Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Forbes)   SpaceX Dragon capsule docks with ISS bringing 5000 tons of supplies. That's a big dragon   (forbes.com) divider line 56
    More: Followup, SpaceX Dragon, International Space Station, SpaceX, Koichi Wakata  
•       •       •

2224 clicks; posted to Geek » on 20 Apr 2014 at 3:35 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



56 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-20 11:56:39 AM  
Meh, tons, pounds, same dif...
How many Rhode Island Walmart shoppers is that?

/don't have time to fact check, and no one cares anyway...
 
2014-04-20 12:13:43 PM  
Here there be big-ass dragons
 
2014-04-20 12:19:57 PM  
I'm pretty sure the Falcon 9 can lift about 13 metric tons into orbit.  But 5000 tons sounds a lot more impressive.
 
2014-04-20 12:51:23 PM  

sno man: Meh, tons, pounds, same dif...
How many Rhode Island Walmart shoppers is that?

/don't have time to fact check, and no one cares anyway...


Depends whether it's the weekday "meh" crowd or the black friday "meth" crowd. They're wiry, mean f*ckers.
 
2014-04-20 01:00:50 PM  
Wake me when we (be it NASA or private sector) start putting humans into space again.
 
2014-04-20 03:44:41 PM  
Argh.  Gonna run outta Kerbal pictures.

i.imgur.com
 
2014-04-20 03:45:06 PM  

nekom: Wake me when we (be it NASA or private sector) start putting humans into space again.


What was the actual benefit to moving humans into LEO besides them being there? Robots are cheaper, more reliable, and more capable at just about everything.
 
2014-04-20 03:52:28 PM  

madgonad: nekom: Wake me when we (be it NASA or private sector) start putting humans into space again.

What was the actual benefit to moving humans into LEO besides them being there? Robots are cheaper, more reliable, and more capable at just about everything.


Because it's a nice cover for the real space program using alien technology to build starships without telling the public.
 
2014-04-20 03:53:14 PM  

nekom: Wake me when we (be it NASA or private sector) start putting humans into space again.


Space X will be testing the abort sequence on their manned capsule this year. Once that is done, Musk has said they hope to be rated for human passengers in 2015, 2 years before NASA's official deadline of 2017. Note that the abort sequence can be initiated from the pad or in flight, and will boost to crew to safety in the even of an catastrophe with the booster - something the space shuttle never had.

Also, Space X launches cost about $55m per launch, whereas the space shuttle cost about $450m per launch.

I too was skeptical about the decision to retire the space shuttle and place our launch capability into private hands, but it appears - at least with Space X - that everything is going even better than expected. We actually will end up with cheaper, safer LEO transport than we had before.
 
2014-04-20 04:13:12 PM  

wildcardjack: madgonad: nekom: Wake me when we (be it NASA or private sector) start putting humans into space again.

What was the actual benefit to moving humans into LEO besides them being there? Robots are cheaper, more reliable, and more capable at just about everything.

Because it's a nice cover for the real space program using alien technology to build starships without telling the public.


That too
 
2014-04-20 04:38:52 PM  
5000 tons?  That's a hundred times the payload of the Falcon Heavy, which isn't even flying yet.

Dragon must have gotten a running start.
 
2014-04-20 04:56:16 PM  

Elegy: nekom: Wake me when we (be it NASA or private sector) start putting humans into space again.

Space X will be testing the abort sequence on their manned capsule this year. Once that is done, Musk has said they hope to be rated for human passengers in 2015, 2 years before NASA's official deadline of 2017. Note that the abort sequence can be initiated from the pad or in flight, and will boost to crew to safety in the even of an catastrophe with the booster - something the space shuttle never had.

Also, Space X launches cost about $55m per launch, whereas the space shuttle cost about $450m per launch.

I too was skeptical about the decision to retire the space shuttle and place our launch capability into private hands, but it appears - at least with Space X - that everything is going even better than expected. We actually will end up with cheaper, safer LEO transport than we had before.


