ferram4 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 ! | Maximal & soundnfury's RP-1 Race Into Space Signup: http://bit.ly/2DEVm2i [15:01] <soundnfury> Straight Eight Stronk (and) RP-0/1 is basically "Space Agency Spreadsheet Simulator"
<schnobs> Pap: while you're here, I'd like to point you to https://github.com/KSP-RO/RP-0/issues/875
<Qboid> [#875] title: Tech Changes for RP-1 | There's a few changes I'd like to do, preferably before the RP-1 release. As I expect some reactions to this, I'd rather discuss it first than just hand in a PR. In no particular order:... | https://github.com/KSP-RO/RP-0/issues/875
<Pap> Hmmmm
<Pap> I will respond to your pr tomorrow. I'm on mobile so not easy to do
TonyC1 has joined #RO
<schnobs> No problem. Just wanted to make sure you're aware of it.
TonyC has quit [Ping timeout: 198 seconds]
<Starwaster> suddenly I have the urge to play Ur-Quan Masters...
acharles_ has joined #RO
acharles has quit [Ping timeout: 190 seconds]
acharles_ is now known as acharles
<soundnfury> schnobs: ah yes, those rocket engines William of Normandy used at the Battle of Hastings...
<soundnfury> (itym 1966 ;)
EsperNet- is now known as NathanKell
<NathanKell> whoah I didn't even have a nick
<NathanKell> weird
<NathanKell> o/
<schnobs> Don't be mislead by the name, it includes a rescaled ranger panel. Needs more tweaking, but should be up to the task.
<schnobs> soundnfury: re: explorer & co, they make satellits a whole lot easier. Which IMO is alright.
<schnobs> I'd rather have an explorer without Able than the other way round.
<schnobs> IIRC there's historic precedent :)
<xShadowx|2> NathanKell: you're not dead?!?!
<soundnfury> NathanKell: \o/
<xShadowx|2> but then again you could just be an impersonator
<soundnfury> schnobs: nice
<soundnfury> and agreed, the easy satellites are the Right Thing
<NathanKell> Not dead, no!
<schnobs> Was the Explorer-1 patched together in 90 days?
<schnobs> Recap: Sputnik flies, Vanguard doesn't, von Braun declares that a modified Redstone can do it and be ready in 90 days.
<soundnfury> I _suspect_ it was at least partly readied before he had permission
<schnobs> Oh my. 5am.
<schnobs> Hello NathanKell, good night everyone!
<soundnfury> so NathanKell, what's your prognosis for the near future? Are you recovered, or just dropping by?
<soundnfury> (how intact is your life?)
schnobs has quit [Ping timeout: 383 seconds]
<NathanKell> soundnfury: For the immediate future, just dropping by sad to say. The Valve Hawaii trip is Monday. :]
<NathanKell> soundnfury: My life is quite intact--in fact, I'm rather in a better place than I was--but it's not so good for my RO involvement since I'm out meeting Cool New People (tm)
<soundnfury> okay, I view that as good news regardless
<soundnfury> (besides, it looks like we just _might_ be organised enough to release RP-1 without you ;)
aradapilot has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
aradapilot has joined #RO
<NathanKell> soundnfury: Hah
<NathanKell> soundnfury: And yeah, it's good news for me at least, very good news indeed, although I do feel a bit guilty. :]
<soundnfury> NathanKell: nothing to feel guilty about, stop doing that ;)
<NathanKell> But it's my specialty!
<soundnfury> heh
<Raidernick> NathanKell, is back?
Mike` has quit [Ping timeout: 198 seconds]
<Raidernick> NathanKell, you don't need to worry about RO too much, I pulled together everyone I could find to get stuff updated and we got that released
TM1978m has joined #RO
<NathanKell> Raidernick: Awesome! You rock! :)
<Raidernick> i had ferram and egg update the dependencies and I made a RO release and got the threads updated and got ckan updated
<Raidernick> so it should all be good
Mike` has joined #RO
<xShadowx|2> hawaii trip -.^
<xShadowx|2> NathanKell: bring me back one of them hawaiian roasted pigs!
<xShadowx|2> maybe a few of them hula girls in grass skirts -.^
NathanKell is now known as NathanKell|AFK
<taniwha> xShadowx|2: I thought you believed women were evil :P
<taniwha> and heh, just missed
Moistmelon has quit [Ping timeout: 186 seconds]
<xShadowx|2> taniwha: women are evil, whats that have to do with my requests?
