NathanKell changed the topic of #RO to: Welcome to the discussion channel for the Realism Overhaul (meta)mod for KSP! Realism Overhaul Main Thread https://goo.gl/wH7Dzb ! RO Spreadsheet http://goo.gl/Oem3g0 ! Code of Conduct http://goo.gl/wOSv2M ! | [15:01] <soundnfury> Straight Eight Stronk (and) RP-0/1 is basically "Space Agency Spreadsheet Simulator" with a rocket-flying minigame
<Bornholio>
tuning a yeah right correction with the solid, other one is on target though
<Bornholio>
still needs every ounce of hydraize the RCS can muster to do its correction
blowfish has joined #RO
<saabstory88>
It sucks when those transfer windows line up like that
<Bornholio>
my solid used to plane change match to venus some how magically got me an impact trajectory, and a few puffs of rcs made it low PE flyby :), gonna be two for two
saabstory88 has quit [Quit: Leaving]
<soundnfury>
Bornholio: nice job! :)
<soundnfury>
planetary probes are gonna be 'fun' for me this playthrough, I'm launching from Alaska into polar parking orbits.
<soundnfury>
Managed OK so far with lunar missions, though
<Bornholio>
I like polar for most things sometimes it messes with timings tho
<Bornholio>
and man do i like the RO US probes pack
Hypergolic_Skunk has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
stratochief has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<blowfish>
are there install instructions for RSS on 1.3 somewhere?
<Bornholio>
kopernicus master, maybe better to use release -3 tho, RSS master or current release, Scaled RSS Textures of choice
saabstory88 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
NathanKell|AFK is now known as NathanKell
<NathanKell>
o/
<Qboid>
NathanKell: leudaimon left a message for you in #RO [18.02.2018 16:06:12]: "I do the same with the fairings, and I think it's really nice to have them to be tooled. I just thought keeping auto-shape off by default will help people realize they can have a single fairing"
<Qboid>
NathanKell: leudaimon left a message for you in #RO [18.02.2018 16:08:19]: "also, totally agree about the X-1 :) It's not as silly as it looks, thinking of how sturdy is the actual X-1... and for the max utilization, I see someone already PRed it ;)"
<soundnfury>
\o
<Bornholio>
ocean bouancy problems and RO US Rockets needs some TF Love, otherwise g-night
<NathanKell>
ocean buoyancy problems with new kopernicus/scatterer you mean?
NathanKell is now known as NathanKell|Twitch
ProjectThoth has quit [Ping timeout: 383 seconds]
qwertyy__ has joined #RO
qwertyy_ has quit [Ping timeout: 207 seconds]
ProjectThoth has joined #RO
BadRocketsCO has joined #RO
<BadRocketsCO>
Howdy
<ProjectThoth>
Howdy!
<BadRocketsCO>
ProjectThoth: you any good at building planes?
<ProjectThoth>
BadRocketsCo: Depends on what you mean by "planes."
<BadRocketsCO>
Heh
<soundnfury>
BadRocketsCo: use tailwheels and don't let the CG get too far aft
<soundnfury>
and the tailfin needs to be bigger than you think, even if you take into account Hofstadter's Law.
<taniwha>
I don't use tailwheels
<soundnfury>
taniwha: then you are living in sin :P
<taniwha>
no, I know how to fly my planes :)
<BadRocketsCO>
Got ya. My plane has a difficult time staying straight on the runway
<BadRocketsCO>
And wobbles when turning
<taniwha>
differential braking makes a huge difference forthat
<BadRocketsCO>
Just a simple single jet "fighter" jet
<BadRocketsCO>
Err
<BadRocketsCO>
s/single jet/single seat
<taniwha>
unfortunately, until someone helps me get AdvancedInput working on windows (and mac), it's not generally available
<Qboid>
BadRocketsCo meant to say: Just a simple single seat "fighter" jet
<BadRocketsCO>
I don't think I've ever had a proper working plane in the game...
<leudaimon>
zilti entering the conversation without knowing exactly what is going on... if you middle-click on the engine the TF info should show up. Besides, I don't know if the later versions are fixed, but KER didn't play well with RF and RO - delta-v was wrong most of the time
<awang>
Bornholio: What do you mean by RO US rockets need TF love?
<awang>
taniwha: Do you plan on making that window a separate mod, or will it stay a part of EL?
