ferram4 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
ferram4 has joined #RO
aradapilot has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
ferram4 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
ferram4_ has joined #RO
<awang>
Pap: You around?
<awang>
Got another RP-0 tree question
* soundnfury
casts Summon Greater Pap
<awang>
soundnfury: Remember the XLR81 engine issue on the RP-0 repo?
<soundnfury>
oh yeah
<awang>
There's two more engines in two more nodes o_O
<awang>
1962 and 1963 orbital rocketry
<soundnfury>
There are several versions of the Agena and its RCS and SPS units, so that's not a surprise
<soundnfury>
the B just had an RCS unit, the D added the SPS and had two versions IIRC — I think a high-thrust and a low-thrust one?
<awang>
That's true, but unfortunately it doesn't show up that way in R&D
<awang>
They all have the same names/descriptions, and only the one in the 1962 node has different stats
<awang>
The other ones all have the same stats/configs
<soundnfury>
Hmm. Check what FASA has and copy that?
<awang>
And the 1962 one shared some of the configs
<awang>
I wanted to check with Pap first
<awang>
As you pointed out, there are several versions, so I was wondering if it would make more sense to use part upgrades instead
<soundnfury>
fairy nuff
<awang>
Especially for the ones that integrate RCS/SPS
<awang>
btw, what is the SPS supposed to provide over RCS?
<awang>
Honest question
egg is now known as egg|zzz|egg
<awang>
And if we have to use part upgrades, it's going to be a bit complex for what I know about MM configs right now
<soundnfury>
uh, the SPS is for orbital manœuvring when RCS is just too little thrust, I think
<soundnfury>
(also waaay better Isp because it uses the main-engine propellants rather than the cold-N₂ of the RCS)
<soundnfury>
huh, wiki says that burn time of Agena-D was 265 seconds. I'm fairly sure TF config has 240 :/
<Pap>
Yo awang
<Bornholio>
summon greather pap casting time 20 minutes
<soundnfury>
Indeed.
<Pap>
Working on some Java programming, so am "available"
<soundnfury>
Pap: awang's XLR81 issue is RP-0#796
<Qboid>
[#796] title: Bluedog Agena engines show up under avionics despite not providing avionics | `bluedog_AgenaA` and `bluedog_AgenaD` show up under the `basicAvionics` and `improvedAvionics` tech nodes, respectively. Since their in-game title is "XLR81 (Agena) Vacuum Engine", and since neither of them actually have ModuleAvionics, I would have expected them to show up under the orbital rocketry se
<awang>
Pap: Long story short, so far I've found XLR81 engines in 4 different tech nodes
<Pap>
This is correct, the Bluedog stuff is not completely implemented in the tech tree from what I remember
<awang>
Ah
<Pap>
^^^ Not correct that it should be there
<Pap>
Correct that it is an issue
<awang>
Is it a matter of actually changing the MM configs, or has the proper place for those engines not been decided?
<Pap>
Just an MM fix needed
<Pap>
The FASA and other Agena's should be in the correct place
<awang>
Where is the proper place for those engines?
<awang>
Ah
<Pap>
Let me look
<awang>
Even the engines with built-in RCS?
<soundnfury>
btw Pap, awang, would you be interested in attempting a RIS game on RP-1 in the not-too-distant future? Or is RP-1 still too unstable/broken for that?
<awang>
RIS?
