As a child of the late 90s this brings a smile to my face.

As a child of the late 2020s I don't exist

Penjmarman.. it is your turn now to carry the torch sorry to have left such a mess..

Brandon I look forward to your birth.. tell me where to send the cigars or vape cigars

@@MrLego275 lmao

That official animation really looked like some of my Munar landers

Just as good, graphics have nothing to do with health.

I'm on an a decent rig. I got 120-240fps optimized. With scatterer and E.V.E. max settings, textures, atmosphere, three layers of clouds it look absolutely amazing. but I get 10-30fps. Just looking at water will drop to 10fps XD

Ksp2

cocaine garlic

Hypergarlic, essential for repelling space vampires.

or making some mean garlic bread

hypergarlic rockets

Adam Allman Good question from what i remember moon dust is pretty abrasive too

Right? I can see some flaws to the logic, if they make it work then that’s great.

Adam Allman that’s why they need to send a rover down and build a lunarcrete landing pad, save gas by doing suicide burns.

Is the engine using a catalyst like the SR-71 used to ignite the engine and afterburner?

No, it's the RL-10 C or CECE series which are expansion cycle.

Oh there. Thank you. I knew it had to happen!

😆

That wouldn’t be very efficient, it’s like cutting a 747’s Engines and landing gears and building and having separate ones in another airport (idea like Elon Musk”s explanation)

You could say the same thing about SpaceX, New Glenn, etc. At this point only time will tell.

Nah, the Space Shuttle was a totally "wrong" design of a swiss army knife. That's what put costs and errors through the roof. It COULD do one or two things really well (see the x-37 which does things very well and cheaply, but does 1 thing :P ). This is just doing 1 thing, luna landing and ascent as a single stage.

Space.com's article covering this release noted that unlike the STS, this vehicle would not depart from and re-enter Earth atmosphere between landings; it would stay on station at either Gateway or the ISS, thus greatly reducing the turnaround maintenance requirements. The Orbiter was an economic failure because its turnaround was maintenance- and QC-intensive; I think that every 2.5 missions enough money was spent to construct a new Orbiter vehicle.

Plus lunar landing is an absolute piece of cake compared to rocket propelled landing on earth.

well, it takes more fuel to land on the moon then on mars, because of a lack of an atmosphere to slow you down, but spacex has has really shown it is possible

Thomas Wijgerse well you are correct, but there are some super serious physics issues that make Mars more difficult than the moon. Yes, Mars has an atmosphere, However, you have to remember that Mars’ thickest atmosphere is around the equivalent of 100,000 feet up in the earth’s atmosphere. Vehicles in earth’s atmosphere are traveling Mach 3 to Mach 6 through those flight regimes. So the atmosphere can slow the vehicle but only to the point where aerodynamic forces become severe enough to require the vehicle to be built for atmosphere (fairings/wings/lifting bodies...all of which add substantial mass)

Thomas Wijgerse yet they’re still only able to get the vehicle down to Mach 3 or so at the surface so the vehicle needs a whole ton of power at the surface as well. It makes mars a far harder but to crack than the moon.

and its way easier on the moon too. ....the thing is tho that slowing down is way easier here because you can airbrake,.

+thomasfholland If you enjoy Scott suffering, you are a sadist. If you are currently trying to recreate Scott's suffering yourselves in KSP, you're most definitely a masochist.

They will be sending supplies to the LOP-G so they will acumilate surpluses oxygen and hydrogen I'm not sure Howe much water each each supply ship brings to the ISS.

Christopher Bloom yah, but even the current SLS design can't even deliver 40t to a lunar orbit, so you would need multiple SLS launches just to deliver the fuel for a single mission even if they were dedicated fueling missions

@@Dufud6 I'm not talking about taking oxygen and hydrogen specifically for propellant but as crews come and go the LOP-G will acumilate more and more water recovered from the crews water reclamation system even the plastic from trash could be broken down recovering hydrogen to feed into a sabatier reactor. The ESA ATV- supply ship can carry 1800LB of water to the ISS so if the LOP-G can get several supply ships a year they might accumulate part of the H2O needed to fuel the moon lander at least for the initial trip to the surface.