Until an albino Jake Busey screws everything up.
 
2014-04-20 05:00:21 PM  
Is it an angry dragon?
 
2014-04-20 05:07:24 PM  

Cpl.D: Argh.  Gonna run outta Kerbal pictures.

[i.imgur.com image 850x478]


I wouldn't even know where to begin on something like that. I've just cracked Sub Orbital.
Mind I then got MechJeb and managed a moon landing. Only for the original 3 to slam into the ocean
 
2014-04-20 05:14:09 PM  
Elegy:

Facts

Yanno; I like to consider myself a generous man ordinarily; but if I were Musk, I'd make a big push to get the SpaceX program up and running, far cheaper than anything NASA or other government agencies can; and once they start relying on me, jack the prices up a bit.  Not to obscene levels, and well below what NASA was spending with the Shuttle et al; but if the SS cost ~$450m; and SpaceX "only" costs ~$55m; I'd be charging NASA around $100m; and then take the extra profit and put it directly into furthering the program.

I'm sure there's already "profit" in that ~$55m figure; but an extra $45m / launch can certainly be put towards further refinement and expansion; and it would still be less than 1/4 the price of the SS per launch.
 
2014-04-20 05:15:36 PM  
Here's the thing.  They managed to use retro-rockets to bring the initial boosters back into Atlantic in a re-usable state.  It appears that SpaceX could start putting Kerbal to shame very soon.
 
2014-04-20 05:16:49 PM  

Gsm136: Cpl.D: Argh.  Gonna run outta Kerbal pictures.

[i.imgur.com image 850x478]

I wouldn't even know where to begin on something like that. I've just cracked Sub Orbital.
Mind I then got MechJeb and managed a moon landing. Only for the original 3 to slam into the ocean


Just wait until you start doing docking maneuvers at orbital velocities and you don't quite burn retro enough and slam the latest payload into a space station you spent 15 launches building; all without having a backup of your save.

/ can handle rockets fine; but I still can't get the hang of building a reliable space shuttle analog without rebuilding it every time for each specific payload.
 
2014-04-20 05:20:29 PM  

Shan: Elegy:

Facts

Yanno; I like to consider myself a generous man ordinarily; but if I were Musk, I'd make a big push to get the SpaceX program up and running, far cheaper than anything NASA or other government agencies can; and once they start relying on me, jack the prices up a bit.  Not to obscene levels, and well below what NASA was spending with the Shuttle et al; but if the SS cost ~$450m; and SpaceX "only" costs ~$55m; I'd be charging NASA around $100m; and then take the extra profit and put it directly into furthering the program.

I'm sure there's already "profit" in that ~$55m figure; but an extra $45m / launch can certainly be put towards further refinement and expansion; and it would still be less than 1/4 the price of the SS per launch.


The issue is their business model relies on undercutting -everybody-, not just NASA's usual contractors (read: ULA); that means they have to stay competitive with India, China, etc. Gov't work is nice, but kinda their whole point is not to be beholden to it, so the bulk of their business comes from international customers seeking cheaper-yet-more-reliable launch services.
 
2014-04-20 05:20:41 PM  
SpaceX total spending to date is about one billion dollars.

The cost of one shuttle flight, not including payload, was about one billion dollars.
 
2014-04-20 05:25:49 PM  
..the other thing is that SpaceX isn't the only company NASA has an ISS resupply contract with.
Orbital Sciences is launching their second ISS resupply sometime in May.
 
2014-04-20 05:28:44 PM  
"What was the actual benefit to moving humans into LEO besides them being there? Robots are cheaper, more reliable, and more capable at just about everything."

That's a fair question. There's actually quite of lot of good science being done up there, but you just don't hear enough about it until you search for it.  NASA actually does a good job of publishing what they do, but  they kind of stop there, and make you go looking for it.