BadRocketsCo has quit [Ping timeout: 383 seconds]
blowfish has joined #RO
Moistmelon has joined #RO
BadRocketsCo has joined #RO
<BadRocketsCo> Howdy!
<soundnfury> ahoy there
<BadMobileRockets> soundnfury: good news! Managed to land my surveyor-ish lander
WorseInternetCo has joined #RO
<WorseInternetCo> Dumb thing...
BadRocketsCo has quit [Killed (NickServ (GHOST command used by WorseInternetCo!~AndChat63@133-107-157-37.dyn.estpak.ee))]
WorseInternetCo is now known as BadRocketsCo
<BadRocketsCo> There.
<BadRocketsCo> soundnfury: got my surveyor style lander onto the moon!
<soundnfury> \o/
<BadRocketsCo> It looks almost nothing like it but it works in the same way :D
<soundnfury> hehe
<BadRocketsCo> Ya still around in 5ish hours?
Senshi has joined #RO
<soundnfury> eh, I'll be at wörk then
<BadRocketsCo> Ah, okay
<BadRocketsCo> I'll send the pics to you at evening then :P
BadRocketsCo has quit [Quit: Bye]
Senshi has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
Senshi has joined #RO
blowfish has quit [Quit: Leaving]
TM1978m has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Mike` has quit [Ping timeout: 186 seconds]
Mike` has joined #RO
Mike` has quit [Ping timeout: 198 seconds]
Senshi has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
Technicalfool has quit [Read error: -0x1: UNKNOWN ERROR CODE (0001)]
<Maxsimal> o/
Mike` has joined #RO
Probus has joined #RO
<Probus> o/
Mike` has quit [Ping timeout: 198 seconds]
Mike` has joined #RO
<Maxsimal> o/
<Maxsimal> how's it goin?
<Probus> Not bad. Not bad.
<Maxsimal> Can't wait for the weekend myself. Unfortunately I think I'll be playing minecraft with the gf, not much KSP
qwertyy__ has joined #RO
Senshi has joined #RO
<Probus> Its good to take a break every so often or you'll get burned out.
qwertyy_ has quit [Ping timeout: 383 seconds]
Olympic1 has quit [Ping timeout: 186 seconds]
<Maxsimal> ah it's more like I get overfocused when I play KSP and she gets annoyed with me :P
wb99999999 has quit [Quit: webchat.esper.net]
VanDisaster has joined #RO
VanDisaster has quit [Quit: Miranda NG! Smaller, Faster, Easier. http://miranda-ng.org/]
VanDisaster has joined #RO
SirKeplan has joined #RO
schnobs has joined #RO
<schnobs> o/
VanDisaster has quit [Ping timeout: 186 seconds]
* egg stares at backlog
<egg> a NathanKell|AFK!?
<egg> well, not AFK
* schnobs has no backlog. Did I miss anything?
awang has joined #RO
Maxsimal has quit [Quit: webchat.esper.net]
awang has quit [Killed (NickServ (GHOST command used by awang_))]
awang_ has joined #RO
<schnobs> On the github discussion, someone mentioned "probe science". What is it?
<awang_> schnobs: Yeah, rollout costs could be improved. I did say that splitting into integration/actual rollout costs would be nice
<awang_> schnobs: I'm guessing "probe science" would be lots of the new science stuff Pap worked on?
<schnobs> awang_: I'm afraid the whole rollout thing comes around to KCT once more.
<schnobs> Given all the special needs, I wonder if it shouldn't be made a part of RP-0 (rather than).
<schnobs> RP-0 vessels already have two prices (tooled or not) and I can easily foresee a third (assembled) coming round the bend.
<schnobs> You know, one of these days I'll have a good look at KCT, learn C#, and sort it all out.
<schnobs> sigh.
<schnobs> pipe dreams.
SirKeplan has quit [Ping timeout: 186 seconds]
<Rokker> Bornholio: https://imgur.com/a/JZEGQ
VanDisaster has joined #RO
VanD has joined #RO
VanDisaster has quit [Ping timeout: 383 seconds]
VanDisaster has joined #RO
VanDisaster has quit [Client Quit]
VanD has quit [Ping timeout: 186 seconds]
VanDisaster has joined #RO
<schnobs> Can science experiments depend on ... what's da word... not "situation".
aradapilot has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
aradapilot has joined #RO
<schnobs> I want an experiment that works in orbit, but not on a suborbital flight. Doable?
