@HorizonsTechnologies Even a year later, it is not; atmosphere starts between 58-59km now. This comment section might as well be outdated but I checked the current version.
Inglush plaez. It successfully static fired multiple times and helped streamline the process of fueling and venting Starship. It also highlighted a problem that caused one of the engines to fail.
@Pashog I had made a post like this at least 6 months ago. Doesn’t seem that easy to convert data from one game engine into another’s, but if there is an intermediate then it just might work.
Now in addition to this, we arrive to my critique of his current F/A-45A:
AG1 is mislabelled, a common theme on his aircraft by how, as Fox one. Yet when toggled, it launches no missiles at all. Why? Because upon moving slider 2 with that toggled, the rear engine vectoring kicks on. That hinge rotator he uses for the rear engine vectoring should be in AG2.
RCS should be off and center of mass should be balanced with the center of thrust. Remember, this is a VTOL aircraft, not a CTOL. If the thrust is not lifting the plane off the ground while balancing its entire mass, then the plane is likely to flip and crash, as it had for me while testing it. Also duly note that because the navball pointer starts at 90° upwards and to the north, when moving it to the prograde position, the RCS will blow on and possible cause damage to the rear elevons.
It seems this guy also uses the extended AG group modded command chips, but for some reason, the extra AG groups do not work. I suspected this is where the missiles went to.
Astonishingly, with the exception of IOS camera control, Planet Studio is now 60-80% functional as of 0.9.504! It’s beginning to seem possible to create or edit a planet.
@MansBestFriend I mean you’d technically want to do that for efficiency. But spending an hour trying to bounce a Drood by pushing up on both joystick controls to accelerate the Drood after jumping doesn’t sound nearly as fun as giving them a joyride behind a plane.
Also, see the photos on my latest craft post, (0.9.5) New plane Done Better!, and upvote if you like it. Not fishing for upvotes but figured using the plane I already made to demonstrate the most Bond thing since.. James Bond.
The joke was that at one point I couldn’t make links like that because of Chrome’s limitations, so I made this link like that so that it would not work, but I saw your comment on not spacing a part of it, and then it worked perfectly.
@HyperPatch The planets would be technically on rails. Spaceflight physics is in the game itself but mainly functions like KSP; you’re always going from one body’s sphere of influence to another. And so long as the bodies themselves aren’t complying to n body physics but 2 body, they are practically going to orbit one body while being completely unaffected by the other bodies. On rails.
But if you’re trying to have a game with spacecraft exceeding a thousand parts while using the Planet Maker to make completely wacky orbital systems... better off that either the entire game itself be closed to save the RAM for the Planet Maker while still in the game, or to have two completely different applications. For PC or Steam the package could be much simpler since you’d be installing any system you’d make into the main game anyway.
@AndrewGarrison this update is far beyond anything I expected for the next update to this game! I’ll hope to see an extremely rudimentary version of Planet Maker appear, even if it’s just a viewer for the planets and systems, but so long as there’s new content in the game itself to make things interesting, it’ll be well worth waiting for.
@SupremeDorian I figured that planet studio would be WAAAAY too much for a smartphone to run on the same app as a space simulator. Which then made me realize that if you’re trying to run 2 enormous apps at the same time, why not separate them? Hence the current form of it in SR2 could be just a planet and system viewer (sort of like a debug menu). I think the planet maker deserves its own app considering the ambitious idea behind it. At least then both the maker and the game can run on a mobile device without destroying RAM performance.
Anyways, does the changes in planter studio improve its current lackluster functionality on mobile? Or do we still have to dive into the xml files on the File app to make any changes?
The camera also doesn’t work either, so I was hoping that at least that could be fixed. Nothing has to be done to make it completely functional on mobile but at least the basic parts of it could be completed. Then again why not just have a separate app for making planets? The prototype of it can be in SR2 as a viewing console while the editing itself could be done in another app to improve RAM and multicore performance.
@SNSA there’s a reason math exists. I mean to say that Jundroo could think of the idea of wind like in SimplePlanes, but unlike that game’s 2 dimensional map, we’re talking about planets. Sure you could add some blanket wind that applies to the entire planet going east, but wouldn’t it be cool if they constructed a rudimentary weather system with Jet Streams (useful for aircraft, if you wanted a 350kph tailwind that is), clouds and other effects?