<soundnfury>
also ^ to other interested participants, of course
<soundnfury>
awang: Race Into Space, my asynch 'multiplayer' mod
<Bornholio>
training is broken
<Pap>
From what I can tell about RP-1 is that it is working great...until you get into crewed flight, then it is borked
<awang>
I've moved the BDB parts from the avionics nodes into orbital tech nodes, so if you have a RP-0 checkout you won't see the same thing as me
<awang>
....You know, now that I think about it
<soundnfury>
awang: note that those three all have an "Engine Configs: alternate configurations..." section
<Pap>
awang: OK, so it is what I thought. The parts are all different parts representing the different styles of engines. So what that does is to change the name of all of the engines to be XLR81 (Agena) Vacuum Engine
<awang>
I moved the bluedog_AgenaD part into 1962 tech, not the Agena-D config
<Pap>
But if you look at each of the Engine Configs, they only represent the correct ones
<Pap>
So the Agena D will not have the Engine Configs for the A or B available
<Pap>
awang: The part is all you need to move. The configs are all set in different files behind the scenes. They are set on a global basis, not part per part, for this reason in particular
<awang>
The BDB Agena-D has the Agena B config available
<awang>
But I see your point
<awang>
Partially a screwup on my part
<awang>
Sorry
<awang>
And it looks like the BDB Agena-D stats are the same for the BDB Agena-A?
<Pap>
The stats will always look the same, the configs change the stats separate from the part (does that make sense)
<awang>
It does, and that's what I expect
<awang>
Just that the BDB Agena-A/D have all the same configs available, too
<Pap>
awang: That makes sense
<Pap>
They have not been configured correctly yet
<awang>
Ah
<Pap>
In the MM configs we write, we limit which engine configs are available to various parts
<awang>
Ah, I see
<awang>
You delete the configs that shouldn't apply
<Pap>
Exactly
<Pap>
Well, you can delete the configs that shouldn't apply, or you can set only the ones that should apply, works either way
<awang>
Hmmm
<awang>
The SSTU versions seem to have different names
<awang>
I'll see if I can normalize things a bit
<awang>
Thank you for the help!
<Pap>
Ah, forgot to mention that part...You can also set the name (to not default to the config name) when you write the patch as well
<awang>
Yep, the SSTU configs do that
<awang>
"XLR81 Agena A/B Vacuum Engine"
<awang>
Heck of a lot clearer what's going on
<Pap>
Yes, I wrote all the new SSTU configs, so they might be the newest (and most updated) to look at
<Pap>
awang: Are you playing RP-1?
<awang>
Awesome
<awang>
Oh, another question
<awang>
What should I do about the Agenas with flight packs?
<awang>
Yep, I'm on the dev branch
<Pap>
If the flight packs are integrated into the part, then have them unlock in the same place as the ones without
<Pap>
awang: Are you playing with the new science?
<awang>
Alright, will do
<awang>
Oh, another question
<awang>
If a part pack doesn't have different parts for Agena A/B/D (i.e. FASA), should I duplicate the part to create separate A/B and D parts, or just let the one part cover all the Agena configs?
<awang>
Do I need to go somewhere else to get the new science?
<awang>
At least I think I'm playing with the new science
<awang>
Oh, and is it necessary to change ModuleEngines if a part has ModuleEngineConfigs?
<awang>
I see that the SSTU MM configs don't touch ModuleEngines, just setting engineType
<awang>
But the BDB configs change moduleEngines
<awang>
Is that necessary?
<Pap>
If a pack does not have a separate part, just let the one part cover all the configs. The only difference in terms of gameplay is cosmetic
<Pap>
It is no longer necessary to edit the ModuleEngines. It used to be, so you will see older configs like BDB and FASA that edit it, but it is no longer necessary
<Pap>
engineType now overrides all
<awang>
Should I delete those, then?
<Pap>
It will clean up the files, yes, but not necessary to delete
<awang>
I'll do that in a separate PR then
<soundnfury>
Pap: any ideas what to do about manned flight being borked? (Is it just the exorbitant launch costs, or is there other borkage too?)
<soundnfury>
awang: maybe put "Fixes #796" in your commit desc?
<awang>
soundnfury: Sure, will do
<awang>
Looks like Github has an opinion on newline at end of file, too
<soundnfury>
heh. lrn2git :p
<awang>
Pap: Is editing ModuleEngines still necessary for non-"main" engines (like turbopump exhausts)?
TM1978m has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<wb99999999>
is there a sketch of this studied vehicle?