<Bornholio>
no burn times and so such
<zilti>
leudaimon: Hmm. Thanks. Middle-clicking the engine only gives me cost, mass, thrust, lsp, propellants and thrust vectoring... I noticed that in-flight, KER shows bogus, but at least the amount shown in VAB seems to be somewhat correct
<awang>
Bornholio: Ah, ok. You mean the built-in srm on the Pioneer, right?
<awang>
I ended up using the one without the built-in thing. Don't remember exactly why, though
<Bornholio>
well that too thats RO US probes
egg|work|egg_ has joined #RO
<awang>
Want to say it's because the aerobee upgrade (XLR?) seemed to perform better
<leudaimon>
zilti that's weird, middle click should show you rated burn time, amount of data collected and other TF related info
<awang>
Don't remember exactly though
<awang>
Bornholio: Oh, right, US rockets, not probes. What engines don't have TF info?
<zilti>
leudaimon: hmm, dang... Probably a conflicting mod then, I guess...
egg|work|egg has quit [Ping timeout: 180 seconds]
egg|work|egg_ is now known as egg|work|egg
<awang>
zilti: If TF is configured properly you should see a black box pop up when hovering over an engine. That box should prompt for a middle-click for more info
<awang>
s/configured/installed
<Qboid>
awang meant to say: zilti: If TF is installed properly you should see a black box pop up when hovering over an engine. That box should prompt for a middle-click for more info
<leudaimon>
btw, that's a freaking big rocket if it's a simple first orbiter
<awang>
And yeah, I've heard KER has issues with RO
<awang>
Use MJ for dv stats
<awang>
Or Konrad if you're soundnfury
<zilti>
awang: yes, I get that pop-up prompting for a middle click, and the stuff I enumerated above is what it shows when middle-clicking
<awang>
Huh
<leudaimon>
talking about MJ, I noticed yesterday that the gravity/steering/drag losses are all bugged... anyone else noticed it?
<zilti>
leudaimon: it is, but I couldn't get it smaller yet :\ I think I need more efficient engines first?
<awang>
leudaimon: Bugged how?
<awang>
lamont made some changes which should have made it more accurate, technically
<leudaimon>
even a good gravity turn that should have negligible steering losses were giving more than 700m/s, and too low gravity losses
<awang>
leudaimon: That's probably because steering/gravity losses are now calculated against orbital velocity, not surface velocity
<awang>
So you get stupidly high steering losses at first since you're launching perpendicular to orbital velocity
<leudaimon>
hm, so I should reinterpret everything...
<Bornholio>
awang i didn't make a comprehensive list but the stuff i looked at din't have burn times or TF ratings
<awang>
Bornholio: Interesting... Wonder if they use RO's engineType stuff
<awang>
If they do, then that should automatically take care of TF stuff
<Bornholio>
I know the russian stuff gets more love, so maybe not
<awang>
Makes more sense once you're in orbit though
<leudaimon>
I see
<awang>
Bornholio: RaiderNick does have a PR to use the generic engine configs open
<awang>
So I guess it's just a matter of getting that merged
<Bornholio>
ah didn't notice
<awang>
leudaimon: < lamont> steering and gravity losses don't depend on the rotation of the planet below - think about an orbit over a spinning airless planet - so surfaceVelocity has to be incorrect
<leudaimon>
yeah yeah, I got the reason why... it's just a very different interpretation during ascent and ascent optimization
<leudaimon>
a perfect gravity turn does not cause 0 steering losses anymore
<awang>
leudaimon: Yep.
<awang>
Hmmm
<awang>
Wonder if it'd be worth making an ascent-specific mode
<awang>
Problem being that there's no good way to specify when to switch from using surface velocity to orbital velocity
<leudaimon>
yeah... oh well, if the orbital velocity-based info is also useful it's just a matter of getting used to it
<awang>
leudaimon: idk, ask lamont about it
<awang>
He's better with the ascent stuff than I am
<leudaimon>
!tell lamont is there some interpretation for the orbital velocity-based steering and gravity losses during ascent? I had a hard time understanding how they should be used in this context, given steering losses build up from planet rotation (even more so close to equator?)
<Qboid>
leudaimon: I'll redirect this as soon as they are around.
<awang>
zilti: What engine are you trying to find TF info on?
<taniwha>
awang: undecided
<taniwha>
one idea is to do both and make one detect the other and auto-shutdown
<zilti>
awang: Vanguard X-405
<awang>
taniwha: If what I've hard about MM is to be believed that way lies pain and agony :P
<taniwha>
don't worry, I know how to deal with such
<awang>
zilti: Huh. That engine *should* have burn times. What part pack?