As  a partial answer to your question, Micro-gravity brings on a lot of symptoms in the human body that look and feel similar to the aging process, only much accellerated, and micro-gravity also suppresses the human immune system.  So studying this, and learning how to counter it, has tremendous implications for extending healthy living on Earth, as well as to help make it possible for us to send people deeper into space, and eventually to other planets.  Obviously, you need real humans to carry out most of that research; robots or tele-operated machinery, remotely controlled from the ground, can't do that particular work.

On a more philosophical level, colonizing space, and other planets, is part of what a growing, advancing civilization SHOULD be doing. Resources are out there, room to grow and ensure the survival of the species against extinction-level dangers is there. A frontier, to challenge and accept those who can't be content with only what exists now. A place to try new ideas and ways of living. If you happen to be of one of the Abrahamic faiths, the expansionist paradigm fits in with our creator's order to "be fruitful and multiply", or to make the best of our stewardship of what was bestowed on us. Even without a religious or cultural reason to go, pushing the limits is part of the nature of human beings; satisfying our curiosity, extending our reach.  Machines are great for a lot of things, but until we can put our consciousness into one, they come in second-best to being there in person. And machines don;t have reasons of their own to "be" anywhere, in particular, in the first place.   So we need people to go, to go and keep pushing those frontiers up and out. And I say this even knowing I personally may never get to go, but my world would be a sadder, much smaller place, if my species doesn't reach outwards and upwards, as far as it can. The people that go, take a part of me, a part of all of US - along with them.
 
2014-04-20 05:36:10 PM  

studebaker hoch: 5000 tons?  That's a hundred times the payload of the Falcon Heavy, which isn't even flying yet.

Dragon must have gotten a running start.


5000 lbs according to the article. But whats factors of 2000 between friends.
 
2014-04-20 05:39:04 PM  

The Bestest: Shan: Elegy:

Facts

Yanno; I like to consider myself a generous man ordinarily; but if I were Musk, I'd make a big push to get the SpaceX program up and running, far cheaper than anything NASA or other government agencies can; and once they start relying on me, jack the prices up a bit.  Not to obscene levels, and well below what NASA was spending with the Shuttle et al; but if the SS cost ~$450m; and SpaceX "only" costs ~$55m; I'd be charging NASA around $100m; and then take the extra profit and put it directly into furthering the program.

I'm sure there's already "profit" in that ~$55m figure; but an extra $45m / launch can certainly be put towards further refinement and expansion; and it would still be less than 1/4 the price of the SS per launch.

The issue is their business model relies on undercutting -everybody-, not just NASA's usual contractors (read: ULA); that means they have to stay competitive with India, China, etc. Gov't work is nice, but kinda their whole point is not to be beholden to it, so the bulk of their business comes from international customers seeking cheaper-yet-more-reliable launch services.


I'm sorry, I fail to understand the problem? Space X is contracted and on target to provide civilian US government launches at a much cheaper price than NASA has been able to do in the past. This will translate to cheaper prices for straight civilian launches as well, although whether the cost can be reduced to compete with India and Russia remains to be seen.

It's not like NASA was undercutting the Russian and Indian launch services anyway - the US only has 6% of the commercial payload market - but this is one step closer to a viable US based alternative. Since the Falcon is now a proven system, launches will only get more standardized and cheaper from here on in. I also wouldn't be surprised if the success of Space X led to the development of a commercial, US replacement for the Russian RD-180s currently used on the Atlas rockets.

Again, I fail to see how cheaper, better launch systems being developed in the US are a problem. What would you suggest as an alternative - the continued use of the space shuttle at the ridiculous price tag of $0.5b a pop? Lower prices are lower prices, and that can only be a good thing for the economics of putting payloads into orbit.
 
2014-04-20 05:42:07 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-04-20 05:58:39 PM  

Elegy: I'm sorry, I fail to understand the problem?


My posts were an explanation on why SpaceX doesn't charge NASA more than they already do.
 
2014-04-20 06:00:51 PM  

The Bestest: Elegy: I'm sorry, I fail to understand the problem?