"Christopher Bloom yah, but even the current SLS design can't even deliver 40t to a lunar orbit, so you would need multiple SLS launches just to deliver the fuel for a single mission even if they were dedicated fueling missions " It would likely be one dedicated fuel trip and one co-manifested with Orion and crew fuel trip. You likely can't do 4 crew for 2 weeks with one heavy lift launch (Apollo didn't do that). Or 1 SLS and 1 FH/NG. Or 3 FH. Or 1 SLS with electric propulsion. Or lunar ISRU. Or asteroid ISRU. The Lockheed white paper I believe just says that NASA pays x amount for a kg of water and it is delivered by whatever means. edit: from the whitepaper: "Because of the high ∆Vs associated with deep space operations, and the objective of reusability as essential to sustainability, liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen are the most effective propellants. These components may be derived from water, the most ubiquitous resource in the solar system. Because it is also essential for breathing, drinking, plant growth and long-term viability of human populations, the commercial delivery of water will become a highly competitive industry sector. In a pay-by-the-gallon model, industry players are free to develop, evolve or optimize their own launch and delivery systems while providing NASA with more and more cost-effective options for refueling their reusable fleet spacecraft, thus concurrently advancing the overall sustainability of NASA’s programs while lowering barriers to further commercial activity. "

ISRU

It is a mod called principia, which adds real orbital mechanics to the game and change how maneuvers are planned.

Ah, and the orbital paths are part of it. Got it!

It might or might not be Euclidia.

With kerbals on board or with probes? With a probe, you might have lost connection to KSC (depending on your difficulty settings) With a manned craft: Maybe you ran out of Monoprop (likely if you did not add additional tanks) or out of electricity for the reaction wheels. Also possible in all situations that you accidentally hit time warp (no control at all during time warp) Scots problem was, that his craft had far to much thrust for its mass to be landable without throttling (the Engines he chose for the craft in the last scene could just not be throttled, only turned on off (with some delay I suppose) and that the crafts RCS engines were not designed for such extreme tasks (there really should be no need to be, in real life)

Kerbals on board. First SAS became useless and I couldn't do anything while still attached to my main stage. I detached thinking my lander stage would react to my input, but it too was dead. I have 3 or 4 of those little RCS things attached, and full fuel, with 3 small external tanks attached. I highlighted the RCS tab, and could then maneuver with that, but it was difficult to control. Those too went dead. I could only maneuver while the main rocket was burning, which made landing an interesting ordeal. Trying to slow my lateral velocity while keeping it upright and having to start and stop it so I could still fall toward the surface. Tipped over on landing but was able to get out and walk around. Clicking on the little thrusters showed them being full of fuel I guess. I'll have to read up on those. I'll add a solar panel or two also as I didn't have any of those.

The Gateway station orbits fairly high, so it takes more fuel to get to it from the lunar surface than it does to just get into lunar orbit. This is fuel that you take down from orbit just to take back up to orbit, so some savings could be realized just by leaving it in orbit in the first place.

to save money, just like the space shuttle

erase the need for bringing a complete Lander to the moon each time, but just the fuel needed to land. Even if the fuel for a multiple use lander weighs the same as a single use multi stage lander: - fuel is easier/way cheaper to produce and probably also to bring there - fuel can be used for multiple purposes - fuel could to some degree be generated in-situ

It would have to be a figure 8, I think.

The LOP-G plans have included a "commercially-developed lander" for awhile now.

tonas1997 I haven’t looked at the funding for a while now and I’m glad to see that Trump has actually requested funding for LOP-G. When I visited NASA last winter they didn’t have any money for their “plans.” Without funding, there is no plan. Congress apparently hasn’t actually approved any funds though. (If the Democrats win in November, there will be at least a two-year delay. They won’t want to give Trump anything he asks for.) It’s good to see that NASAs moon plans aren’t 100% smoke and mirrors now, at least.

nice.

I used to have faith in NASA but now fuck those cocksuckers. It's time we've had private corporations land on the moon that's the only way this will be done. Those motherfuckers high up at NASA wasting the assets of the program on stupid bullshit are the reason why we do not land on the moon again

Laura, NASA is the one basically giving all the money to those private corporations that you praise so much. Without NASA, those corporations would not exist today.

Yep, it’s full scale

Store it as water and split it up as you need it? Or just use a lot of energy to keep it all very cold and give it some pressure *edit: Ah you mean on the lander? Just Park your rocket in the shadow.... should be pretty cold then already

Yes, in theory that's possible. But IRL it would take a lot of energy, resources and time to convert water to LH+LOx, which won't make sense unless they have nuclear reactor on Lunar orbit. Which doesn't solve the problem with LH stored in Lander for two weeks, cause if they put Lander in shadow, they won't have solar power.