Hypergolic_Skunk has joined #RO
aradapilot has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
stratochief has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
aradapilot has joined #RO
<schnobs> The whole construction time thing is off to begin with. It assumes that vessels are assembled serially, top down or bottom up.
<schnobs> Rollout only compounds this.
<schnobs> Some parallelization should happen even when building single rockets, but honestly, I don't know how it should look like.
<schnobs> Anything I can think of amounts to several circles of UI hell.
<xShadowx|2> schnobs: would need a new science mechanic from a mod, unsure if one exists, stock answer is no though
<schnobs> xShadowx|2: thanks.
<schnobs> Well, one could do it in a roundabout way by using contracts... but I'd rather not.
<schnobs> Maybe one or two one-offs like "first pictures from space", but no general template for "X observation in orbit of Y" a dozen times over.
<awang_> schnobs: Sorry, had to go afk for a bit
<awang_> idk, I was under the impression that KCT was pretty complex
<awang_> Rolling our own probably isn't the best idea, unless the codebase is so bad that it's not worth saving
<schnobs> I don't doubt that it is complex.
<awang_> It'd take a ton of effort to get a new implementation to where it is now, though
<awang_> schnobs: Can experiments have the same kind of conditions as contracts?
<awang_> Contracts can have "at orbital altitude, but not a suborbital flight" thing
<awang_> I think
<schnobs> I don't think so. But you can set a contract with conditions and have science as reward. Tha's what I mean with "a roundabout way".
<awang_> Yeah, the construction time thing isn't perfect
<awang_> But it's the best we have at the moment
<awang_> I think a more realistic behavior would be to have players design individual stages, then use those as building blocks
<awang_> Instead of part-by-part things
<schnobs> Yup. And I don't think it will receive a workover anytime soon.
<awang_> Maybe with the ability to add small tweaks or something
<awang_> Also, RealScience may have the capability you're looking for
<awang_> But it's not really usable, so...
<schnobs> But, more whining about KCT:
<schnobs> -severe interservice rivalry between SPH & VAB
<awang_> In terms of consuming upgrade points?
<schnobs> yes.
<schnobs> You can't just build a size X pad but have to stack upgrades on top of each other.
<schnobs> That's surrealism plain and simple.
<schnobs> On the usability side, the need to unlock lots of science nodes.
<schnobs> And, taking a step back: astronaut training should integrate well with KCT. Don't know if one can make one aware of the other, though.
<Starwaster> awang_ schnobs you could sort of an orbital/suborbital clause for ModuleTestSubject through creative use of altitude and speed.
<schnobs> Starwaster: please elaborate, I don't understand.
<Starwaster> i.e. if you want it suborbital only then specify an altitude and speed combination that is suborbital. Full orbital velocity would be too fast
Probus has quit [Ping timeout: 186 seconds]
<Starwaster> look at the CONSTRAINT nodes
<Starwaster> altitude is type = ALTITUDEENV
<Starwaster> with GT or LT values
<awang_> schnobs: What do you mean about the pads?
<Starwaster> combined with type = SPEED (and GT/LT values)
<Starwaster> (greater than / less than)
<awang_> Needing to unlock a lot of science nodes isn't the best, but it means more upgrade points and a finer division of where parts can go
<awang_> I prefer it over the old tree, at least
<schnobs> awang_: sorry, hold on.
<awang_> I think training actually used to be something KCT-related?
<awang_> FlightSchool or something?
<awang_> schnobs: np
<schnobs> Starwaster: you mean, let the game automatically create Part Test contracts that happen to have more rigid requirements for doing science, and hand out science points as a reward?
<schnobs> Effectively, "test a thermometer in orbit around X"?
<Starwaster> schnobs yes
<Starwaster> or... suborbital
<Starwaster> which could for instance have an altitude parameter of 100km but a speed of no more than 5km/s (which is of course by definition not orbital velocity)
<schnobs> or.. whatever. But I'd still sort it under "a roundabout way of doing it".
<schnobs> What I was trying to get at was having more science points for (e.g.) a thermometer in space, getting in and out of the earth's shadow. It shouldn't be possible to harvest that science on a suborbital flight.