<taniwha>
(such as completely different names)
<awang>
taniwha: Ah, right, that'd definitely help
<zilti>
awang: I'm not sure. One of the ones listed as RO-compatible
<leudaimon>
yeah, X405 has global configs with TF data, no reason to not have TF data
<awang>
zilti: Interesting. I'm pretty sure I have 2 X-405s, and they both had TF burn times of ~2.5 min
<awang>
zilti: Do you have RaiderNick's US Rockets installed?
<awang>
Only X405s in RO are SXT, BDB, and RN, and the first two use the global configs
<zilti>
awang: I have that installed, yes. I'll look after the launch I'm doing atm which "company" it is from in the VAB
TonyC has joined #RO
<zilti>
awang: part name is rn.x405
<awang>
zilti: Yep, looks like the RaiderNick part
<awang>
In which case there's a PR to use the global configs, which will also add TF burn times
<zilti>
awang: The other I have is named SXTX405, and that one doesn't even have an Engine GUI window (the button is there, but it does nothing)
<awang>
zilti: ...Weird
<Bornholio>
sounds like double configs houston
<awang>
Can you look in your log and see if an exception is being thrown?
<zilti>
awang: Ok. I guess it's some kind of mod interference - I have 125 mods...
TonyC has quit [Client Quit]
<awang>
zilti: Maybe? I have a similar number of mods, and haven't had noticeable interference issues
<zilti>
Ah I was clicking the Engine GUI button for the vernier part of the engine, that's why it didn't work ^^
<awang>
Ah
<awang>
That'd do it
<zilti>
But I have that problem again where the game is slowed down to about 20% of actual speed at launch. Last time I had that it was due to some sound mod, gotta poke at the mods again to find out what causes it this time...
<Pap>
I need some logic help please
<Pap>
I am fixing the contract payloads since the required size of the payload would be too much
<Pap>
We want the mass to be the same as it is now, but only require half the amount of payload
<Pap>
That means that I need to double the density of the Resources, correct?
<Bornholio>
yes but
<Bornholio>
we also have extra mass from being force to use service module
<Bornholio>
forced
<Pap>
Hmmmmmm, but we had that before, didn't we?
<Bornholio>
it could go in lower mass fraction tanks
<Pap>
Ah, well this complicates things
<Bornholio>
don't worry for now, just do your thing, will amek it better :P
<Pap>
Instead of 200% of the density, what should it be? 175%, 150%?
<leudaimon>
if you want a given amount to put the same amount in half the volume, with a 50%utilization tank, you should make it 400%, no?
<leudaimon>
(double two times)
<Maxsimal>
Not 400% - the 200% is to account for the 50% utilization tank, plain and simple
<leudaimon>
I got he wanted to account for both the 50% utilization and also make it heavier per volume
<Maxsimal>
Well, he's making it heavier per volume so that the same mass of payload fits in a 50% utilization tank rather than a 100% utilization tank
<leudaimon>
ah, alright then
<Maxsimal>
Also Pap, my sounding rocket contracts have math in them to automatically compensate for density changes of the payload, but I don't think the commsat contracts do
<Maxsimal>
So if you change the commsat payload density, you may have to go into those contracts to lower the liters of payload requirement
<awang>
zilti: What sound mod was it last time?
<Pap>
Maxsimal: Makes sense
<zilti>
awang: Audio Muffler Redux.
<zilti>
But I suspect it's something graphical this time. As soon as the boosters are shut down and separated, it goes back to 100% sim speed
<Maxsimal>
Pap: Yeah just checked, you'll have to edit the commsat contracts
<Pap>
I did all of the edits to the ComSat and Weather contracts already
<Pap>
Are you saying that I don't need to do anything for the sounding rockets Maxsimal ?
<Maxsimal>
Pap: Yes.
<awang>
zilti: Got that installed too. Didn't know it causes performance issues
<awang>
My game runs super-slow anyways, so I've sort of given up on performance for now
<awang>
Until I can get a profiler running
<Maxsimal>
Pap: If you look in say, SoundingDifficult.cfg, line 101 to 105 is the bit that adjusts for the density
<awang>
zilti: Maybe TestFlight?