Why get flustered over “needless” math when it could be something interesting to add to the game? You wouldn’t even have to see it. It wouldn’t have to apply to all planets, and would differ depending on the fluctuating temperatures between different areas of certain planets.
@Insanity sure they are earth specific but so is the Newton (equal to the force required to accelerate one kg by one meter per second squared) which is also equal to an average sized apple (1N, or 1kg/9.8N). Aside from that the pascal is still an approved SI unit, and the bar is important for measuring air pressure especially if it can be said that different atmospheres on different planets have differing rates of pressure depending on their atmospheric density AND the temperature.
Air pressure in game would allow for weather and realistic water physics, for the added challenge, of course!
@SNSA atmosphere as a unit is definitely by all means an imperial measurement, but I could make an argument for bars.
Don’t understand?
A bar is a derivation of a unit derived from the ISU. By which I mean the pascal. So how is that a problem? It is still given the freedom to use to authors by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures and the Meteorological society at large.
I really don’t have a choice but to use IOS. I could lie about why and say that I prefer the interface, but honestly, I just don’t have the money to buy even a low budget PC. It’s extremely annoying but I’m hoping that planet maker gets full iOS support in the near future!!
I was thinking more on behalf of a suggestion because literally redesigning the game’s physics wouldn’t be very easy to do; nonetheless possible with a mobile device! And air pressure greatly influences the effects of supersonic drag and lift effects, so it would be extremely difficult to model unless using the RSS sole system to get it to be 1:1.
I’m not sure at all how much denser Droo’s atmosphere is; if it is, then that would make drag after passing through 300 m/s a little funky.
You will have to understand how thrust works first. Remember that because it is constantly applying a force against the opposite direction (ie. Newton’s third law) it pushes the aircraft forwards if the thrust pushes backwards or upwards in the case of rotating the thrusters downwards. Because of that, you would have to point the jets or rockets downwards, then rotate the craft itself relative to its surface velocity (lock it’s pitch above 0 to slow the craft down when it is moving forward), and then decrease thrust a little before landing when you are hovering.
Currently noting in the IOS version that the planet studio is now able to move the camera, as well as select the celestial bodies. However no menu is up yet for modifying the celestial bodies. The perigee and apogee nodes are there but they are nonfunctional. It’s certainly a step forward!
@crowxe Long time coming for this reply: the issue was not the part of the perigee and apogee switching but the fact that they were doing it entirely while self-decaying below the Droodian Karman Line, despite the atmosphere clearly cutting off below it (at least during that version of this game we were discussing at the time.)
I have a few suggestions for cars:
1. The Bloodhound SSC, for the sake of its rocket and jet being easy to make in game.
2. Ford GT40
3. A specialty- Ferrari 246 GT Dino (the coolest looking car ever made.)
4. Pick any from the Porsche Le Mans Series (360/1, 550, 718, 904, 906, 908, 910, 917, 936, 956, 962, 911GT1, or the 919. Either way they’re seriously impressive and deep in historical value.)
5. Cheap Builds: Volkswagen Beetle and the Willys Jeep.
SimpleRockets 2 pros: nearly unlimited customization (at least after the suggestions functions for planet studio are released for mobile).
-Knowing every statistic known to rocket science
-easy to mod parts (including Tinker Panel) due to extensive use of XML
-a rocket scientist’s KSP(also a con if you’re looking for a lighthearted game like KSP for mobile; but the droonauts are a pretty goofy addition especially when they’re given the most swaggered names in the universe.)
@OverFlow Not if you took all the ISS modules and arranged them into columns. The Saturn V-4(X)U was a set of 4 modified Saturn Vs (V-4S configuration) strapped together. Was rated at launching 527 tons (Doubtlessly more than the entire weight of the ISS) into Low Earth Orbit. Arguably the most powerful rocket ever conceived that was based on a flown design. The Sea Dragon and the second wave Nova rockets had similar if not better performance but they were only ever on paper.