My posts were an explanation on why SpaceX doesn't charge NASA more than they already do.


Ah. Massive derp on my part, how the hell did I miss it?

Sorry.
 
2014-04-20 06:01:54 PM  
s'allgood
 
2014-04-20 06:36:26 PM  
"Yanno; I like to consider myself a generous man ordinarily; but if I were Musk, I'd make a big push to get the SpaceX program up and running, far cheaper than anything NASA or other government agencies can; and once they start relying on me, jack the prices up a bit.  Not to obscene levels, and well below what NASA was spending with the Shuttle et al; but if the SS cost ~$450m; and SpaceX "only" costs ~$55m; I'd be charging NASA around $100m; and then take the extra profit and put it directly into furthering the program...."


Yeah, that's the "magic of the Invisible hand", which often is cited for bullshiat reasons but in this case, should actually work: There are at least two, maybe three serious American competitors to Spacex, just a year or two behind them, so competition for the contracts will keep the three from over-pricing the service, as long as all three don't collude, and all three or four have proven tech that is reliable, and all three can find enough business to keep the light on. This bodes well for the near-term future because we won't have all our program eggs in a single basket, and we will have triple-redundant access to Low Earth Orbit without reliance on the Russians. And the relative extra launch capacity should grow our involvement in space both thru NASA and for private endeavors, by  quite a bit more than we could do before. More science will get done, more commercial exploitation and industrialization of the "high frontier" should ensue.   This is actually a better deal than we had with just the Shuttle alone, and it was one of the Obama administrations gambles that did in fact pay off.
 
2014-04-20 07:02:28 PM  
i.imgur.com
"What are you doing?  Tempting the physics Kraken?!"

i.imgur.com
"YOU IDIOT!"

i.imgur.com
/vote KrakenAttack 2016
 
2014-04-20 07:32:16 PM  
5,000 tons! What are you doing up there? Building a moon?

The dangers of allowing Americans and journalists to convert from SI measurements. They often lose track of the decimal point.
 
2014-04-20 07:35:25 PM  

MindStalker: 5000 lbs according to the article. But whats factors of 2000 between friends.


Article has been fixed.

"CORRECTION:An earlier version of this article indicated that the spacecraft had 5000 tons of cargo. It actually has 5000 pounds."
 
2014-04-20 07:37:24 PM  
I still say we use a giant mountaintop cannon to get hard payloads into orbit.
 
2014-04-20 08:00:37 PM  

MindStalker: studebaker hoch: 5000 tons?  That's a hundred times the payload of the Falcon Heavy, which isn't even flying yet.

Dragon must have gotten a running start.

5000 lbs according to the article. But whats factors of 2000 between friends.


So... you didn't notice that there was a correction FTFA?

That said, I'm a little disappointed this is that it only carried 5000 pounds, seeing as how its rated at roughly 25000 pounds plus.

Seems like a waste.
 
2014-04-20 09:28:29 PM  
And that part of the flight, believe it or not, wasn't the only success that SpaceX announced for its reusable rocket program this week. Earlier this week, the company tested its reusable Falcon 9 rocket on the ground in New Mexico.

WRONG!

That test happened in McGregor Texas... There are other tests planned for New Mexico, but that test was in Texas....   Get yer facts straight Forbes...
 
2014-04-20 09:38:37 PM  

Any Pie Left: "What was the actual benefit to moving humans into LEO besides them being there? Robots are cheaper, more reliable, and more capable at just about everything."

That's a fair question. There's actually quite of lot of good science being done up there, but you just don't hear enough about it until you search for it.  NASA actually does a good job of publishing what they do, but  they kind of stop there, and make you go looking for it.

As  a partial answer to your question, Micro-gravity brings on a lot of symptoms in the human body that look and feel similar to the aging process, only much accellerated, and micro-gravity also suppresses the human immune system.  So studying this, and learning how to counter it, has tremendous implications for extending healthy living on Earth, as well as to help make it possible for us to send people deeper into space, and eventually to other planets.  Obviously, you need real humans to carry out most of that research; robots or tele-operated machinery, remotely controlled from the ground, can't do that particular work.