<awang>
I know it's been causing performance issues for other people
<awang>
And NathanKell says that slowdowns can be felt with as few as 2-3 engines
<awang>
Not sure what else
<awang>
Do you get slowdowns if you use one of the booster engines on its own?
<leudaimon>
I felt some slowdown with TF, especially noticeable because KRASH deactivates TF and the game runs much more smoothly
<zilti>
awang: No, only with bigger ones, like this 8-engine rocket
APlayer has joined #RO
<awang>
zilti: How beefy is your computer? Maybe it can power through fewer engines?
<awang>
Not sure
<zilti>
awang: Well, it's a Ryzen R7 1800X, and graphics is a Radeon RX580, so that sure isn't the problem ^^
<leudaimon>
isn't the main issue with KSP memory?
<Bornholio>
Its CPU bound for mods like TF and remotetech
<leudaimon>
ah, ok
<zilti>
Also, it seems the complete KSP, including all mods, all run in one single thread
<leudaimon>
well, given I do most of my work in R, it doesn't surprise me, as silly as it is
<Pap>
Maxsimal: Do I need to increase the density of the Sounding Rocket Payloads as well, or are they good to go?
<Maxsimal>
Pap: Gotta find out if they require the SM tanks - but if so, yes.
<awang>
zilti: Yeah, unfortunately KSP isn't one of those things that is easy to parallelize :(
<awang>
Although I guess certain mods could be, in theory
<leudaimon>
sounding rocket payload works in regular pressurized tanks
<awang>
The real expensive stuff isn't easy to parallelize, from what I understand
<awang>
i.e. physics calculations
<awang>
Or interaction calculations
<Maxsimal>
Pap & leudaimon: Then no, you shouldn't have to, they were tuned based off of needed regular HP tanks with 100% utilization.
<Pap>
ok, perfect
<leudaimon>
well, you don't get to 100% utilization, but that's minor right?
<Pap>
yes leudaimon I don't think we did before eighter
<Pap>
*either
<awang>
zilti: Also, I'm jealous of your setup >:(
* zilti
grins
<awang>
leudaimon: Earlier I think you could use 100% utilization, but the slider defaulted to 86% or something like that
<leudaimon>
exactly awang
<Pap>
OK, contract payloads are updated
Hypergolic_Skunk has joined #RO
schnobs has joined #RO
Senshi has joined #RO
aradapil_ has joined #RO
aradapilot has quit [Ping timeout: 186 seconds]
leudaimon has quit [Ping timeout: 186 seconds]
leudaimon has joined #RO
<lamont>
leudiamon: i’m pretty sure the current equations are correct
<Qboid>
lamont: leudaimon left a message for you in #RO [19.02.2018 13:48:49]: "is there some interpretation for the orbital velocity-based steering and gravity losses during ascent? I had a hard time understanding how they should be used in this context, given steering losses build up from planet rotation (even more so close to equator?)"
<lamont>
if you’ve got 400 m/s of horizontal velocity and you take off vertically that gives you steering losses as you drag that velocity vector around
<leudaimon>
yeah lamont I have no doubt it's correct... I just wonder how to interpret steering losses in this situation... when measuring losses relative to surface valocity its easier to interpret and try to optimize ascent
<lamont>
the corrollary is that when launching east you take about 400 m/s of steering losses, then you largely get that back — the net result is closer to a non-spinning world. also i believe you can get a higher altitude on a sounding rocket pointing slightly east rather than going straight up vertical (on a rotating earth) due to that.
<leudaimon>
yeah, that was my thought... total loss would be smaller launching east
<leudaimon>
just to see if I understand... if launching from the pole a vertical launch would have no steering loss, right?
<lamont>
yeah the pole launch south should have no steering losses at the start
<lamont>
but also no benefit of coriolis in getting to orbit
<lamont>
i think net effect cancels out — ish
<leudaimon>
yeah yeah... that was just a way of figuring what this loss means
<leudaimon>
and what about gravity loss, is it affected by changing the reference to orbital velocity?
<lamont>
if you’ve got a rocket which is snappy the steering losses should be pretty much a fixed tax
<lamont>
gravity loss i think was calculated correctly, so now it should actually add up
<leudaimon>
ah ok, good to know
<leudaimon>
add up you mean delta-v expended = orbital velocity + losses, right?