Essentially, it’s the cursed idea of,” Uuuuuhhhhh, if that’s not enough payload then strap four of the damned things together and make it a giant castle of explosive fuels.”
@crowxe That’s a pointless proposition if he downloaded the RSS system and expected to be able to use REO, and was denied that because mods don’t work on iOS. There’s not a lot that can really help him aside from doing two things:
1. Make gigantic rockets
2. Use Methalox and some serious grade LRBs.
The truth is you really can’t change the ISP to get your craft in orbit around a much bigger planet, especially if you are putting ISP as your priority above thrust and burn time. If anything you have to ask yourself “How do I get enough Delta-V to achieve low orbit around a planet five times larger in radius?”. The short answer to that is to get the vehicle accelerating significantly above a TWR of 1 (where it will be continuously accelerating) without exceeding that TWR until you clear the atmosphere. That is why the first stage is so important and usually employed exactly like it is. Later stages which are fired in vacuum don’t need the additional TWR. That way, the amount of fuel used reduces significantly as you dial down the throttle while using the first stage and over time, the rocket uses more of its fuel towards surface velocity when it finally escapes the atmosphere on a relatively flat trajectory. Another important thing: make sure the gravity turn happens so that you are parallel to the horizon by the time you escape the atmosphere, which enhances that effect.
TDLR: Do not make the ISP your priority when launching into low orbit of any planet, especially when the planet’s gravity, like Earth’s, requires a lot of thrust firing over a long period of time to overcome falling back to the surface.
@Dogfish5550 In ESS there’s some sort of abandoned base on a moon of Tydos, and considering I haven’t seen the drone ship in the stock Droo I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s another Easter egg too.
And I was quite impressed already by the Atlas Agena model you’ve made before I had a hiatus too. Currently I’m only testing vehicles but I plan to start with the redstone as the Aggregat rockets will be extremely complicated to make if the interstage of the A10/A11/A12 has to be interlocking with each over and the A9, which will presumably require clipping quarter-circle (or just square fuel tanks but that would be tougher still...) fuel tanks deep into a core fuselage along with the rockets themselves (an enlarged version of the rocket from the A9), of which after the A10, don’t change. That means for the A11 and A12 there would have to be hundreds (literally) of the same rocket engine from the A10 to get it off the ground. Pure engineering insanity, as well as being extremely difficult to model.
A few questions for you:
Since a lot has changed and now we have spacecraft programming and actual astronauts, has that pushed when you release this?
Will it be fine if I modify this with some of the Saturn MLV (Modified Launch Vehicle) configurations? Good examples of those would be here:
Imagine using this guidance system for ballistic missiles; obviously it would have to be modified to activate within 500km of the target but it should be perfect for final guidance.
@Bmcclory Ironically that is likely the reason why NASA has failed to provide a suitable replacement; by continuing to use said engines they are finding extremely limited ways in which to use them. Even more doubtful that leftover Saturn V parts would be any better, but if we are ever going to see NASA beat out corporate space programs, we ought to vote Trump out, and somehow redistribute tax funding so NASA gets not all but a definite higher proportion of the government budget; just 50 billion of the 600 for military budget would suffice for a couple of dozen missions to different planetary system.
I think ANYTHING to do with putting SRBs on a space plane design was a truly horrible idea. Say what you want but they had the SRBs also in mind for lesser known Saturn V variants, of which would likely to still have a launch abort system.
Not that I hate space planes either; getting them into orbit using something like a Falcon 9 or rockets which have the TWR but can be shut down immediately could have made it extremely reasonable. IIRC they had a concept drawn up to put a Dynasoar-akin space plane on a Saturn V.
But strapping relatively ultra-cheap SRBs onto a several billion dollar space plane (at least in today’s inflated money) is far more of a risk and, at the time, a political move which convinced the Soviets to copy us despite their budget constraints, was a good (albeit questionably) and a bad thing. A good example of where this is evident: We just had to alter a 747 to carry ours back to the space center; they had to make the largest plane in the world to do the same objective.