On a more philosophical level, colonizing space, and other planets, is part of what a growing, advancing civilization SHOULD be doing. Resources are out there, room to grow and ensure the survival of the species against extinction-level dangers is there. A frontier, to challenge and accept those who can't be content with only what exists now. A place to try new ideas and ways of living. If you happen to be of one of the Abrahamic faiths, the expansionist paradigm fits in with our creator's order to "be fruitful and multiply", or to make the best of our stewardship of what was bestowed on us. Even without a religious or cultural reason to go, pushing the limits is part of the nature of human beings; satisfying our curiosity, extending our reach.  Machines are great for a lot of things, but until we can put our consciousness into one, they come in second-best to being there in person. And machines don;t have reasons o ...


Nicely said!
 
2014-04-20 09:45:35 PM  

Any Pie Left: On a more philosophical level, colonizing space, and other planets, is part of what a growing, advancing civilization SHOULD be doing. Resources are out there, room to grow and ensure the survival of the species against extinction-level dangers is there. A frontier, to challenge and accept those who can't be content with only what exists now. A place to try new ideas and ways of living. If you happen to be of one of the Abrahamic faiths, the expansionist paradigm fits in with our creator's order to "be fruitful and multiply", or to make the best of our stewardship of what was bestowed on us. Even without a religious or cultural reason to go, pushing the limits is part of the nature of human beings; satisfying our curiosity, extending our reach.  Machines are great for a lot of things, but until we can put our consciousness into one, they come in second-best to being there in person. And machines don;t have reasons of their own to "be" anywhere, in particular, in the first place.   So we need people to go, to go and keep pushing those frontiers up and out. And I say this even knowing I personally may never get to go, but my world would be a sadder, much smaller place, if my species doesn't reach outwards and upwards, as far as it can. The people that go, take a part of me, a part of all of US - along with them.


Bingo.  We either move out there, or die off.  Pick one.
 
2014-04-20 11:49:42 PM  

Dr Jack Badofsky: Elegy: nekom: Wake me when we (be it NASA or private sector) start putting humans into space again.

Space X will be testing the abort sequence on their manned capsule this year. Once that is done, Musk has said they hope to be rated for human passengers in 2015, 2 years before NASA's official deadline of 2017. Note that the abort sequence can be initiated from the pad or in flight, and will boost to crew to safety in the even of an catastrophe with the booster - something the space shuttle never had.

Also, Space X launches cost about $55m per launch, whereas the space shuttle cost about $450m per launch.

I too was skeptical about the decision to retire the space shuttle and place our launch capability into private hands, but it appears - at least with Space X - that everything is going even better than expected. We actually will end up with cheaper, safer LEO transport than we had before.

Until an albino Jake Busey screws everything up.


Maybe they'll send a poet?
 
2014-04-21 12:11:30 AM  

Any Pie Left: There are at least two, maybe three serious American competitors to Spacex, just a year or two behind them,



I would quibble a little with this.  Spacex's biggest rival (besides ULA which is an entirely different beast) is Orbital Science. They are about a year behind Spacex  when it comes to launching small payloads into LEO. But they are nowhere near Spacex when it comes to moving beyond that.  And since they use mostly off the shelf parts, and haven't developed their own engines, they really aren't much competition.

A bigger threat to Spacex would be becoming complacent.  That's the problem with ULA.  But I think Elon Musk's ambitions will guard against that.  A company like ULA, or more strictly speaking, Boeing and Lockheed Martin, has the goal of making money. So when they are doing that well, they get lazy and sloppy. But Elon Musk, no matter how much money he makes, is going to be thinking things like "I should be flying a rocket to Alpha Centauri".  And yes, having good competition for the bread and butter LEO stuff should help keep them honest as well.
 
