<ProjectThoth>
awang: What causes stages to break up, then?
<awang>
ProjectThoth: idk, combination of aerodynamic forces and heating?
<awang>
Heating weakens structures, aero forces break things from there?
<ProjectThoth>
Hm.
<awang>
I'm not entirely sure though
<ProjectThoth>
I'm assuming that puffing up an inflatable heat shield down by the engines wouldn't be enough to survive reentry?
<awang>
ferram would probably be able to give better answers
<awang>
It might? If the stage doesn't start tumbling, it sounds like it could work
<ProjectThoth>
[Still on the stage recovery problem, for what it's worth]
<ProjectThoth>
Current thought is that you could adapt to downrange splashdown by taking a conventional stage and tacking an inflatable heat shield on it, plus parachutes up top.
<ProjectThoth>
But - gah - I just don't like supersonic retropropulsion.
<ProjectThoth>
And boostback.
<ferram4>
For the most part, if stages don't come down sideways or spinning fast along their main axis they actually make it down in a decent state.
<ProjectThoth>
ferram4: Familiar with the hang-glider recovery plan for the Saturn I?
<ferram4>
Spinning too fast could proably result in the slosh baffles in the tanks breaking off, especially if there's residual propellant.
<ferram4>
No, I'm not.
<ProjectThoth>
Oh, lawdy, that's a good one.
<ferram4>
I know of one that is "fucktons of parachutes to splashdown."
<ferram4>
Now, the thing is that a lot of these forces won't necessarily make the rocket break apart.
<ferram4>
It might just end up permanently deformed and not launch-worthy anymore.
<ProjectThoth>
I've seen that concept bounced around before, haven't been able to find much about it.
<ProjectThoth>
The S-I recovery thing was pretty nuts, too. The frame that would have been used for wing warping would have been stowed *next* to the paraglider wing, and the whole stage would have had to rotate 45 degrees around the long axis during deployment.
<Starwaster>
it just removes heat from attached parts. (either that it is radially attached to or that it is attached to through one of its configured attach nodes)
<awang>
So just MM is necessary?
<Starwaster>
actually try that build that I linked to with your full mod loadout
<awang>
HP on its own crashes actually
<awang>
Why full mod loadout?
<awang>
Wouldn't that make debugging more difficult?
<Starwaster>
I think I know why it is crashing
<Starwaster>
it wasn't built for 1.3.* and it has parts
<awang>
Oh
<Starwaster>
in 1.3.0 that WILL crash KSP no exceptions
<Starwaster>
an unupdated plugin WITHOUT parts doesn't crash KSP
<awang>
Ah
<awang>
The tag is misleading?
<Starwaster>
which tag?
<awang>
1.3.1?
<awang>
Yeah, I guess that would explain the crash
<awang>
My fault for assuming and not reading
<awang>
Also, it'll take like 15 minutes for my fully modded install to get to the point where it normally crashes
<Starwaster>
I think you might be thinking of HP's version number... which by sheerest coincidence is 1.3.1 :(
<awang>
Yep, that thing
<Starwaster>
yeah... total coincidence
<awang>
>_>
<Starwaster>
kI guess I didn't do a 1.3.0 build so HP version 1.3.2 will be for KSP 1.3.0 and HP 1.3.3 will be for KSP 1.3.1
<awang>
Do you still need a KSP 1.3.0 build?
<Starwaster>
I like to be thorough
<awang>
Fair enough
<Starwaster>
someone might want to keep using KSP 1.3.0 and it only costs me a few minutes of my time
<awang>
Alright, just started KSP with the new dll
<awang>
Figured everyone would have updated already
<awang>
Bugfix release not breaking too much and all
<awang>
Although 1.3.1 did break quite a bit, if I remember correctly
<awang>
Not as bad as major releases though
<Starwaster>
I've been slow to update things this time around
<ProjectThoth>
Of course, that still requires the magical existence of large plug nozzles.