<wb99999999>
this sounds horribly like something I almost built and launched in RO
<Pap>
awang: It is not necessary to edit
<Pap>
soundnfury: I believe that until NK can find time to work on all of it, it should be removed. The training I mean. Also, we need to GREATLY modify the rollout costs for "Crewed" parts or it becomes unplayable
<wb99999999>
wow
<Bornholio>
wb999999 that "vehicle" vehicle is a napkin sketch from one of the planning proposals that year. During that time a much more indepth program was going on called the Space Nuclear Propulsion program was operating and almost got to run new engine tests. The enigne from that design was a 12-15TWR 940ISP 600s 5 Ignition system that was to be dual role (military/Civilian)
<wb99999999>
I have read about Nerva 2 before
<wb99999999>
but a NTR stage coupled with SRM from the Titan series sounds really like something I almost have done XD
<Bornholio>
Nerva II and Nerva 2 are not the same thing either
<wb99999999>
this is why I am interest in it
<wb99999999>
oops
<wb99999999>
yes, they're different
<Bornholio>
Both are very notional, but Nerva 2's ntr is basicly a Peewee from '68
<wb99999999>
I was hoping to find nothing more than a napkin sketch really
<wb99999999>
which I didn't XD
<soundnfury>
Pap: I agree on modifying the rollout costs.
<Bornholio>
SNTP is very detailed, SPACE NUCLEAR THERMAL PROPULSION PROGRAM FINAL REPORT 1995
<awang>
lamont: Is using an absurdly low thrust middle stage a valid way of "tricking" PEG into executing a coast?
BadRocketsCo has joined #RO
BadRocketsCo has quit [Ping timeout: 383 seconds]
Daz has joined #RO
<lamont>
awang: i think so to an extent? it extends the time of the burn which extends the burnout location
<lamont>
however i’m not sure for your low-inclination problem if you don’t just need two burns
ProjectThoth has quit [Quit: +++out of cheese error+++]
Wetmelon has joined #RO
Senshi has joined #RO
lamont has quit [Ping timeout: 186 seconds]
<wb99999999>
have a final exam later today --- try to study --- think I'm worrying way too much about this
wb99999999 has quit [Ping timeout: 180 seconds]
lamont has joined #RO
Senshi has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
Senshi has joined #RO
TM1978m has joined #RO
UmbralRaptor is now known as NomalRaptor
TM1978m has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
schnobs has joined #RO
aradapilot has joined #RO
<awang>
lamont: Extending burn time is all I need, I think
<awang>
Trying to get the first commsat contract out of the way, and it requires a 850km x 4500km orbit
<awang>
Which is way too high for my current short-burning stages to reach without a pause in the middle
<awang>
I've just been trying to avoid the low-inclination problem
aradapil_ has joined #RO
<awang>
Use the launch to plane timer to launch at the right time, but deselect target to get PEG to launch straight east
<awang>
Then burn at AN/DN and hope that the target will be at the right place
<awang>
Which it has been, luckily, in the case of the Moon
<awang>
Have a feeling I won't be so lucky for Mars/Venus
aradapilot has quit [Ping timeout: 186 seconds]
Hypergolic_Skunk has joined #RO
Theysen has joined #RO
Theysen has quit [Quit: Leaving]
Rokker has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
<lamont>
do 185km x 850km insertion at periapsis and then raise to 4500km from 850km?
<awang>
lamont: Well, I was hoping to keep the rocket really simple with 2 stages
<awang>
So was hoping to insert directly into the target orbit
<awang>
Especially since it makes cleaning up after a lot easier
<awang>
And while the super-low-thrust intermediate solids seem to help with accuracy, it isn't as useful as I had hoped
<awang>
I was hoping that MJ would lob the upper high enough that all that had to be done was a more-or-less horizontal burn
<awang>
But the apoapsis doesn't get high enough, so the upper ends up burning at really extreme angles
egg|zzz|egg is now known as egg
egg is now known as egg|nomz|egg
<awang>
Now that I think about it... When fixing RP-0 stuff, should I be fixing the configs directly or making changes to the spreadsheet?
egg|nomz|egg is now known as egg
NomalRaptor is now known as InertialRaptor
schnobs has quit [Ping timeout: 207 seconds]
Rokker has joined #RO
<awang>
How much delta v should I expect geostationary insertion to take when launching from the cape?