2014-04-21 12:47:00 AM  
Don't discount Blue Origin or Dream Chaser.  Dream Chaser seems well on their way in testing.
 
2014-04-21 01:47:34 AM  
You put humans in a place, they do new and interesting things. They innovate. They fark up. They stumble upon shiat.

You put robots in a place, they do as they were told. You might see something unexpected, but you can't immediately do anything with it.

At the end of the day, I would trust the long history of people blundering their way to enlightenment over this cost-effective, tightly controlled, exploration by committee apperatus so many people seem to love advocating for when they want to seem the voice of reason.

Not saying we shouldn't be throwing as many probes in every direction we can, but everywhere we send a probe, we should have a plan to eventually sens a person.
 
2014-04-21 02:14:59 AM  

Elegy: Space X will be testing the abort sequence on their manned capsule this year. Once that is done, Musk has said they hope to be rated for human passengers in 2015, 2 years before NASA's official deadline of 2017. Note that the abort sequence can be initiated from the pad or in flight, and will boost to crew to safety in the even of an catastrophe with the booster - something the space shuttle never had.


A functional Launch Escape System is something the shuttle lacked, but it's not exactly something Elon Musk invented.
 
2014-04-21 03:04:59 AM  

FuturePastNow: Elegy: Space X will be testing the abort sequence on their manned capsule this year. Once that is done, Musk has said they hope to be rated for human passengers in 2015, 2 years before NASA's official deadline of 2017. Note that the abort sequence can be initiated from the pad or in flight, and will boost to crew to safety in the even of an catastrophe with the booster - something the space shuttle never had.

A functional Launch Escape System is something the shuttle lacked, but it's not exactly something Elon Musk invented.


Never said it was.
 
2014-04-21 03:52:36 AM  
"...and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard."

Thanks, Elon.

Someone out there would be pretty pleased with what you're doing.
 
2014-04-21 07:45:26 AM  

Kittypie070: "...and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard."

Thanks, Elon.

Someone out there would be pretty pleased with what you're doing.


Would it be that asshole JFK?
 
2014-04-21 08:54:59 AM  
5000 tons is roughly the needed mass to land astronauts on Mars and return them to Earth.
 
2014-04-21 08:55:38 AM  
5000 pounds

i.imgur.com

5000 tons

i.imgur.comi.imgur.comi.imgur.comi.imgur.comi.imgur.comi.imgur.comi.imgur.com
 
2014-04-21 09:20:29 AM  

AngryDragon: 5000 pounds

[i.imgur.com image 350x629]

5000 tons

[i.imgur.com image 188x250][i.imgur.com image 188x250][i.imgur.com image 188x250][i.imgur.com image 188x250][i.imgur.com image 188x250][i.imgur.com image 188x250][i.imgur.com image 188x250]


You need a second giraffe.
 
2014-04-21 11:01:28 AM  

Shan: Gsm136: Cpl.D: Argh.  Gonna run outta Kerbal pictures.

[i.imgur.com image 850x478]

I wouldn't even know where to begin on something like that. I've just cracked Sub Orbital.
Mind I then got MechJeb and managed a moon landing. Only for the original 3 to slam into the ocean

Just wait until you start doing docking maneuvers at orbital velocities and you don't quite burn retro enough and slam the latest payload into a space station you spent 15 launches building; all without having a backup of your save.

/ can handle rockets fine; but I still can't get the hang of building a reliable space shuttle analog without rebuilding it every time for each specific payload.


I've just started back up with KSP; the SpaceX launch rekindled my desire to go to space (cue the space core from portal 2).

Is there really any *need* aside from "it looks cooler" to use a shuttle analog instead of rockets? I haven't messed around with trying to create spaceplanes or anything in that hangar when I was playing in sandbox mode, and now I'm playing mostly in career (and haven't bothered with those parts yet since moar rocketpower upgrades got me to the mun and therefore moar science for sweet upgrades). I guess a payload bay would let you do some stuff differently than building linear rocket-shaped components as part of the rocket for building a space station, as long as you could attach them somehow.