<lamont>
yes
<leudaimon>
nice
<lamont>
steering + gravity + drag = dV expended
<lamont>
(you can check it, if it doesn’t maybe there’s a bug, but it was working when i looked at it when i wrote it…)
<leudaimon>
cool, I might give it a look in my next ascent
<leudaimon>
it just felt wrong, but I didn't know the calculation had changed
<lamont>
i think we only tested with awang’s FAR integration…
<lamont>
i’d love someone to do the test for east/north/west rotating earth launches vs. non-rotating earth vs. rotating earth polar launch south with the same launch vehicle and settings
<leudaimon>
non-rotating earth?!
<Maxsimal>
The way you guys are talking about it sounds like somehow launching east at the equator only cancels out some losses - it should be giving you the full benefit of earth's rotation to your DV needs.
awang has quit [Ping timeout: 186 seconds]
<lamont>
maxsimal: yes, i’m saying that if you do the test that should be incorrect
awang has joined #RO
<soundnfury>
awang: actually I only use Konrad for in-flight & complicated things. In the VAB I use KER for dV and burn times, and it works *fine*
<soundnfury>
KER's only problem is in flight, if a stage is currently lit then KER reads it as zero dV
APlayer has quit [Ping timeout: 182 seconds]
<soundnfury>
which I don't think really justifies the "KER is broken in RO" received wisdom
<lamont>
one way to look a this is equatorial-east launches have say 9200 dV to orbit. equatorial-north orbits have say 9600 dV to orbit because of the yaw steering. now polar-south orbits do not have the yaw steering of equatorial-north launchs, so should be less since you can launch south and not have to yaw steer — so should be closer to 9200 dV. but polar-south launches should be closer to non-rotating earth launches.
<lamont>
QED?
<lamont>
at some point if someone doesn’t beat me to it, i need to actually test that
<soundnfury>
lamont: nah, eq-N and po-S should be almost the same
<soundnfury>
because Pythagoras
<lamont>
try it
<lamont>
i’d love to get numbers to know if i’m mostly right or mostly wrong
<soundnfury>
(and po-S should be the same as any/all non-rotating Earth)
awang has quit [Ping timeout: 207 seconds]
<lamont>
that i agree with completely
<soundnfury>
but with eq-E the early steering losses have to be not only paid back but "with interest", because eq-E < non-rotating
<soundnfury>
although I suppose that _could_ come from integrating a reduction in gravy losses from the extra centrifugal ???
awang has joined #RO
<leudaimon>
my impression when I was looking at it was that gravity losses were smaller than I was used to
<awang>
Does RF boil off cryogenics if an engine is running?
<lamont>
yeah actually gravity losses were tweaked along with steering losses:
<leudaimon>
what is earths's rotation speed around Eq.?
<lamont>
460 m/s
awang has quit [Ping timeout: 182 seconds]
awang has joined #RO
<leudaimon>
ok, in a random moment is a suborbital hop I have 488m/s of "additional" orbital velocity than the sum of delta-v expended - losses
APlayer has joined #RO
BasharMilesTeg_ has joined #RO
<leudaimon>
and it's strangely increasing as I fall down
BasharMilesTeg has quit [Ping timeout: 182 seconds]
<lamont>
which number is increasing?
<leudaimon>
the remaining velocity that should be due to earth's rotation
<leudaimon>
it's as if the gravity losses are reducing faster
schnobs has quit [Ping timeout: 383 seconds]
<leudaimon>
steering loss kept constant after the engines shut off
<lamont>
which KSP version + MJ version?
<leudaimon>
KSP 1.3.1, MJ I have to check, just a moment
<leudaimon>
MechJeb2-2.7.0.0
awang has quit [Ping timeout: 207 seconds]
awang has joined #RO
APlayer has quit [Ping timeout: 182 seconds]
<leudaimon>
oh, just realised for this math to work I have to launch easternwards... doesn't explain the rotation component increasing as I fall though
awang has quit [Ping timeout: 182 seconds]
<lamont>
yeah, my math isn’t up to it this morning, i don’t have a good thought
<lamont>
circular parking orbits are a lot simpler to start with
<lamont>
drog loss computation might be off? that’s the strange black box where MJ just trusts whatever stock/FAR drog model tells it
awang has joined #RO
APlayer has joined #RO
blowfish has joined #RO
Rokker has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
<leudaimon>
for me it's still strange that shooting upwards my steer losses can go to more than 1100m/s
Rokker has joined #RO
<lamont>
well you drag your velocity vector around from 400m/s horizontal to mostly veritcal and then back to horizontal
<leudaimon>
no, I fired upwards constantly
<leudaimon>
I don't see how it could be more than 400m/s in this case
APlayer has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
blowfish has quit [Quit: Leaving]
Senshi has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<zilti>
...shouldn't AJE and "Solver Engines" be incompatible with each other?
