@LeMagicBaguette @Zenithspeed nice idea, I suppose that’ what I (somewhat unknowingly) did with my Ta-Ti-Cu (Tantalum-Titanium-Copper) Heatshield on Titan (might also do on Artemis, the mega-rocket and the Vector Spaceplane). Tantalum has like a 4200 Kelvin melting point, Titanium reduces that a bit but decreases mass by a lot and Copper has high thermal conductivity. In case the LH2 doesn’t pump, the Ta-Ti-Cu Heatshield will be a good backup! Thanks :)
@SupremeDorian tysm <3 i’ve somehow been stupid enough to not notice the “create subassembly” in the top left, this helped so much, as i’m making a rocket with slanted engine nozzles for a Starship HLS-esque landing engine system and have had to experiment in subassemblies to do it, but haven’t been able to do it. Thanks again :)
Idk if this is a joke, but it made me die for a sec when I first heard it: due to pregnant people, the average number of skeletons in a body is above 1, because there are no boneless people to balance it out.
And yes, I am indeed. Comparing the nearly done launch system with the half-done LS is my point. I’m saying that Starship, despite being half-done, is, we’ll, I don’t like to say “better”, but SS is objectively better than SLS (or it will be, once it’s done, but it’s not far off, considering they’re going for cargo in 2025). It has more payload to LEO and can do it for just $2m as opposed to $4b per launch. SLS looks cool, but it’s stuck in the past. The obvious advantage that SS has over SLS is that it’s fully reusable, whatever we dispute or debate on, we can agree that reusable = good, I’m sure of that. You are right, we will have to see when the time comes, and I await with bated breath. However, it does look like SLS will be cancelled soon, what with Elon in DoGE, and Isaacman soon to be administrator of NASA. Plus, even at NASA right now, it seems to have shifted from 50-50 to 75-25 (in favour of cancellation). Dunno tho, we’ll see soon :)
@Insanity Ok, fair enough. R&D is expensive. SLS worked perfectly** (Orion Heatshield). Payload to orbit is a useless metric, considering the Starship test launches weren’t meant to put anything in orbit in the first place, kinda a moot point. $2m per launch is reasonable, as with a FRLV, all you have to pay for is ground support (minimal), worker time (like, 10-20k max), very brief refurbishment costs (minimal) and fuel. The fuel is nowhere near $2m, that’d be absolute insanity. It’s roughly 200k. Admittedly, there is some unproven tech left for Starship such as a ship catch, but that’s been reinforced by booster catch being proven. Not to mention, they can just use small landing legs like we saw on the 15km hops if they abandon ship catches. Orbital prop transfer was shown in IFT-3 when they transferred some prop from the header tanks to the main tanks and back during the coast phase. I, personally, can absolutely see Starship fully replacing SLS. With Isaacman (extremely pro-SpaceX) as head of NASA and Elon as head of DoGE, it’s likely SLS will be cancelled sooner rather than later. Starship has better payload capacity, and even if it ends up costing $20m per launch, it’ll still be far cheaper than SLS. And may I remind you that SLS was meant to be cheap? It used old shuttle hardware, the entire idea with that was to basically just slop ‘em together and go (simplified) in a few years (first flight meant for 2015, block 1b meant for 2017), and for a low cost at that. Instead, it took them 11 years just to get a single rocket in the air, and their next one is facing a 4-5 year delay. As for HLS, 29 is far too many. Starship V2 can hold ~1600t of propellant. Assuming 1 launch for HLS and another for a Depot, and assuming each tanker can hold 130t of fuel (Starship V2 has a payload capacity of 100-150 tons to LEO, but it has been hinted at that it’s in the upper range of those numbers). 1600 / 130 = 12.308. 1 launch for HLS, one for a Depot and 13 tankers, since you can’t have 12.3 rockets. The extra 0.7 of fuel can account for boiloff, I suppose, even though it’s only 3 weeks until HLS is completely empty. That’s 15 launches. 20 is a bold overstatement.
@Toinkove I suppose, but now that they have gotten a good grip on the Starship design, they’re moving at absurd rates. Just look at the upper stage, for instance. As soon as they got data on the flight 4 damage, they fixed the issue (mostly), and on Flight 5, the damage was minimal, and on flight 6, practically nonexistent. (Aside from the place where they removed tiles, but the damage from that was expected) They iterate so fast, i fully expect them to meet the uncrewed mars landing date of 2026, and if all goes well, I expect them to meet the manned landing date in 2028. If they can do an uncrewed Mars landing by 2026, and get the crew version finished in, let’s say, mid-2027, they can do a crewed lunar landing by late ‘27 or early ‘28. Considering Artemis II is currently scheduled for ‘26 or ‘27, that’s much earlier than the current Artemis III plan.