Designed a rocket that got me to the mun and back with almost a full tank of fuel left, so I think next step is attempting a munar landing. Did that in sandbox a while ago but had a few add-ons that had much more efficient engines/lighter fuel tanks...and had mechjeb, heh.
 
2014-04-21 11:09:59 AM  

bmckenna: Shan: Gsm136: Cpl.D: Argh.  Gonna run outta Kerbal pictures.

[i.imgur.com image 850x478]

I wouldn't even know where to begin on something like that. I've just cracked Sub Orbital.
Mind I then got MechJeb and managed a moon landing. Only for the original 3 to slam into the ocean

Just wait until you start doing docking maneuvers at orbital velocities and you don't quite burn retro enough and slam the latest payload into a space station you spent 15 launches building; all without having a backup of your save.

/ can handle rockets fine; but I still can't get the hang of building a reliable space shuttle analog without rebuilding it every time for each specific payload.

I've just started back up with KSP; the SpaceX launch rekindled my desire to go to space (cue the space core from portal 2).

Is there really any *need* aside from "it looks cooler" to use a shuttle analog instead of rockets? I haven't messed around with trying to create spaceplanes or anything in that hangar when I was playing in sandbox mode, and now I'm playing mostly in career (and haven't bothered with those parts yet since moar rocketpower upgrades got me to the mun and therefore moar science for sweet upgrades). I guess a payload bay would let you do some stuff differently than building linear rocket-shaped components as part of the rocket for building a space station, as long as you could attach them somehow.

Designed a rocket that got me to the mun and back with almost a full tank of fuel left, so I think next step is attempting a munar landing. Did that in sandbox a while ago but had a few add-ons that had much more efficient engines/lighter fuel tanks...and had mechjeb, heh.


as far as I understand it, re-entry  in a shuttle type vehicle is much gentler with lower G-forces being applied to the contents of the craft.  This makes it the best choice for returning certain items to the earth.
 
2014-04-21 11:26:51 AM  

Maul555: bmckenna: Shan: Gsm136: Cpl.D: Argh.  Gonna run outta Kerbal pictures.

[i.imgur.com image 850x478]

I wouldn't even know where to begin on something like that. I've just cracked Sub Orbital.
Mind I then got MechJeb and managed a moon landing. Only for the original 3 to slam into the ocean

Just wait until you start doing docking maneuvers at orbital velocities and you don't quite burn retro enough and slam the latest payload into a space station you spent 15 launches building; all without having a backup of your save.

/ can handle rockets fine; but I still can't get the hang of building a reliable space shuttle analog without rebuilding it every time for each specific payload.

I've just started back up with KSP; the SpaceX launch rekindled my desire to go to space (cue the space core from portal 2).

Is there really any *need* aside from "it looks cooler" to use a shuttle analog instead of rockets? I haven't messed around with trying to create spaceplanes or anything in that hangar when I was playing in sandbox mode, and now I'm playing mostly in career (and haven't bothered with those parts yet since moar rocketpower upgrades got me to the mun and therefore moar science for sweet upgrades). I guess a payload bay would let you do some stuff differently than building linear rocket-shaped components as part of the rocket for building a space station, as long as you could attach them somehow.

Designed a rocket that got me to the mun and back with almost a full tank of fuel left, so I think next step is attempting a munar landing. Did that in sandbox a while ago but had a few add-ons that had much more efficient engines/lighter fuel tanks...and had mechjeb, heh.

as far as I understand it, re-entry  in a shuttle type vehicle is much gentler with lower G-forces being applied to the contents of the craft.  This makes it the best choice for returning certain items to the earth.


I can understand from a real-world practical application; I was specifically referring to KSP for which I don't really think there are delicate items that wouldn't withstand a trip in a capsule (those Kerbalnauts are pretty hardy fellows).
 
Displayed 50 of 56 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report