<awang>
!acr -add:ROMBUS Reusable Orbital Module-Booster & Utility Shuttle
<Qboid>
awang: I added the explanation for this acronym.
<awang>
Oh, using the engine as a heat shield
<ProjectThoth>
Yeah.
<ProjectThoth>
I mean, it's not much of an issue if you're considering using separate smol engines for the landing burn.
<awang>
True
<awang>
Do large enough engines exist in KSP?
<awang>
Thinking that KSP might calculate whether a part is shielded in interesting ways
<ProjectThoth>
I unno.
<ProjectThoth>
I was, somewhat humorously, thinking of this in the real world.
<awang>
Do you mind expanding on that? I don't get it
<ProjectThoth>
awang: TL;DR: I'm annoyed about how the spaceflight industry has been handling reuse and recovery.
<ProjectThoth>
Surely there has to be a better way.
<ProjectThoth>
So I started from scratch and kind of over-complicated myself into a hole.
<awang>
Annoyed how?
<ProjectThoth>
I dunno, it just doesn't sit right with me.
<ProjectThoth>
The kind of mass margins you need to do supersonic retro (and boostback, by extension) are just absolutely mind-boggling.
<ProjectThoth>
Maybe it's just because F9 (which is the only well-documented representation of that kind of vehicle that I can find) has such a poopy upper stage.
<awang>
supersonic retro?
<awang>
And I thought boostback was necessary for RTLS
<ProjectThoth>
Supersonic retropropulsion, it's when they light the engines during reentry.
<awang>
Doesn't matter what else you do
<awang>
F9 upper is that bad?
<awang>
I didn't know supersonic retropropulsion was that complicated
<ProjectThoth>
Well, it burns through something like 1.5 km/s of delta-v.
<awang>
Although now that I think about it, lighting engines when you have a supersonic flow in your face doesn't seem easy
<awang>
That's true
<ProjectThoth>
And, arguably, you don't really need it if your structural margins are high enough/staging velocity is low enough.
<awang>
....And now that you mention it, holy cow that's a lot of dv
<awang>
IIRC it was necessary to slow the stage down?
<awang>
Otherwise it just burned up
<ProjectThoth>
F9 upper has a specific impulse of 348 s. It's a great kerelox engine, but you can imagine dropping in a LOX/LH2 upper.
<ProjectThoth>
RL-10's capable of 460 s with the fancy extendable nozzle, IIRC.
<ProjectThoth>
So if you go and do the math, for the same mission, you basically cut MTOW in half.
<awang>
MTOW?
<awang>
Too many acronyms :(
<ProjectThoth>
Maximum Take-Off Weight, it's something I ripped off of the airline industry.
<awang>
!acr -add:MTOW Maximum Take-Off Weight
<Qboid>
awang: I added the explanation for this acronym.
<awang>
hydrolox for Falcon 9 would require a heck of a lot of changes, wouldn't it?
<ProjectThoth>
Now, you *could* theoretically stretch the upper stage some and give it a higher delta-v, and overbuild the first stage to make up for it.
<awang>
Diameter change at the very least
<ProjectThoth>
awang: Oh, yeah, at this point it'd be a logistical pain in the butt.
<awang>
I thought F9 couldn't be stretched any more
<awang>
Start getting too much flexing or something
<ProjectThoth>
You'd be cutting the first stage almost in half with a higher-performance upper.
Senshi has joined #RO
<awang>
True
<awang>
But I'd guess you'll still need more volume
<awang>
Hydrogen's density and all
<ProjectThoth>
Yeah, it's super fluffy.
<ProjectThoth>
(note: fluffy as hydrogen may be, do not cuddle)
<awang>
That second stage looks small for hydrolox
<ProjectThoth>
This also comes down to a pet theory of mine about Falcon 9.
<awang>
Although I really have no clue how big hydrolox stages need to be
<ProjectThoth>
awang: It might be the two-Kestrel version, I'm not sure.