@CrashFighter05 I am putting this up as an idea because reverse compatibility is pretty common as a selling point and that jet engines, fuselage blocks, (struts?)and landing gear would be somewhat possible to transfer if XML had a method to translate part names; the devs didn’t copy and paste the parts after all.
There’s also something to be said about Terrain guidance radar, something a bit more up your alley. The F-111 for example employed it to stay low to the ground.
There’s also the possibility of running steam through a Linux VM on ChromeOS, and the hardware requirements for that are not any lower than running SR2.
And an additional note: the company’s founder also happened to be a guitarist whose other music corporation also happens to own the Randall and Ampeg brands of guitar/bass amplifiers.
To clarify what this is: An jet powered auto gyro that literally ejects out of a fighter aircraft. Basically a combat pilot’s saving grace by a hundred kilometers of flying, so I suppose the Vietnam war pilots would have appreciated that knowledge of being able to return to an airbase without being captured and tortured. Also the finest application of ye olde “Yo dawg I heard you love airplanes” meme.
@HorizonsTechnologies Even a year later, it is not; atmosphere starts between 58-59km now. This comment section might as well be outdated but I checked the current version.
2.6 years agoInglush plaez. It successfully static fired multiple times and helped streamline the process of fueling and venting Starship. It also highlighted a problem that caused one of the engines to fail.
3.2 years ago@Pashog I had made a post like this at least 6 months ago. Doesn’t seem that easy to convert data from one game engine into another’s, but if there is an intermediate then it just might work.
3.3 years ago@MansBestFriend From where? Orbit? Because the stock Drood does not have enough TWR to leave the surface of Droo.
3.5 years agoExactly what post?
3.5 years ago@MansBestFriend That’s one way. You’d need a rocket to do that though for longer ranges.
3.5 years agoNow in addition to this, we arrive to my critique of his current F/A-45A:
3.5 years agoAG1 is mislabelled, a common theme on his aircraft by how, as Fox one. Yet when toggled, it launches no missiles at all. Why? Because upon moving slider 2 with that toggled, the rear engine vectoring kicks on. That hinge rotator he uses for the rear engine vectoring should be in AG2.
RCS should be off and center of mass should be balanced with the center of thrust. Remember, this is a VTOL aircraft, not a CTOL. If the thrust is not lifting the plane off the ground while balancing its entire mass, then the plane is likely to flip and crash, as it had for me while testing it. Also duly note that because the navball pointer starts at 90° upwards and to the north, when moving it to the prograde position, the RCS will blow on and possible cause damage to the rear elevons.
It seems this guy also uses the extended AG group modded command chips, but for some reason, the extra AG groups do not work. I suspected this is where the missiles went to.
Astonishingly, with the exception of IOS camera control, Planet Studio is now 60-80% functional as of 0.9.504! It’s beginning to seem possible to create or edit a planet.
3.5 years agoSpeaking of WTF, the Drood I tested this with was William Theodore Friendly.
3.5 years ago@MansBestFriend I mean you’d technically want to do that for efficiency. But spending an hour trying to bounce a Drood by pushing up on both joystick controls to accelerate the Drood after jumping doesn’t sound nearly as fun as giving them a joyride behind a plane.
3.5 years ago@PointBreak yep.
3.5 years agoAlso, see the photos on my latest craft post,
3.5 years ago(0.9.5) New plane Done Better!, and upvote if you like it. Not fishing for upvotes but figured using the plane I already made to demonstrate the most Bond thing since.. James Bond.
@Chtite451SR2
The joke was that at one point I couldn’t make links like that because of Chrome’s limitations, so I made this link like that so that it would not work, but I saw your comment on not spacing a part of it, and then it worked perfectly.
So now it’s just a sarcastic joke.
3.5 years ago@Chtite451SR2 joke’s on you. It was a joke.
3.5 years ago@Chtite451SR2
[In Case Formatted Links Still Definitely Don’t Work]
3.5 years ago@Chtite451SR2
Satisfied?
That’s why satire has no boundaries.
3.5 years ago@HyperPatch The planets would be technically on rails. Spaceflight physics is in the game itself but mainly functions like KSP; you’re always going from one body’s sphere of influence to another. And so long as the bodies themselves aren’t complying to n body physics but 2 body, they are practically going to orbit one body while being completely unaffected by the other bodies. On rails.
