineering drawings
<TM1978m> Radeation and emp
<awang> Even model tests
<TM1978m> yeah I could see it being useful. but only of you started useing the bomblet out around luner orbet other wise you would do a lot of damge to or orbetal infi structer
<awang> Maybe?
<awang> I'm curious how bad the damage could be
<awang> Most of the EMP is caused by interaction with the upper atmosphere, IIRC
<awang> So the worst of the EMP would affect things on the ground, not in space
<TM1978m> some of our nuke tests fired satalights
<awang> Not entirely sure how bad the radiation would be compared to particularly bad solar storms
<TM1978m> thats more of you lauched form the ground useing the bomblets
<awang> Ah, yeah, I see
<awang> I'm not familiar with the high-altitude nuke tests, so only reading up on them now
<awang> Didn't consider that particles from the nuke would get trapped, much like particles from the solar wind
<TM1978m> taling about the hight altatued tests, and some of the test where they tryed to blow holes in the van allen belts
aradapilot has quit [Ping timeout: 207 seconds]
aradapilot_ has joined #RO
<TM1978m> yeah some dod studys show that one of the most effective and lest political damgeing use of nukes would be upper atmo, to knock out satalites, and diupet power systems and electrical systems over the host contruy on desently sized nuke in the uper atmo over the mid west could black out most of the contnetl use and evad our Anti missle defince systems
<awang> Not really surprising
<TM1978m> yeah and just think of the bamage to or comand and control systems.....
aradapilot has joined #RO
<awang> Pretty much anything electronic
aradapilot_ has quit [Ping timeout: 207 seconds]
Rokker has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
<TM1978m> its why russia kept useing vacume tubes longer then we did
<TM1978m> though of you really want to see some kerbal things look up the Appolo aplacations progam.
Hypergolic_Skunk has joined #RO
Senshi has joined #RO
awang has quit [Quit: leaving]
awang has joined #RO
TM1978m has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
egg has joined #RO
egg|anbo|egg has quit [Ping timeout: 207 seconds]
BasharMilesTeg_ has joined #RO
BasharMilesTeg has quit [Ping timeout: 183 seconds]
aradapilot has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
aradapilot has joined #RO
aradapilot has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
aradapilot has joined #RO
aradapilot_ has joined #RO
aradapilot has quit [Ping timeout: 207 seconds]
aradapilot__ has joined #RO
aradapilot_ has quit [Ping timeout: 183 seconds]
JPLRepo has quit [Quit: So Long and thanks for all the Fish!]
JPLRepo has joined #RO
aradapilot__ has quit [Ping timeout: 207 seconds]
aradapilot has joined #RO
BadRocketsCo has joined #RO
BadRocketsCo has quit [Network ban]
<awang> Anyone here ever see exceptions in KSP classes?
<awang> NRE in Flightglobals.GetFoR
<awang> NRE in InternalSpace.InternalToWorld
<awang> NRE in VesselAutopilotUI.LateUpdate
<awang> NRE in ModuleRCS.FixedUpdate
<awang> NRE in KSP.UI.Screen.Flight.IVAEVACollapseGroups.onVesselChange
<awang> s/Screen/Screens
<awang> NRE in Part.GetModuleStartState
<Qboid> awang meant to say: NRE in KSP.UI.Screens.Flight.IVAEVACollapseGroups.onVesselChange
<awang> NRE in FinePrint.ScenarioContractEvents.VesselWasModifiedEvent
<awang> NRE in FlightGlobals.get_ship_position
<awang> As well as NREs in tons of my mods
<awang> But the NREs in KSP code seem most worrying
BadRocketsCo has joined #RO
<BadRocketsCo> o/
<awang> \o
<awang> lamont: New launch with the RO RN Luna 13
<awang> Trying to launch into the plane of the moon
<awang> Heading -90.6
<lamont> yeah, last night i think i abandoned the jaggers thrust integrals entirely
<awang> MJ also seems to have a ton of trouble with roll control?
<lamont> i think they’re mathematically unstable
<awang> Oh
<wb99999999> wow
<wb99999999> did I just see lamont
<lamont> the heading probably flips around a lot, so the roll control probably flips around a lot
<lamont> yes
<lamont> i’ve been around working hard on PEG stuff for the past few weeks
<wb99999999> are we talking about your auto pilot now?
<awang> Heading seems to be hovering pretty consistently around -90 degrees
<lamont> so are most of the arrows pointing in a more sensible direction but one of them is pointing almost 180 degrees the wrong way and nearly straight up?