@Toinkove i mean, they’re aiming for 2026-27 for an uncrewed test of a crewed starship variant, then another with crew onboard. Shouldn’t be too bad, plus, they’re SpaceX. They can (and will) spend 2025 working on reusability and orbital refilling, presumably with life support and stuff in the background. NASA will likely help with life support systems, since it will play into Artemis (HLS or not). These factors will likely mean that Starship Crew is ready by ‘27. Plus, even if it does get delayed to ‘29-30, they may still beat China. Hopefully the US gov will wake up and realise space is important. Maybe when they see China is a threat. They don’t seem to think that (morons). Orion can be used, but… let’s be honest, it’s not great. A small capsule for 6 days travel time. Maybe we can go for a sort of Falcon Heavy / Orion deal for Artemis II? It could just barely work if the side boosters are expended. Honestly, I’m just happy SLS is probably done
@ExplorationMS oh, interesting. I have similar experience (playing since mid 2023 until around September this year), and I think they can make a decent 3d space exploration game. I also think that they can add some new features to spice it up a bit. Do I think they’ll steal JNO’s playerbase? Absolutely not. SFS &, so far, what we’ve seen of SFS 2, aren’t that realistic. For instance, you can lithobrake, engines have fixed thrust and Isp, the atmosphere has the same drag all through and then suddenly cuts off when u reach vacuum, etc. It also just doesn’t have some of JNO’s unique features like planes, lift, jets, propellers, submarines, boats, & customisable parts. I do, however, think, that it’ll be a nice supplement for KSP players who want to play on mobile. It’s basically mobile KSP with less stuff.
@lafario you can edit them however you want, then go onto “posting.cc” (the site) and you can upload it, copy the link and use the “post formatting guide” to do the rest :)
@lafario you can’t add videos to uploads but there’s a separate video function on the community tab, it lets u upload videos to here from yt. If u’r talking about photos, then go the the forums and check out Mostly’s “Post Formatting Guide” it’s great :)
SFS 2 won’t have planes, wings, jet engines, part customisation or anything JNO has that really sets it apart from the rest. SFS 2 is, rather literally, SFS but with a few more features and 3D. JNO won’t fall lol
I’ve not been able to get the new update, will do some time this week, but… BLOOD? WHAT?!
+2 2 months ago@Ceya ohmygod PLEASE DO
+2 5 months agoHell yes, it feels kinda lifeless
+2 5 months ago@LeMagicBaguette @Zenithspeed nice idea, I suppose that’ what I (somewhat unknowingly) did with my Ta-Ti-Cu (Tantalum-Titanium-Copper) Heatshield on Titan (might also do on Artemis, the mega-rocket and the Vector Spaceplane). Tantalum has like a 4200 Kelvin melting point, Titanium reduces that a bit but decreases mass by a lot and Copper has high thermal conductivity. In case the LH2 doesn’t pump, the Ta-Ti-Cu Heatshield will be a good backup! Thanks :)
+1 2 months ago@Toinkove indeed, however
SLS:
Cost (Including stuff like R&D): ~$10b
Cost per flight: ~$4b
First flight intended date: 2015 (believe it or not, this was the intended first flight date!)
First flight actual date: Nov 2022
Number of flights: 1
Progress since first flight: Orion heat shield problem somewhat fixed
Starship:
Cost (including stuff like R&D): ~$1-2b
Cost per flight: ~$100m (test flights) $2m (operational)
First flight initial date (after design was mostly finished): 2022
Actual first flight date: April 2023
Number of flights: 6, 7 in January
Progress since first flight: engines advanced hugely, prop slosh and clogging issues fixed, heat shield evolved, successfully survived reentry 3 times, successfully performed 4 propulsive landings (3 flights + SN15), caught booster, working on catching ship, new ship version undergoing testing
That’s quite a lot
+1 2 months ago@ExplorationMS lol
+1 2 months ago@ExplorationMS KSP 2 Flashbacks
[when I can I’ll insert the thousand yard stare here]
Thousand ΔV Stare
+1 2 months ago@lafario hai
+1 3 months agoNice!