<ProjectThoth>
But this is a pet theory of mine, too, which is that Falcon 9 is the result of almost a decade of compromise rooted squarely in Western design philosophy.
<ProjectThoth>
See, post-von Braun, the United States worked *very* hard to improve performance in rockets by cutting down on the dry mass of stages (because we had the technology to do so).
<ProjectThoth>
Rocket engines, at least to my knowledge in the United States, haven't improved much since the 1970s (excluding the SSME, which is an absolute masterpiece of engineering).
<ProjectThoth>
This was also due to the course of missile development, in that we abandoned liquids fairly early on and focused heavily on solids, so the development money just wasn't there.
<ProjectThoth>
Russia, on the other hand, didn't have the same kind of technology we did when it came to propellant tank manufacturing.
<ProjectThoth>
So they poured their research into making high-performance engines and basically *inventing* OSRC - something we never dreamed of.
<ProjectThoth>
In fact, when we got our first look at engines from inside the Iron Curtain, we were shocked at the kind of metallurgy that went into the turbopumps and gas generators - we never widely developed that technology because we never had the need to.
<awang>
OSRC?
<ProjectThoth>
Oxidizer Rich Staged Combustion.
<awang>
Ah, right
<awang>
This is fascinating!
<awang>
I remember hearing about the disbelief when the NK-33 performance numbers were shared
<ProjectThoth>
And, as a result of developing some of the highest-performance engines on the planet (bolstered by the fact that the USSR never adopted solid motors for their missile tech), they were never pressured to cut tank masses down.
<ProjectThoth>
So you go and look at Russian launch vehicles, and they have absurdly low propellant mass fractions. American ones don't.
<ProjectThoth>
Plus, you also have to consider the relative strapped-for-cash-state of Roscosmos throughout most of its existence, which has severely cut down on the number of evolutionary events in the history of Russian rocketry.
<ProjectThoth>
And, thus, we arrive at the fundamental problem with the Falcon 9, and why it has had to push the bleeding edge of hardware throughout most of its existence.
<ProjectThoth>
It's designed to be as propellant mass fraction efficient as possible. SpaceX originally wanted to recover its first stage with parachutes, but because conventional wisdom dictated the stage needed to be as light and fluffy as possible, it broke up before the parachutes could even be tested.
<ProjectThoth>
So how do you solve this problem? Supersonic retropropulsion, to limit the heating and aerodynamic load on the stage on the way down.
<ProjectThoth>
And, at that point, you might as well accept the need for powered landing, since you're already re-lighting the engines once to bring the stage through the atmosphere.
<ProjectThoth>
And - at least, I hypothesize - is why Falcon 9 looks the way that it does.
<ProjectThoth>
The minor footnote here is that this is (IMO) at least one reason why Falcon Heavy has taken so long to develop.
<ProjectThoth>
Because it takes *so much* propellant to kick the stage back towards land/make sure that it survives reentry, the strategy that FH takes only really makes sense if you planned on splashing the boosters in the drink and throwing the core away.
<ProjectThoth>
And because of all the bloat that's gone into making F9's first stage powerful enough to do its mission, it's at the point where F9's performance expendable is mirroring that of what FH was supposed to be 2-3 years ago.
<ProjectThoth>
Lecture over, exam on Wednesday.
<awang>
....Wow
<awang>
That's just... wow
<awang>
How long have you been thinking about this?
<awang>
And it's quite the history lesson, too
<ProjectThoth>
awang: I don't have a social life, so it makes thinking about this easy.
<ProjectThoth>
It's just... man, I'm annoyed with the current way that the industry seems to be heading, and it's especially annoying that few people are really zeroing in with the fact that we have to overbuild rockets to actually make them reusable.
<ProjectThoth>
I mean, shit, Bezos is coming close with the BE-4 being horribly overbuilt - but that's exactly what *should* happen.
<ProjectThoth>
And, well, being an avid student of Gary Hudson...