But if you’re trying to have a game with spacecraft exceeding a thousand parts while using the Planet Maker to make completely wacky orbital systems... better off that either the entire game itself be closed to save the RAM for the Planet Maker while still in the game, or to have two completely different applications. For PC or Steam the package could be much simpler since you’d be installing any system you’d make into the main game anyway.
@AndrewGarrison this update is far beyond anything I expected for the next update to this game! I’ll hope to see an extremely rudimentary version of Planet Maker appear, even if it’s just a viewer for the planets and systems, but so long as there’s new content in the game itself to make things interesting, it’ll be well worth waiting for.
3.5 years ago@SupremeDorian I figured that planet studio would be WAAAAY too much for a smartphone to run on the same app as a space simulator. Which then made me realize that if you’re trying to run 2 enormous apps at the same time, why not separate them? Hence the current form of it in SR2 could be just a planet and system viewer (sort of like a debug menu). I think the planet maker deserves its own app considering the ambitious idea behind it. At least then both the maker and the game can run on a mobile device without destroying RAM performance.
+5 3.6 years agoThe good feels when you’re the fiftieth upvote.
Anyways, does the changes in planter studio improve its current lackluster functionality on mobile? Or do we still have to dive into the xml files on the File app to make any changes?
The camera also doesn’t work either, so I was hoping that at least that could be fixed. Nothing has to be done to make it completely functional on mobile but at least the basic parts of it could be completed. Then again why not just have a separate app for making planets? The prototype of it can be in SR2 as a viewing console while the editing itself could be done in another app to improve RAM and multicore performance.
3.6 years ago@HyperPatch Thank you for a straight answer regarding this. Hope 0.9.600 changes things enough.
3.6 years ago@SNSA there’s a reason math exists. I mean to say that Jundroo could think of the idea of wind like in SimplePlanes, but unlike that game’s 2 dimensional map, we’re talking about planets. Sure you could add some blanket wind that applies to the entire planet going east, but wouldn’t it be cool if they constructed a rudimentary weather system with Jet Streams (useful for aircraft, if you wanted a 350kph tailwind that is), clouds and other effects?
Why get flustered over “needless” math when it could be something interesting to add to the game? You wouldn’t even have to see it. It wouldn’t have to apply to all planets, and would differ depending on the fluctuating temperatures between different areas of certain planets.
3.6 years ago@Insanity sure they are earth specific but so is the Newton (equal to the force required to accelerate one kg by one meter per second squared) which is also equal to an average sized apple (1N, or 1kg/9.8N). Aside from that the pascal is still an approved SI unit, and the bar is important for measuring air pressure especially if it can be said that different atmospheres on different planets have differing rates of pressure depending on their atmospheric density AND the temperature.
Air pressure in game would allow for weather and realistic water physics, for the added challenge, of course!
3.6 years ago@SNSA atmosphere as a unit is definitely by all means an imperial measurement, but I could make an argument for bars.
Don’t understand?
A bar is a derivation of a unit derived from the ISU. By which I mean the pascal. So how is that a problem? It is still given the freedom to use to authors by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures and the Meteorological society at large.
3.6 years ago@SNSA
What do you mean insane?
3.6 years agoI really don’t have a choice but to use IOS. I could lie about why and say that I prefer the interface, but honestly, I just don’t have the money to buy even a low budget PC. It’s extremely annoying but I’m hoping that planet maker gets full iOS support in the near future!!
3.6 years agoWhat happaned?
3.6 years ago@AnotherFireFox
I was thinking more on behalf of a suggestion because literally redesigning the game’s physics wouldn’t be very easy to do; nonetheless possible with a mobile device! And air pressure greatly influences the effects of supersonic drag and lift effects, so it would be extremely difficult to model unless using the RSS sole system to get it to be 1:1.
I’m not sure at all how much denser Droo’s atmosphere is; if it is, then that would make drag after passing through 300 m/s a little funky.
3.9 years agoFirst of all, Simple pedia .
And this other site from @sflanker makes it largely redundant.