+1 4 months ago@QuantumSpaceIndustries :DDDDDDD
+1 4 months ago@deepfriedfrenchtoast nom nom
+1 4 months ago@Toinkove lol
+1 4 months ago@Mostly it worked! Tysm <3
+1 5 months ago@Spaceman2004 oh, hey, I did a similar thing. I quit sfs in, like, February, march, that kinda time. And I haven’t looked back since
+1 5 months ago@BeastHunter k, since I posted this, i’ve seen a video about it and it doesn’t seem to have them, yeah.
+1 6 months ago@deepfriedfrenchtoast yeah, so you have to use the annoying number that appears after the name on spent stages, which is really impractical lol
+1 6 months ago@SupremeDorian tysm <3 i’ve somehow been stupid enough to not notice the “create subassembly” in the top left, this helped so much, as i’m making a rocket with slanted engine nozzles for a Starship HLS-esque landing engine system and have had to experiment in subassemblies to do it, but haven’t been able to do it. Thanks again :)
+1 6 months ago@VectronTechnologies I suppose, but a brick too XD
one month agoWhat’s red and bad for your teeth?
A brick.
one month agoIdk if this is a joke, but it made me die for a sec when I first heard it: due to pregnant people, the average number of skeletons in a body is above 1, because there are no boneless people to balance it out.
one month ago@Skye93 autocorrect strikes again “we’ll”
2 months ago@Toinkove lol, we’ll, they have 9 brains (sorta)!
2 months ago*yro’ue (I kid, I kid)
And yes, I am indeed. Comparing the nearly done launch system with the half-done LS is my point. I’m saying that Starship, despite being half-done, is, we’ll, I don’t like to say “better”, but SS is objectively better than SLS (or it will be, once it’s done, but it’s not far off, considering they’re going for cargo in 2025). It has more payload to LEO and can do it for just $2m as opposed to $4b per launch. SLS looks cool, but it’s stuck in the past. The obvious advantage that SS has over SLS is that it’s fully reusable, whatever we dispute or debate on, we can agree that reusable = good, I’m sure of that. You are right, we will have to see when the time comes, and I await with bated breath. However, it does look like SLS will be cancelled soon, what with Elon in DoGE, and Isaacman soon to be administrator of NASA. Plus, even at NASA right now, it seems to have shifted from 50-50 to 75-25 (in favour of cancellation). Dunno tho, we’ll see soon :)
2 months ago@Insanity Ok, fair enough. R&D is expensive. SLS worked perfectly** (Orion Heatshield). Payload to orbit is a useless metric, considering the Starship test launches weren’t meant to put anything in orbit in the first place, kinda a moot point. $2m per launch is reasonable, as with a FRLV, all you have to pay for is ground support (minimal), worker time (like, 10-20k max), very brief refurbishment costs (minimal) and fuel. The fuel is nowhere near $2m, that’d be absolute insanity. It’s roughly 200k. Admittedly, there is some unproven tech left for Starship such as a ship catch, but that’s been reinforced by booster catch being proven. Not to mention, they can just use small landing legs like we saw on the 15km hops if they abandon ship catches. Orbital prop transfer was shown in IFT-3 when they transferred some prop from the header tanks to the main tanks and back during the coast phase. I, personally, can absolutely see Starship fully replacing SLS. With Isaacman (extremely pro-SpaceX) as head of NASA and Elon as head of DoGE, it’s likely SLS will be cancelled sooner rather than later. Starship has better payload capacity, and even if it ends up costing $20m per launch, it’ll still be far cheaper than SLS. And may I remind you that SLS was meant to be cheap? It used old shuttle hardware, the entire idea with that was to basically just slop ‘em together and go (simplified) in a few years (first flight meant for 2015, block 1b meant for 2017), and for a low cost at that. Instead, it took them 11 years just to get a single rocket in the air, and their next one is facing a 4-5 year delay. As for HLS, 29 is far too many. Starship V2 can hold ~1600t of propellant. Assuming 1 launch for HLS and another for a Depot, and assuming each tanker can hold 130t of fuel (Starship V2 has a payload capacity of 100-150 tons to LEO, but it has been hinted at that it’s in the upper range of those numbers). 1600 / 130 = 12.308. 1 launch for HLS, one for a Depot and 13 tankers, since you can’t have 12.3 rockets. The extra 0.7 of fuel can account for boiloff, I suppose, even though it’s only 3 weeks until HLS is completely empty. That’s 15 launches. 20 is a bold overstatement.