<awang>
You would have preferred Falcon 9 go for a simpler recovery strategy, and overbuild the first stage a bit to compensate?
<awang>
Doesn't splashing down tend to complicate things though?
<awang>
Seawater corrosion and all
<awang>
Gary Hudson?
<ProjectThoth>
Seawater isn't an issue if you're smart about your engines. Merlin 1-1C was supposed to survive being dunked in the drink. The H-1 (first stage engine on Saturn I/IB) was actually soaked in saltwater, cleaned, and fired, with no adverse effects.
<awang>
Oh
<awang>
That's a surprise
<awang>
Metallurgy magic, I suppose?
<ProjectThoth>
I mean, saltwater sucks, but we've spent 150+ years dealing with it with relative success.
<awang>
I mean, idk if some of the way ships deal with it would work for rocket engines
<awang>
Can't use paint
<awang>
idk about cathodic protection
<ProjectThoth>
No, it's certainly more annoying than engines, but it's by no means a showstopper.
<ProjectThoth>
Gah! It's more annoying *with* engines.
<ProjectThoth>
IIRC, Merlin 1C used an ablative bell for this purpose.
<awang>
Ablative bells aren't really reusable, are they?
<ProjectThoth>
No, but are your brake pads?
<awang>
Unless they're made to be easily replaceable, which I guess works as an acceptable substitute
<awang>
Touche
<ProjectThoth>
I mean, if the powerhead (thrust chamber/gas generator/valves/etc) is reusable, that's probably close to 80% of the cost of the engine right there.
<awang>
Depends on what's going on in the bell, I guess
<awang>
I'd imagine cooling channels could be difficult to fabricate
<ProjectThoth>
And Gary Hudson is the intellectual son of the guy who designed ROMBUS (Phil Bono). He's a big name in the world of SSTOs.
<awang>
Although with the advent of 3D printing maybe that'll change
<ProjectThoth>
I, for one, do quite like SSTOs, but I don't think common wisdom is ready for them.
<awang>
Why not?
<ProjectThoth>
And, frankly, you could probably even get around the mass fraction issue that most SSTOs face.
<awang>
Oh? How so?
<ProjectThoth>
Well... refuel them on-orbit.
<ProjectThoth>
Existing tankage technology and engines are good enough to make expendable SSTOs. The real problem with regards to performance comes in packing propellant onboard for reentry and landing.
<ProjectThoth>
And *everything* suffers mass growth from the design phase to rollout.
<ProjectThoth>
So... design an "expendable" SSTO, augment it so it can fling a larger payload uphill (through drop tanks or SRBs) and then move on from there.
<ProjectThoth>
I see it as "space is the destination" rather than "space as the place to visit." If you're already installing propellant depots for SSTOs, then you might as well put a hotel or something up there, too...
<awang>
That's getting pretty far into the future, isn't it?
<ProjectThoth>
Maybe not so.
<ProjectThoth>
The advantages of SSTOs are that they don't drop bits on the way up, meaning you could operate them from anywhere.
<ProjectThoth>
Which means that they can be widely available.
<ProjectThoth>
And widely operated. Even in the middle of, say, Ohio.
<Senshi>
They'll still be restricted to a number of places, because that's where all the rest of the infrastructure is already
<awang>
Now that's a SSTO advantage I haven't heard of before
<awang>
Still, wouldn't range safety in the case of something going wrong preclude more interesting locations being used?
<awang>
Unless rockets get *really* reliable
<ProjectThoth>
I envision a not-too-distant future with propellant depots locked in a handful of economically important orbits (lunar inclination, interplanetary, polar?, one that passes over Russia).
<ProjectThoth>
But I see something like this arising, and small regional spaceports springing up to support those that are directly under those depot orbits.
<awang>
Makes me curious what the economically important orbits are
<awang>
Sun-synchronous, geostationary are the big ones
<awang>
Geostationary doesn't make sense for depots
<ProjectThoth>
Much like how someone might take a flight from Pittsburgh to JFK and then hop on another flight to get out to London.