<awang>
Never mind, I found a calculator
<awang>
soundnfury: Is hydrazine supposed to make HTP look silly?
<awang>
When used for RCS
<awang>
Like "pfft, density impulse, who cares"
<lamont>
awang: yeah you might be able to figure that out but you’re well outside of the envelope of what PEG can easily do without having a proper trajectory optimizer
<soundnfury>
awang: for rotational RCS, sure. For a probe's main thruster HTP fares better
<soundnfury>
also, hydrazine is toxic, which should raise costs more than it does imho
bs606 has joined #RO
<awang>
lamont: Yeah, I figured...
<awang>
Looks like I just need enough spare dv
<lamont>
relightable upper stages and parking orbits
<awang>
I wish
<awang>
Still on 1956 orbital tech
<awang>
Maybe 1957?
<awang>
Lost track
<awang>
But still no relightable stuff for me
<awang>
soundnfury: density impulse still wins out for that?
<awang>
Just how much isp difference does it take to overcome the density difference?
<awang>
Oh, does toxicity increase costs that much?
<soundnfury>
awang: relevance of density depends on how heavy the tankage is, and I don't actually know where the balance lies, but I _think_ hydrazine still wins it on raw delta-V performance
<awang>
Jeez
<soundnfury>
IRL, toxicity significantly pushes up costs because every time you want to test the thrusters, the fuel system, any of that stuff, you have to do it in a closed environment etc.
<awang>
HTP seems insanely good
<awang>
Makes me wonder why it isn't used more
<awang>
Even with the industry as risk-averse as it is
<soundnfury>
(that's one of the reasons the Shuttle refurb was so expensive - toxic OMS propellants mean you have to evacuate the OPF every time you work on them)
<awang>
Ah
<soundnfury>
awang: read again, I said hydrazine still wins on dV
<awang>
Oh
<awang>
Oops
<awang>
I can read
<soundnfury>
HTP is great if you care more about cost, handling &c.
<soundnfury>
but if you're focussed on performance above all, not so much
bs606 has quit [Quit: Web client closed]
<soundnfury>
(and the US have always been a bit, how can I put this... "Isp über alles")
Hypergolic_Skunk has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
<awang>
lol
<awang>
I mean, it makes sense
<awang>
Single easy to digest number
<awang>
Probably easy to convince management to go for it
<soundnfury>
another factor is Missile Heritage: most of the rocket scientists were used to having GLOM limits or similar mass constraints
<soundnfury>
(not just for ballistic missiles, either; an air-to-air job has to be light enough for the plane to lift)
<soundnfury>
so they tend to optimise rockets for mass rather than cost (though this applies more to launchers than probe thrusters)
<soundnfury>
hence the US's obsession with solid-boosted hydrolox sustainers
<awang>
GLOM?
<awang>
That certainly makes sense though
<awang>
That's a piece of rocket history I didn't know
TM1978m has joined #RO
qwertyy has joined #RO
bs606 has joined #RO
<soundnfury>
awang: GLOM = Gross Lift-Off Mass
<soundnfury>
sometimes called GLOW (~Weight)
<bs606>
Hey guys I saw it asked once or twice on the forums, but I'm having trouble with the procedural SRBs. For example it will show a burn time of 2.5 mins in the VAB and then a burn time of ~11 minutes on the launch pad. The only fix I saw was someone saying don't have it attached to another procedural SRB, which I did. It didn't fix anything, or on a whole new craft. Also did a complete reinstall and the issue is still there.
<bs606>
Sorry if thats answered somewhere but I've been lookin for an hour or so and found nothing