40 t of water split holds about 175 megawatt hours of energy. Let's just say you need double that power - 350 megawatt hours because of inefficiencies in the conversion and non-stoichiometric engine use. The gateway that this is based off of produces 40 kw or .96 megawatt-hours per day. It could therefore fuel this in about a year. ISS produces about 2.5x that, therefore it could fuel this in about 6 months. ISS in an orbit that isn't in shadow half the time would produce double that, which would translate to fuel production in 3 months.

ULA's ACES upper stage is magical cryo tank.

Theoretically perhaps, but it would have so many parts that the game wouldn't run.

Hmm we need a mod for that XD

This is a link to this particular stream.

Where is the link? I thought he used to put the full stream link in the description of these clips. How do I find the full version?

@@candlurn6073 my first reply to your comment is a link to Twitch where the full stream was made. I don't know if it's on KZfaq yet.

Your comment isn't a link, or it's not working. I'll try his Twitch page

The lunar gateway is already planned to be hydrogen based so I would assume LM would operate around that idea.

To be honest I think anything proposed by NASA or any of the aerospace companies feeding the federal government trough will never be anything more than pretty pictures and animations. NASA's track record in the recent past has been less than stellar with the exception of the stuff done at JPL. Why is this? First it is because of incoming administrations changing goals and policy. Second it is because certain individuals in Congress care more about the jobs related to NASA Centers than anything actually getting accomplished in terms of actual goals, hardware being built and flown or much of anything else. LockMart, Launch Alliance and others are willing to play the game. The Shuttle was retired over 8 years ago and we are still no where near having any man rated system. I suspect Musk will launch man rated Dragons or even the BFR before NASA and the rest of the trough feeders are close to having a flight ready vehicle.

I did on NASA TV. I still prefer simple rockets instead

I like the additional parts. I’ll have to look for that footage.

I'll keep my opinion on the LOP-G to myself at this point. However, don't forget that a republican led House of Representatives sabotaged the Commercial crew program in 2012 and 2013, leading to 2 year delays, which is the main reason, why "we" don't have access to space right now. And that the Trump administration tried to defund several important NASA science missions including the WFIRST telescope and NASA's Office of Education. Plus they cancelled the mission that would have tested our ability to deflect dangerous asteroids.

Elon Musk: "Hold my beer..."

It's from the mood Pricipia, wich models n-body Orbits and other orbital perturbations

Realism mods. Principia or something.

He uses the principia mod, which um.. Does stuff. Or something.

Prince of Persia mod, it intends rollific mechanisms including nnnnbody physics

I'm not 100% sure, someone would have to confirm this.. but it could be the principia mod? Anyone?

Probably both spacecrafts would be destroyed. The orbital craft travels with more than 7.8 km/s. The suborbital craft must be slower. And even a 'small' difference in speed (e.g. 100m/s = 360km/h) is a too fast impact.

The difference between suborbital and orbital at any given altitude is the horizontal velocity, so it would depend on how suborbital the craft was... the closing speeds could be faster than a bullet. But assuming that they could survive impacting with each other, their momentum would be conserved and the resulting velocity would be lower than the orbital craft's velocity,. This may or may not be low enough to make them both suborbital, depending on the initial velocities.

They’d have to match speeds

Are you describing a Fulton Recover in space?

As described before: the momentum (mass*speed) of both craft together would be the same as each separate crafts (before) added. This physical constraint / reality leaves you with the simple result that you cannot gain anything by this operation: You simply have to propel the orbiting craft prior to this move to the speed it needs to be able to perform it. Instead you can just propel your suborbital directly. This aspect of physical needs aside, just for the fact of doing it: In order to perform this at the lowest possible speed difference to be still an orbit after the 'catching', the orbiting craft needs to be way heavier than the suborbital one (to allow for a low as possible speed of the orbiting craft). Even if you are able to create a methode to 'catch' a suborbital craft with an (still much faster) flying orbiting craft, you'd need to implement some really fancy technologies to make the resulting acceleration bearable even for dead hardware, not to mention astronauts. Or, inversly, to make the 'catch' long / elastic enough that the accelerations get to a bearable level. Think about some x km long catching device...

But fluorine is really scary

So is oxygen, when you think about it for a bit.

The game is using a wider field of view than those pictures