<schnobs> And the more I think of it, the more it seems right and proper to do it by contract, at least in that case.
<schnobs> Micrometeorite Detectors accumulating data over weeks and years are another matter, that will probably require RealScience.
<schnobs> awang_: back to KCT, it seems odd that SPH and VAB are two entirely distinct workshops that by all appearances won't share tools with each other (separate upgrade queues).
<schnobs> About launchpads: In real life, only very few buildings are constructed by fist building a small one, then a slightly bigger one on top of that, then an even bigger one on top of *that*, and so on.
TonyC2 has joined #RO
<schnobs> I think some pyramids were built that way, but that was a long time ago.
<schnobs> And, lastly, crew training is an RP-0 thing. KCT has nothing to do with it (though it probably has to check wether a trained pilot is available).
<schnobs> However, with training taking time and wearing off, it would be suited to be in the KCT queue.
<schnobs> I've occasionally referred to KCT as the "RP-0 master control program", only half in jest.
TonyC1 has quit [Ping timeout: 383 seconds]
<schnobs> Training (as it currently is) would be a lot more palatable if KCT was fully in control f it.
<awang_> schnobs: I mean, building rockets and planes are quite different, right?
<awang_> Or at least some parts
<awang_> Common things like engines should have a separate queue
<awang_> I guess ideally there'd be a manufacturing facility for each major category of part, but that's way too complex to pull off in a reasonable amount of time
<awang_> I think
<schnobs> IIRC, we don't manufacture rockets.
<awang_> And I see what you mean about launchpads. I think I agree?
<awang_> Yeah, I know training is an RP-0 thing
<awang_> I just thought it was based off of something that was more closely integrated with KCT
<schnobs> We stick prefab parts together.
<awang_> I guess it comes down to how many changes magico is willing to accept to KCT
<schnobs> hmmm. That#s coming out wrong.
<awang_> Er
<awang_> I meant something more like there'd be a manufacturing facility for rocket engines, one for tanks, one for structural stuff, etc
<schnobs> awang_: Sorry, backtrack: about magico accepting wishes: That's a lot of special needs, and I've only ticked off the first few points to come to mind.
<awang_> So the VAB/SPH difference matters less
<awang_> Yeah, there are always more features to add and improvements to make :(
<schnobs> About VAB/SPH, and rocket assembly in general. I'm not sure where to pick you up...
<schnobs> What VAB does is that it stacks (say) a Centaur Stage on top of a Titan Second Stage on top of a Titan First Stage.
<schnobs> IRL, I mean.
<awang_> VAB/SPH would be taking care of integration
<awang_> Although I guess there should be a distinction between putting parts together to make a stage and putting stages together to make a rocket
<schnobs> Yup.
<schnobs> In KSP we also design the Centaur, from first principles.
<schnobs> IRL, that work would be done by a subcontractor and happens before the VAB first gets it's hands on it.
<schnobs> Reflacting that in the game would be non-trivial, though.
<schnobs> Rollout-as-is currently reflects the subcontractor work and the VAB work all at once.
<schnobs> I mean, I can fully imagine us designing subassemblies and ordering them from a subcontractor.
<schnobs> Where it gets hairy is when I try to think of a usable UI.
<awang_> It's always UI that messes things up :(
<awang_> The more I program, the more I realize that I'm happier the farther away I am from the user
<schnobs> Example, subassembly FOO has a minor design problem. Now apply a small fix to the already-built items in storage.
<awang_> Even more spreadsheeting
<awang_> "Sir, we're producing 30 engines a month, but it's not enough to keep up with your launch cadence!"
<awang_> "We found a problem! Tank production has to stall for a month to get things sorted out! I don't think we'll be able to hit our production targets"
<awang_> Micromanaging: The Game
<schnobs> Maybe with two editor modes? One is "design from parts" as usual, the other "stack subassemblies"?
<schnobs> It could be quite managable... imagine a part list filled with subassemblies.
<schnobs> Of course, you could fall back to "parts" mode at any time. In order to, you know, just quickly make a few minor tweaks.
<schnobs> That's when it should get really expensive.
<awang_> I mean, we already have a subassembly thing
<awang_> I don't know how many people use it
<awang_> And I think for that to work RP-0 would need to get better support for rocket families
<schnobs> awang_: subassemblies-as-is doesn't lend itself well to that kind of stacking I have in mind.