<zilti>
The SolverEngines pages says: "A subclass of ModuleEnginesFX which supports AJE-style solvers."
<Mike`>
zilti, solver engines is a dependency for AJE so... i guess no incompatibility there :)
<Mike`>
also, did you manage to figure out why you don't see burntimes?
<Mike`>
tell me when you figure out any huge performance dropping mods, btw - i'm also annoyed that my game only runs at about 66% realtime speed at the pad/early ascent
<zilti>
Mike`: yes - I used an engine variant from Raidernick which didn't have the necessary stuff for it to show up. Yea I'm currently searching. The "Muffled Audio Redux" is the only one I've found so far
<Mike`>
ah right, other engines show burntime for you then? great.
<Mike`>
if something like that happens, always check other engines because there are some bugged ones i guess. :)
<awang>
zilti: Man, you guys and having game speeds on the order of real time
<awang>
Mike`: ^
leudaimon has quit [Quit: Leaving]
<Mike`>
i like real time games :s
<zilti>
Yeah well, I wish launch were in real-time...
<zilti>
Dang, re-entry can be nerve-wrecking
Hypergolic_Skunk has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
<Mike`>
does anybody know if the dual lr87-lh2 should be an "identical part" with single lr87-lh2s?
<Mike`>
as they seem to use the same configs i guess yes.
blowfish has joined #RO
<Mike`>
lamont to the rescue :D i dialed in a 420km peri, 700km apoapsis orbit, 97deg inclination. it got the inclination okay, 97.4 degrees, but the orbit turned out to be 250x260km. And i had 785m/s of dv/propellant left. TWR was pretty high towards the end of the upper stages (3 stage rocket).
<Mike`>
towards the end of the last stage burn, it almost burned straight down to earth because apoapsis was way above planned periapsis already, but in the end, it got too low.
<awang>
That doesn't sound right
<awang>
o_O
<Mike`>
yeah. i almost exclusively did circle orbits up to now and PEG got the orbits pretty good most of the time, this is the first eccentric orbit i tried.
<Mike`>
peak acceleration of the second stage was ~15g
<Mike`>
might try that same orbit with a different LV and see how that goes
<awang>
Hmmm
<awang>
I've had pretty decent results with peak accelerations around 8-10gs
<awang>
You're not coasting, are you?
<awang>
Unless MJ latest has coasting built in
<awang>
idk where it is now
<awang>
I'd find it interesting if those 5 gs make a significant difference
<Bornholio>
thanks pap
<awang>
Granted, I've been going for pretty low orbits
<awang>
since at the time MJ couldn't handle coasts
<awang>
At least until I unlocked the RD-0104
<Mike`>
no, im not coasting
<lamont>
hurm
<lamont>
“burning straight down” generally means you messed up your pitch program one way or the other
<blowfish>
RD-0104? Not familar with that one?
<Mike`>
hm, yeah, maybe it wasn't shallow enough for thre high TWR
<lamont>
yeah that sounds about right
<awang>
blowfish: My bad, it's RD-0105
<blowfish>
Nice RCS part pack here, imma try to configure it https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/154658-131-mandatoryrcs-14-part-pack-10-reaction-wheels-nerf-sas-rotation-persistence/
<awang>
Can never keep the model numbers straight
<Mike`>
it only started burning straight down gradually with the third stage - but i should/will try another pitch program, thanks :)
<Bornholio>
what that should be RD-0410 :)
<Bornholio>
better known as the РД-0410
<Mike`>
need sleep though, gotta wait till tomorrow :/
wb99999999_ has joined #RO
<awang>
Bornholio: Nah, I meant the kerolox engine
<awang>
Wish I had the NTR in the 1950s :(
<awang>
lamont: Does PEG like lower-thrust orbital insertion stages better?
<Bornholio>
well the NTR design from '50's is Dumbo, and its a lot melty
<awang>
Wait
<awang>
There were NTRs in the 50s?
<awang>
Do we have one in the tree?
<Bornholio>
no its the first design, wafer sphereical,
<Bornholio>
sanity prevailed
<wb99999999_>
I'm sure someone would've thought about NTRs in the 50s