<awang> Uh
<awang> I literally just terminated the simulation
<lamont> ah well, it doesn’t really matter
<awang> So give me a bit, and I'll get you an answer
<lamont> i scrapped it all and went back to the actual shuttle code and started over again
<awang> They were kind of all over the place if memory serves
<lamont> yeah i’m not even sure which arrows i was graphing in the version you have, i’ve updated it since then
<awang> Changing pretty frequently
<lamont> oh yeah, not stable
<awang> Oh, I should have mentioned that I'm working from the tip of lcg/PEGAS2
<lamont> oh you’re playing with that hot mess
<lamont> yeah
<awang> Shoudl I not?
<lamont> hahahahaha no
<awang> Alright then
<awang> Back to jaggers3 then
<awang> Unless there's a better tag?
<lamont> those are just checkpoints that i periodically push when it starts looking better
<awang> I see
<lamont> i just pushed the mchenry thrust integrals
<lamont> oh that has broken terminal guidance still though so it goes wonky and spins at the end
<lamont> yeah jaggers3, but you might want to manually drop the vmissain down to 0.2 or 0.1
<lamont> vmissGain
<awang> Ah, that'd explain a lot
<awang> I was wondering why the spinning there
<lamont> (i don’t think that version lets you tweak the gain from UI, but you can manually hardcode it)
<awang> No, it doesn't
<awang> I noticed the new field in the newest commit
<lamont> yeah `vgo = vgo + 0.1 * vmiss` or whatever version of that line you’ve got (might be Dv instead of vgo)
<awang> Hmmm
<awang> It's vgo_new = vgo + 0.5 * vmiss, where vmiss = vd - vp
<awang> You're saying hardcode vmiss as 0.2 or 0.1 instead of vd - vp?
Rokker has joined #RO
<lamont> 0.1 instead of 0.5
<awang> Ah
<lamont> also not vgo_new
<lamont> vgo = vgo + 0.1 * vmiss
<lamont> that was another mistake i was making early on
<awang> There's vgo = vgo_new the line after
<lamont> and patch up vgo_new to be vgo wherever else it occurs
<awang> I missed it since there's some commented code between
<lamont> oh okay, so i commented out the fancy Fv stuff, yeah that’s good
<awang> Yeah, that's what it looks like
<awang> Also, how might I deal with coasts with PEG?
<awang> Just manually stage and hope PEG can compensate?
<awang> Of is it more of a fool's errand?
aradapilot has quit [Ping timeout: 207 seconds]
<awang> Grrr
<awang> I wish all proc avionics could be shut off :(
<awang> MJ things adding a fairing base reduces the dv of an upper stage?
<awang> Is this new?
<awang> Same with a proc decoupler?
wb99999999 has quit [Ping timeout: 180 seconds]
aradapilot has joined #RO
Hypergolic_Skunk has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
<soundnfury> awang: at least for KER, you have to put the fbase in the stage below the engine. Dunno if MJ is the same
<soundnfury> I generally have interstage fairings + base + upper-stage RCS in stage (n) and then the engine in stage (n-1)
<awang> soundnfury: Pretty sure it was
<awang> KSP is starting after a crash, so it'll be a bit until I can make sure
<awang> But yeah, I generally have the same setup
<soundnfury> dunno then
<awang> I think I just screwed something up
<awang> idk what though
<awang> There's that behavior
<awang> And I can't simulate things in my save
<awang> Exceptions galore
<awang> ferram4: Would FAR model the effects of a drag-reducing aerospike correctly?
ProjectThoth has joined #RO
<ferram4> Possibly.
<lamont> awang: i gotta tackle coasts next
<awang> ferram4: ...I guess a better question might be would FAR model the effect of the detached shock caused by a drag-reducing aerospike?
<awang> (assuming Wikipedia is right, and that I'm reading it right)
aradapilot has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<awang> lamont: Is it more a UI issue, or will coasts mess with PEG to the point of unusability?
<ferram4> On the level of actually calculating a finite-strength shock, no. An infintessimal strength, isentropic compression wave, sure.
<ferram4> Which is a long way of saying, not exactly, but close.
aradapilot has joined #RO
xShadowx has quit [Quit: KVIrc 4.9.2 Aria http://www.kvirc.net/]
<lamont> so, depends what you mean by coasts
<lamont> optimizing the coast time during ascent cannot be supported
<lamont> it can support a hard coded coast time
<lamont> it also models on-orbit burns as a burn-coast with a linear terminal velocity constraint (e.g. coasting to the apoapsis where the burnout radius and horizontal velocity are constrained and the vertical velocity is zero)
<awang> I see
<awang> Unless someone answers your Space.SE question? :P