3.9 years agoYou will have to understand how thrust works first. Remember that because it is constantly applying a force against the opposite direction (ie. Newton’s third law) it pushes the aircraft forwards if the thrust pushes backwards or upwards in the case of rotating the thrusters downwards. Because of that, you would have to point the jets or rockets downwards, then rotate the craft itself relative to its surface velocity (lock it’s pitch above 0 to slow the craft down when it is moving forward), and then decrease thrust a little before landing when you are hovering.
3.9 years agoCurrently noting in the IOS version that the planet studio is now able to move the camera, as well as select the celestial bodies. However no menu is up yet for modifying the celestial bodies. The perigee and apogee nodes are there but they are nonfunctional. It’s certainly a step forward!
3.9 years ago@crowxe Long time coming for this reply: the issue was not the part of the perigee and apogee switching but the fact that they were doing it entirely while self-decaying below the Droodian Karman Line, despite the atmosphere clearly cutting off below it (at least during that version of this game we were discussing at the time.)
3.9 years agoI have a few suggestions for cars:
+1 3.9 years ago1. The Bloodhound SSC, for the sake of its rocket and jet being easy to make in game.
2. Ford GT40
3. A specialty- Ferrari 246 GT Dino (the coolest looking car ever made.)
4. Pick any from the Porsche Le Mans Series (360/1, 550, 718, 904, 906, 908, 910, 917, 936, 956, 962, 911GT1, or the 919. Either way they’re seriously impressive and deep in historical value.)
5. Cheap Builds: Volkswagen Beetle and the Willys Jeep.
SimpleRockets 2 pros: nearly unlimited customization (at least after the suggestions functions for planet studio are released for mobile).
+3 3.9 years ago-Knowing every statistic known to rocket science
-easy to mod parts (including Tinker Panel) due to extensive use of XML
-a rocket scientist’s KSP(also a con if you’re looking for a lighthearted game like KSP for mobile; but the droonauts are a pretty goofy addition especially when they’re given the most swaggered names in the universe.)
@OverFlow Not if you took all the ISS modules and arranged them into columns. The Saturn V-4(X)U was a set of 4 modified Saturn Vs (V-4S configuration) strapped together. Was rated at launching 527 tons (Doubtlessly more than the entire weight of the ISS) into Low Earth Orbit. Arguably the most powerful rocket ever conceived that was based on a flown design. The Sea Dragon and the second wave Nova rockets had similar if not better performance but they were only ever on paper.
Essentially, it’s the cursed idea of,” Uuuuuhhhhh, if that’s not enough payload then strap four of the damned things together and make it a giant castle of explosive fuels.”
3.9 years agoThe Saturn V-4(X)U with the entire International Space Station as the payload somehow folded up in a fairing.
3.9 years ago@crowxe That’s a pointless proposition if he downloaded the RSS system and expected to be able to use REO, and was denied that because mods don’t work on iOS. There’s not a lot that can really help him aside from doing two things:
+1 3.9 years ago1. Make gigantic rockets
2. Use Methalox and some serious grade LRBs.
The truth is you really can’t change the ISP to get your craft in orbit around a much bigger planet, especially if you are putting ISP as your priority above thrust and burn time. If anything you have to ask yourself “How do I get enough Delta-V to achieve low orbit around a planet five times larger in radius?”. The short answer to that is to get the vehicle accelerating significantly above a TWR of 1 (where it will be continuously accelerating) without exceeding that TWR until you clear the atmosphere. That is why the first stage is so important and usually employed exactly like it is. Later stages which are fired in vacuum don’t need the additional TWR. That way, the amount of fuel used reduces significantly as you dial down the throttle while using the first stage and over time, the rocket uses more of its fuel towards surface velocity when it finally escapes the atmosphere on a relatively flat trajectory. Another important thing: make sure the gravity turn happens so that you are parallel to the horizon by the time you escape the atmosphere, which enhances that effect.
TDLR: Do not make the ISP your priority when launching into low orbit of any planet, especially when the planet’s gravity, like Earth’s, requires a lot of thrust firing over a long period of time to overcome falling back to the surface.