<schnobs> I mean, it could work, but that's just the kind of spreadsheeting headache I'd rather avoid.
ferram4 has quit [Ping timeout: 198 seconds]
camlost has joined #RO
SirKeplan has joined #RO
Probus has joined #RO
TonyC2 has quit [Ping timeout: 186 seconds]
Probus has quit [Ping timeout: 186 seconds]
TonyC has joined #RO
<Starwaster> ok so is there anyone here really knows about cryocoolers and electrical costs? I've been thinking for awhile that the cost should vary by the tank wall temperature and how much heat you're trying to remove there. It should be a lot cheaper if things have gotten up to normal temperatures or if it starts out that way (like maybe if you were landed with empty tanks and they warmed up and then you're filling them, maybe some ISRU station filling up your
<Starwaster> craft so you can leave)
<Starwaster> some documents I've seen bear that out but the cost doesn't look linear to me?
<schnobs> Starwaster: Not sure if cooling the tank wall is even a feasible approach.
<Starwaster> NASA and other involved entities don't agree with you
<schnobs> You'd need a lot of piping all round in order to cool it. Lots of mass and complications.
<schnobs> TO cryogenic temperatures?
<schnobs> All coolers I know create comparatively small cool surfaces. In order to pull the heat from a larger area, you need some way to conduct it to your cooler.
ferram4 has joined #RO
<schnobs> Cryoogenic times tank surface seems like a huge effort.
<Starwaster> ok so you have a lot of piping.
<Starwaster> it's just an engineering problem to solve
<Starwaster> all of that is just minutiae that I don't care about
<schnobs> It's probably different if you have surface-insulation-cryo stuff.
<Starwaster> I'm just trying to find reasonable power to deduct for cooling. Not interested in any other discussion
<Starwaster> maybe you should read up on the subject: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0011227517302187
<schnobs> ...reading...
<schnobs> I assumed you were talking about a spacecraft exposed to the sun, near earth.
<Starwaster> that's where heat leakage would be at its highest. (unless your going to Venus or Mercury)
<Starwaster> look I'm less interested in a discussion as to whether this can work IRL than I am in translating (what engineers already think CAN work) into the game
<Starwaster> anything other than figuring out the costs is a distraction
<Starwaster> THEY already think it can work so that's good enough for me
<Starwaster> see where I'm coming from in this?
<schnobs> Their task is more like a fridge. Main purpose is to keep the contents cool, with enough excess capacity to deal with a small influx per time. (still reading though)
<schnobs> Starwaster: Maybe I'm getting it wrong, but I parse "Cryocooler input power" as electricity requirement, and "heat rejection power" as watts removed.
<Starwaster> yes
<awang_> schnobs: What do you mean by spreadsheeting headache?
<schnobs> Starwaster: just to be sure, they're cooling the tank *inside* the insulation. Again, much like a fridge.
<schnobs> Cooling requirement comes from heat seeping through, plus however much you want to liquefy.
<schnobs> Key point is that they use the tank for liquefaction. Gaseous stuff goes and and stays as a liquid.
<schnobs> (rather than liquefy elsewhere, pipe it in, and just see to it that you fill it up faster than it boils of -- which I'd have assumed to be a whole lot easier, but hey)
<schnobs> But as to your original question:
<schnobs> a) they provide a few data points for Watts per Heat Removal
<schnobs> b) cooling requirement follows naively from outside temp and insulation.
<Starwaster> they do, for a specific temperature set and I've gone past the point at which that's helpful to me. I need to determine how the efficiency and the cost are affected by a range of temperatures all the way from 4K to 300K
<Starwaster> I already have the code in and tested so I know it works, I just need numbers to plug into it
<Starwaster> (and liquefaction isn't an issue for the mod - that lies on the ISRU side of things)
<schnobs> Starwaster: OK. The trivial bit is the amount of heat they have to remove, which follws from outside temp - insulation - boiling temp of whatever needs to be kept liquid.
<schnobs> I guess you know that well enough :)
<schnobs> The harder bit: at 90K here and 260K there, the cooler needs power as described. How much does it need at different temperatures?
<schnobs> I seem to recall having seen data sheets... hold on.
Maxsimal has joined #RO
<schnobs> Starwaster: relevant plots at page13 onwards.