<ProjectThoth>
awang: Well, all they have to do is bridge the gap between LEO and BLEO.
<ProjectThoth>
And what you could conceivably do is have SSTOs that hop from the small regional spaceports out to the bigger ones, or launch small payloads independent of these orbital depots.
<awang>
BLEO?
<ProjectThoth>
Beyond Low Earth Orbit.
<ProjectThoth>
Now, of course, this would be something of a logistical nightmare for the FAA - but isn't it something to at least imagine?
<awang>
Ah
<ProjectThoth>
That's why I think the SSTO has a real future.
<awang>
Have to admit that that's a very different line of reasoning than others I've seen concerning SSTOs
<ProjectThoth>
Well, yeah, because the music we have to face is that there's no real advantage to the SSTO in the current market.
<awang>
Right now it's still in cost-per-mass mode, right?
<ProjectThoth>
Basically, which is how it'll have to stay for a while.
<ProjectThoth>
See, there's a really fundamental problem with reuse, which is that you'll basically never produce enough reusable rockets to make it worth it.
<ProjectThoth>
I mean, let's assume that a reusable rocket and an expendable one have similar development costs.
<ProjectThoth>
The typical design lifetime of a rocket is just about 100 launches. (Atlas V, for example, will have 94 by the time it's replaced by Vulcan).
<ProjectThoth>
The thing with expendable rockets is that you can offset the development cost across a hundred launch vehicles.
<ProjectThoth>
And you are basically guaranteed an economy of scale by throwing the thing away every time.
<ProjectThoth>
On the other hand, let's look at something like Falcon 9. The first stage has a reuse lifespan of something like 10 times, so you'll need about 10 Falcon 9s to complete the design lifetime.
<ProjectThoth>
Each vehicle, then, bears 1/10 the development cost. 10x as much as a comparable expendable one!
<ProjectThoth>
The operational costs may be lower, but they're overshadowed by the fact that each rocket that is brought is literally ten times as expensive as a reusable counterpart, development costs being identical.
<ProjectThoth>
So, theoretically, the cheapest launch vehicle on the planet is one that 1) has a low unit cost, 2) is mass produced, and 3) has a long design lifetime.
<ProjectThoth>
And the answer to that question, as far as I've been able to find, is Soyuz.
<awang>
That's an interesting view
<awang>
So why the focus on reusability, if it's economically unfavorable?
<ProjectThoth>
Proton may be cheaper, I'm unsure, but the point still stands - it's likely Russian.
<awang>
Because it's all based on the R-7?
<ProjectThoth>
And thus has been flying for *decades*.
<ProjectThoth>
Proton's a different design heritage than Soyuz, but it's of a roughly similar vintage.
<ProjectThoth>
The focus on reuse, I think, is from missing the point on cost-cutting strategies. Do you have any familiarity with biology?
awang has quit [Killed (NickServ (GHOST command used by awang_))]
awang_ has joined #RO
<ProjectThoth>
(because I'm gonna bring up r/K selection here)
awang_ has quit [Client Quit]
awang has joined #RO
<awang>
Sorry, started a second irssi instance to update an acronym and forgot about ghosting myself
<ProjectThoth>
awang: You didn't miss anything, don't worry.
<awang>
I'm mildly familiar with biology
<ProjectThoth>
Are you familiar with r/K selection?
<awang>
Took AP bio, but that's it
<awang>
Not off the top of my head, no
<ProjectThoth>
Basically - r-selection is where animals produce a lot of offspring and invest very little energy in raising them, and K-selection is where animals produce a small number of offspring and invest a lot of energy in raising them.
<ProjectThoth>
Kind of a similar thing with rockets, I think one could argue.
<ProjectThoth>
r-selection rockets are expendable, designed to be mass produced and as cheap to build as possible.