+1 3.9 years ago@Dogfish5550 In ESS there’s some sort of abandoned base on a moon of Tydos, and considering I haven’t seen the drone ship in the stock Droo I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s another Easter egg too.
4.0 years ago@HistoricalRockets
What kind of band are you in?
And I was quite impressed already by the Atlas Agena model you’ve made before I had a hiatus too. Currently I’m only testing vehicles but I plan to start with the redstone as the Aggregat rockets will be extremely complicated to make if the interstage of the A10/A11/A12 has to be interlocking with each over and the A9, which will presumably require clipping quarter-circle (or just square fuel tanks but that would be tougher still...) fuel tanks deep into a core fuselage along with the rockets themselves (an enlarged version of the rocket from the A9), of which after the A10, don’t change. That means for the A11 and A12 there would have to be hundreds (literally) of the same rocket engine from the A10 to get it off the ground. Pure engineering insanity, as well as being extremely difficult to model.
A few questions for you:
Since a lot has changed and now we have spacecraft programming and actual astronauts, has that pushed when you release this?
Will it be fine if I modify this with some of the Saturn MLV (Modified Launch Vehicle) configurations? Good examples of those would be here:
http://www.astronautix.com/s/saturni.html
4.0 years agoImagine using this guidance system for ballistic missiles; obviously it would have to be modified to activate within 500km of the target but it should be perfect for final guidance.
4.0 years ago@Bmcclory Ironically that is likely the reason why NASA has failed to provide a suitable replacement; by continuing to use said engines they are finding extremely limited ways in which to use them. Even more doubtful that leftover Saturn V parts would be any better, but if we are ever going to see NASA beat out corporate space programs, we ought to vote Trump out, and somehow redistribute tax funding so NASA gets not all but a definite higher proportion of the government budget; just 50 billion of the 600 for military budget would suffice for a couple of dozen missions to different planetary system.
+1 4.0 years ago@MarioG Even if they were reusable they aren’t and likely wouldn’t be SpaceX reusable: they’ll be waterlogged long before they get refurbished.
4.0 years agoI think ANYTHING to do with putting SRBs on a space plane design was a truly horrible idea. Say what you want but they had the SRBs also in mind for lesser known Saturn V variants, of which would likely to still have a launch abort system.
Not that I hate space planes either; getting them into orbit using something like a Falcon 9 or rockets which have the TWR but can be shut down immediately could have made it extremely reasonable. IIRC they had a concept drawn up to put a Dynasoar-akin space plane on a Saturn V.
But strapping relatively ultra-cheap SRBs onto a several billion dollar space plane (at least in today’s inflated money) is far more of a risk and, at the time, a political move which convinced the Soviets to copy us despite their budget constraints, was a good (albeit questionably) and a bad thing. A good example of where this is evident: We just had to alter a 747 to carry ours back to the space center; they had to make the largest plane in the world to do the same objective.
4.0 years ago@CrashFighter05 I am putting this up as an idea because reverse compatibility is pretty common as a selling point and that jet engines, fuselage blocks, (struts?)and landing gear would be somewhat possible to transfer if XML had a method to translate part names; the devs didn’t copy and paste the parts after all.
4.3 years ago@PointBreak I’ll pin your comment and have that post link there for anybody for reference.
4.3 years agoThere’s also something to be said about Terrain guidance radar, something a bit more up your alley. The F-111 for example employed it to stay low to the ground.
4.3 years agoThere’s also the possibility of running steam through a Linux VM on ChromeOS, and the hardware requirements for that are not any lower than running SR2.
4.3 years agoAnd an additional note: the company’s founder also happened to be a guitarist whose other music corporation also happens to own the Randall and Ampeg brands of guitar/bass amplifiers.
4.3 years agoTo clarify what this is: An jet powered auto gyro that literally ejects out of a fighter aircraft. Basically a combat pilot’s saving grace by a hundred kilometers of flying, so I suppose the Vietnam war pilots would have appreciated that knowledge of being able to return to an airbase without being captured and tortured. Also the finest application of ye olde “Yo dawg I heard you love airplanes” meme.
4.3 years agoAny shadows on the surface of the planet?
4.3 years ago