<schnobs> I guess these assume ordinary earth ambient temperatures on the output side...
<schnobs> Which IMO isn't all that wrong, you'd have to follow up with a mile-wide ISS like panel.
<schnobs> Starwaster: does that help in any way?
<Starwaster> schnobs not sure I'll have to look it over. I think I've seen that one before
<schnobs> Starwaster: key point, though, don't meddle with the output temperature.
<schnobs> All these off-the-shelf things seem built to be run with heatsink temperatures that are compatible with an office environment, 310-320K or thereabouts.
<schnobs> (quite warm to the touch but not dangerously hot)
<schnobs> So it would be up to a secondary or tertiary cooler to keep them at that level.
<Starwaster> Brayton type cryocoolers are what are most likely to see use on an interplanetary mission
<Starwaster> anyway what I have so far is this: https://gist.github.com/Starwaster/69f706adf524f4c5a7196d3ecd94aa6b
<schnobs> Starwaster: that's power consumption @ target temp?
<Starwaster> that's power consumption to remove a watt of heat from the tank wall when it is at that temperature
<Starwaster> the higher end is already wrong; what I probably should do there is see if the tank temperature is hotter than the radiator; if it is then it doesn't need extra power to remove the heat
<Starwaster> other than a base pump rate, which isn't being applied but probably should be
<schnobs> Starwaster: If the tank wall is hotter than then radiator, you're probably out beyond Jupiter.
<schnobs> Even then, if the tank still needs any cooling at all, you need to at least some kind of pump. So maintaining a small energy requirement is OK, imo.
Olympic1 has joined #RO
<schnobs> But I'd suggest to be careful talking about the tank "wall". I for one assumed you were talking about the side that's exposed to the environment.
<schnobs> Hence my objections, above.
<Starwaster> except that the tank wall is exactly what's being talked about
<Starwaster> you're not going to cool the surface of the insulation; you wait until the insulation has done its job and cool what comes after
<Starwaster> you do know that the next updates of RF have configurable insulation, yes?
<Starwaster> also, Heat Pumps has simulated insulation by modifying the skin-part temperature conduction rate for a couple of years now. (I'll be taking that out in the next update of HP since RF has its own insulation now)
<Starwaster> we've got MLI, we've got Dewar heat leakage calculation for Service Modules
<schnobs> I know about insulation in RH. That's why I felt a bit silly about spelling it out again, to you of all people.
TonyC has quit [Ping timeout: 186 seconds]
<soundnfury> <awang_> The more I program, the more I realize that I'm happier the farther away I am from the user <-- this is why I work in the kernel now :)
Maxsimal has quit [Quit: webchat.esper.net]
Senshi has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
<awang_> soundnfury: Pretty much as far from the user as you can get, right?
<soundnfury> well... firmware exists
<awang_> When was the last time you worked on something users actually interact with directly?
<soundnfury> depending on your definition of "users", probably my last patch to ethtool a couple weeks ago
<awang_> I haven't heard nice things about firmware development
<awang_> Incorrect/inconsistent/inexisting documentation galore
<soundnfury> nor have I xD
<schnobs> Since when do we have "payload" fuel types?
<schnobs> I have a feeling that they're not dense enough (or ServiceModule utilization is just too damn low).
<schnobs> Or maybe it's the contracts.
<soundnfury> they're denser than they used to be
<soundnfury> mainly because of that low SM util
<schnobs> Sometimes I'm supposed to carry 12 units, at other times 1200.
<schnobs> Dry mass of the tank isn't all that bad, but bulk? Oh boy.
<soundnfury> and if you think they're low density, wait till you see my NavSatPayload xD
<schnobs> Perhaps it's just that the contracts need a lower ceiling value.
<schnobs> Demanding a cubic meter worth of payload for sounding rockets isn't all that out there, A-4 can handle it.
<schnobs> But in the Explorer age?
<soundnfury> yeah, some of the contracts do go a bit high
<schnobs> (I'm just looking at a payload considerably larger than my able upper stage.)
<Starwaster> service module utilization should be low, otherwise it's not a service module; it's just another integrated tank type
<schnobs> granted.
<soundnfury> btw for sounding rocket payload I usually stick with Tank-I
<soundnfury> it might be heavier but man is it denser
<schnobs> agreed.