<ProjectThoth>
K-selection rockets are reusable, designed to be produced in small numbers and optimized for reuse over cost.
<ProjectThoth>
I think the current focus on K-selection rockets comes from the assumption of a very high flight rate caused by dropping prices due to reuse. It's kind of self-referential, but more on that later.
<ProjectThoth>
And the reason why I feel this way comes from a historical perspective. The Shuttle was supposed to fly once a week, for example. The closest it ever got was one launch every 40.5 days, in 1985.
<ProjectThoth>
It was horribly uneconomical specifically because it just didn't fly enough to pay for its own development. And there were only five orbiters ever built, so each one had a unit cost of basically 1/20 the total development cost for the program.
<ProjectThoth>
It just couldn't compare to r-selection rockets, like the Titan family.
<ProjectThoth>
There's a hope that cutting down on the cost of accessing space will bring about a higher flight rate.
<ProjectThoth>
So it's acceptable to pour lots of developmentdollars into a new rocket.
<ProjectThoth>
But as we've seen from history, this just isn't how the market works.
<ProjectThoth>
Now, there's absolutely a way out of this trap, if you have your heart set on reuse, and the solution may surprise you.
<ProjectThoth>
It's to sell the rocket as a product, not as a service.
<ProjectThoth>
A launch operator may only have a need for 10 rockets, but how many launch operators might there be in the whole country?
<ProjectThoth>
If there's 10 operators, now you're starting to talk about a true economy of scale.
<ProjectThoth>
And, in fact, the unit cost is roughly equal to the unit cost of an expendable rocket.
<ProjectThoth>
But!
<ProjectThoth>
The operational costs are lower.
<ProjectThoth>
So if you're an operator, of course you'll invest in a reusable rocket over an expendable one.
<ProjectThoth>
And that's where reuse begins to make sense.
<ProjectThoth>
Lecture over, exam on Thursday.
<awang>
But professor, what about the one on Wednesday? :P
<ProjectThoth>
Don't think you're getting out of that one.
<ProjectThoth>
Now, of course, the logical conclusion from all this is that if you're interested in getting into the launch market, you have to build rockets like sausages.
<ProjectThoth>
It's basically the epitome of the r-strategy rocket.
<awang>
I'm not sure I like the comparison against the V-2s
<awang>
Or the "just scale it up" part
<ProjectThoth>
awang: I mean, casually excluding the atrocities involving the V-2, it's a good example for a mass-produced rocket where most of the costs, etc, have been quantified.
<ProjectThoth>
I'm pretty sure most of the information about our Atlas and Titan production was and still is classified.
<awang>
Yeah
<awang>
idk though
<awang>
Something just doesn't feel right about what the link is arguing
<awang>
Not sure what though
<ProjectThoth>
"Suppose it isn't possible to build a rocket that will orbit half the payload of a Delta, launched 50 times less frequently than the V-2, at a cost ten times greater than that primitive fifty year old missile. In that case nobody responds seriously to the Agency's bid, and the Agency goes and blows the money on something else, vowing to try again in ten years."
<ProjectThoth>
I mean, it literally flies in the face of conventional logic.
<awang>
"Is what a Delta 6925 does, lobbing 3900 kg into LEO, fundamentally three hundred times more expensive than what a V-2 did fifty years ago?"
<awang>
I mean, maybe?
<awang>
Delta-v difference and rocket equation could reasonably combine to make for the cost difference
<ProjectThoth>
Sure, though it has the advantage of being 30 years down the road from the V-2.
<awang>
Also true
<awang>
Although technological progress can only do so much against physics
<ProjectThoth>
Yes, though we do have the advantage of not having to invent the rocket.
<awang>
Also true
<awang>
Though the question becomes whether the parts of rocketry worked on today are the "harder" parts
<awang>
Since you have tighter margins, more complex tech, etc.
<ProjectThoth>
And if we throw away the mass margins and focus on the engines?