2 months ago@Toinkove I suppose, but it might be better to not use it as a crutch due to the $4b per launch cost
2 months ago@Toinkove I suppose, but now that they have gotten a good grip on the Starship design, they’re moving at absurd rates. Just look at the upper stage, for instance. As soon as they got data on the flight 4 damage, they fixed the issue (mostly), and on Flight 5, the damage was minimal, and on flight 6, practically nonexistent. (Aside from the place where they removed tiles, but the damage from that was expected) They iterate so fast, i fully expect them to meet the uncrewed mars landing date of 2026, and if all goes well, I expect them to meet the manned landing date in 2028. If they can do an uncrewed Mars landing by 2026, and get the crew version finished in, let’s say, mid-2027, they can do a crewed lunar landing by late ‘27 or early ‘28. Considering Artemis II is currently scheduled for ‘26 or ‘27, that’s much earlier than the current Artemis III plan.
2 months ago@Toinkove i mean, they’re aiming for 2026-27 for an uncrewed test of a crewed starship variant, then another with crew onboard. Shouldn’t be too bad, plus, they’re SpaceX. They can (and will) spend 2025 working on reusability and orbital refilling, presumably with life support and stuff in the background. NASA will likely help with life support systems, since it will play into Artemis (HLS or not). These factors will likely mean that Starship Crew is ready by ‘27. Plus, even if it does get delayed to ‘29-30, they may still beat China. Hopefully the US gov will wake up and realise space is important. Maybe when they see China is a threat. They don’t seem to think that (morons). Orion can be used, but… let’s be honest, it’s not great. A small capsule for 6 days travel time. Maybe we can go for a sort of Falcon Heavy / Orion deal for Artemis II? It could just barely work if the side boosters are expended. Honestly, I’m just happy SLS is probably done
2 months ago@ExplorationMS oh, interesting. I have similar experience (playing since mid 2023 until around September this year), and I think they can make a decent 3d space exploration game. I also think that they can add some new features to spice it up a bit. Do I think they’ll steal JNO’s playerbase? Absolutely not. SFS &, so far, what we’ve seen of SFS 2, aren’t that realistic. For instance, you can lithobrake, engines have fixed thrust and Isp, the atmosphere has the same drag all through and then suddenly cuts off when u reach vacuum, etc. It also just doesn’t have some of JNO’s unique features like planes, lift, jets, propellers, submarines, boats, & customisable parts. I do, however, think, that it’ll be a nice supplement for KSP players who want to play on mobile. It’s basically mobile KSP with less stuff.
2 months ago@Corry1357 have fun!
3 months ago@SpaceCoastCorp ah ok
3 months ago@Spacesailors123643 ye
3 months ago@SpaceCoastCorp hallelujah (lol)
3 months ago@Spacesailors123643 plus it looks amazing, regardless
3 months ago@Spacesailors123643 you never mentioned cheese lol
3 months ago@Spacesailors123643 a rotted orange isn’t blue lol
4 months ago@Spacesailors123643 wdym “flyed” lol
4 months agoI know this is a pretty long post, but eh. Any questions? I’ll happily answer them :D
4 months agoYou’re back from the dead!
4 months ago@lafario you can edit them however you want, then go onto “posting.cc” (the site) and you can upload it, copy the link and use the “post formatting guide” to do the rest :)
4 months ago@Aludra877 np :)
4 months ago@lafario y’welcome :)
4 months ago@lafario np :)
4 months ago@lafario you can’t add videos to uploads but there’s a separate video function on the community tab, it lets u upload videos to here from yt. If u’r talking about photos, then go the the forums and check out Mostly’s “Post Formatting Guide” it’s great :)
4 months ago@lafario ye :)
4 months ago@lafario just go onto forums, new post, announcement, and type about the post :)
4 months agoGl
4 months agoYEEEAHHHHH
4 months ago@deepfriedfrenchtoast oh yeah, absolutely. SFS 2 is nothing like JNO, but it will have a good purpose as a mobile KSP
5 months agoSFS 2 won’t have planes, wings, jet engines, part customisation or anything JNO has that really sets it apart from the rest. SFS 2 is, rather literally, SFS but with a few more features and 3D. JNO won’t fall lol
5 months ago@ExplorationAerospace NEVERRRR
5 months ago