<schnobs> Just btw, what would have been a comm satellite in 1960? I can hardly believe in an active retransmitting relay.
<soundnfury> btw have you any opinions on https://github.com/KSP-RO/RP-0/pull/874 ?
<Qboid> [#874] title: Add contracts for Navigational Satellites | The first generation use a new payload type, NavSatPayload, which is of much... | https://github.com/KSP-RO/RP-0/issues/874
<soundnfury> schnobs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCORE_(satellite) is late 1958
<soundnfury> Echo 1 (metal balloon) was launched in 1960
<schnobs> soundnfury: I've heard about the echos before. Must have been highly visible, according to contemporaries...
<schnobs> soundnfury: Transit doesn't seem all that large...
<soundnfury> indeed, it's tiny
<schnobs> Judging from the photos, about a 1m sphere?
<schnobs> 1.2m?
<soundnfury> yeah, not sure. But I found dimensions for the cylindrical ones somewhere
<schnobs> On service module 1, that would be 260-450 units.
<schnobs> 80kg including a snap RTG?
<schnobs> I'm inclined to say that this drum enclosed mostly empty space.
<soundnfury> yeah, well, that's why I gave NavSatPayload a super low density :)
<schnobs> Do you insist on it?
<soundnfury> no; but the nav sat contracts all ask for relatively small payloads
<soundnfury> so it doesn't end up getting too huge volumetrically
<soundnfury> (and the 2nd-gen and gps contracts switch to the denser comsatpayload anyway...)
<schnobs> Well, I'd be onboard with a dedicated navsat payload so the user can't satisfy two contracts with on vehicle.
<schnobs> I'm not so amazed by it having a vastly different density, though. 1 unit = 500g being easy to remember.
<soundnfury> but that's not what the other two have... they're 0.0004
<schnobs> great.
<schnobs> Well, uniform density is a value in itself is what I'm saying. I don't wan't to stubbornly insist on it, though.
<soundnfury> mmm. Well, like I say, I chose to try and match Transit 4 as best I could, but I guess we'll have to see what other people think
<soundnfury> I do see where you're coming from, and it's a question of which values we value most
<schnobs> Well, it's mostly a gutsy-feely thing on my part. So there's benn one sattelite of apparent low density and we have to make a resource specifically for it? Wasn't even a famous one...
<soundnfury> Transit, not famous? Huh??? :P
<schnobs> Als, I seriously believe drum was mostly empty space. Surface area needed for solar panels, perhaps, or as heatsink for the snap?
<schnobs> (also, given what I learned in RP.0, I wonder who in their right mind would cover it in expensive panels AND stick a RTG inside. It must have cost twice as much as the rocket!
<schnobs> And that's cutting my own throat.
<soundnfury> the RTG was in there to be tested, basically
<schnobs> On a 1000km orbit, I expect it will stay up for a few centuries?
<soundnfury> ehh idk
<soundnfury> decades maybe? v0v
<schnobs> me neither. never mind.
stratochief has joined #RO
qwertyy_ has joined #RO
qwertyy__ has quit [Ping timeout: 186 seconds]
awang_ has quit [Ping timeout: 383 seconds]
SpecimenSpiff has joined #RO
<SpecimenSpiff> o/
<soundnfury> \o
<SpecimenSpiff> anyone have a clue what it would take to enable proc srb's in rp-1?
<SpecimenSpiff> I know at one point we had them...
<SpecimenSpiff> but I cant find the pr that disabled them
<Qboid> [e18bc] title: Add tooling to the other proc parts. and KILL THE PROC SRB MWAHAHAH. by NathanKell | Additions: 36 | Deletions: 9 | https://github.com/KSP-RO/RP-0/commit/e18bc586fb0eb4910a2594f20ad5469ec8d421f1
<soundnfury> (found with "git log HEAD^{/SRB}")
<SpecimenSpiff> lol
<SpecimenSpiff> although I guess I disagree, soooo much sounding rocket grinding and no ability to make "realistic" sounding rockets
<soundnfury> I don't know forwhy he did that but I'm guessing proc srb was somehow broken or hard to balance for the new costs v0v
<SpecimenSpiff> I know he and others have made off hand comments about srbs not being balanced right many times, but I've never heard specifics
<soundnfury> yeah no idea I'm afraid
<soundnfury> you'll have to interrogate him next time he drops by