<awang>
Although reading through the Wikipedia page it seems that the V-2 engines might be reasonably complex
<awang>
idk
<awang>
Good question about the engines
<awang>
Depends on how close we are to physical limits on engines?
<awang>
Diminishing returns and whatnot
<ProjectThoth>
I'd say we're pretty close to the limits, as a guess.
<ProjectThoth>
But the big takeway is, to me, the idea of operating rockets on timetables.
<awang>
Basically comes down to flying more frequently, right?
<ProjectThoth>
Yup.
<ProjectThoth>
And gaining the advantages of mass production, by default.
<ProjectThoth>
(you can also cut down on the operational costs by flying regularly... there's no "spool up" or "slow down" period that you'd normally associate with a launch)
<awang>
Sort of curious what the expected market is supposed to be for more frequent flights, too
<awang>
Although I guess it's one of those "build it and they will come" kind of things
<ProjectThoth>
Ain't it worth the experiment?
<ProjectThoth>
Either someone does this and proves that the only obstacle to developing space was cost... or they find out that there's no solid economic reason to go.
<awang>
Depends on who you talk to, I guess
<awang>
No one will complain if it's private industry doing that, but I'd expect a big uproar if tax dollars are involved at any point
<awang>
Especially if it doesn't pan out
<ProjectThoth>
Well, that's exactly what I'd intend to do - serve the private sector.
<awang>
Yeah, serving the private sector is a given
<awang>
I was more thinking about dev costs
<awang>
And/or startup costs
<ProjectThoth>
Well, it'd have to involve a ramp-up to full flight rate.
<ProjectThoth>
But I think selling it as a "Volksrocket" would go a long way towards getting people on board with the idea.
ferram4 has quit [Read error: -0x1: UNKNOWN ERROR CODE (0001)]
ferram4 has joined #RO
<awang>
Yeah, sounds like it would help
<awang>
I really should go to bed though
<awang>
Thanks for the lessons!
<awang>
Planning on offering a course next semester? :P
<ProjectThoth>
awang: If I could get paid for this shit... :P
<ProjectThoth>
Well, who knows, maybe I'll inspire some engineer to make a difference.
<awang>
Several, hopefully
<awang>
Anyways, night!
<awang>
I'll probably have some questions after digesting this some more
<ProjectThoth>
I may have answers.
<ProjectThoth>
Night \o
qwertyy__ has joined #RO
qwertyy_ has quit [Ping timeout: 198 seconds]
ProjectThoth has quit [Quit: +++out of cheese error+++]
Probus has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
BadRocketsCo has joined #RO
<BadRocketsCo>
Ugh, I don't get it. For some reason I can't use the large Titan SRB's because they crash the game upon loading the vessel
<BadRocketsCo>
The log gives me some thing about textures
egg has joined #RO
egg|zzz|egg has quit [Ping timeout: 207 seconds]
BadRocketsCo has quit [Quit: Bye]
Senshi has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
BasharMilesTeg_ has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
ferram4_ has joined #RO
ferram4 has quit [Read error: -0x1: UNKNOWN ERROR CODE (0001)]
BasharMilesTeg has joined #RO
Shoe17 has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
stratochief has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
schnobs has joined #RO
Shoe17 has joined #RO
Senshi has joined #RO
UmbralRaptor is now known as SimulatedRaptor
aradapilot has joined #RO
aradapilot has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
aradapilot has joined #RO
awang has quit [Ping timeout: 186 seconds]
awang has joined #RO
Shoe17 has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
Hypergolic_Skunk has joined #RO
awang has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
awang has joined #RO
schnobs has quit [Ping timeout: 186 seconds]
BadRocketsCo has joined #RO
<BadRocketsCo>
Hey guys
<BadRocketsCo>
:(
<BadRocketsCo>
Still ded
ProjectThoth has joined #RO
TM1978m has joined #RO
Senshi has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
TM1978m has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Hypergolic_Skunk has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]