Upon further investigation: You also have a faulty "Command Disc". When you click on the command unit in the designer, there is a sub-menu titled "pitch control". This is NOT a standard property listed when I pull a generic "Command Disc" from the parts menu.
........
I replaced the command unit from your build with a NEW one from parts list and the erratic behavior ceased.
........
The command Disc seems to have been tinkered with, On the "Parts" section (in tinker panel advanced properties) there is extra line labeled "RootPart". There also seems to be an extra page of properties for the disc called "Input Controller" (this is likely why there is an extra sub-menu mentioned above). Whatever has been tinkered with regarding this part, it has obviously broken it's ability to function (hence why the tinker panel warns "use at your own risk")
Ok so …… there’s a few things terribly wrong with that craft.
……..
1. The engine is WAYYY too powerful. Its starting thrust-to-weight ratio (TWR) is 744! I throttle up to just 1-2% throttle and still get a TWR near 5 to 7 (that quickly increases to 10, 16, 20). You only really need a starting TWR around 1.4 to 1.6. I can’t even get the craft to orbit, it accelerates to Mach 8 in 30 seconds, then begins to take heat damage because it’s going to fast through the atmosphere then explodes!
……..
2. You need to enable a gimbaling range on the engine. You need to do this in order to steer the rocket. If you’re attempting to use a gyroscope to steer the rocket during liftoff it’s just not gonna work (this is not what gyroscopes in the game were designed for)
What are you using the gyroscope for?
………
They’re designed to orientate a craft that is in orbit, any task beyond that could result in odd behavior (or more likely just very poor performance).
It’s pretty easy really!
……..
You made 30 million on “Brigo Orbit”, between 90 and 200 million on the following orbit contract (depending on weather it was Brigo, Luna or T.T.) and you should have easily been able to complete those contracts for less then 5 million (took me only 3.15 each). So you should be literally swimming in money by the time this contract pops up and can take a low payout!
……..
Later in the game, as the “Flyby” and “Orbit” contracts keep reappearing: you are expected to pair those exorbitant paying contracts with these under paying ones (example: pair “Brigo Flyby” and/or “Brigo orbit” with one of the “Brigo Explorer/Observer/Surveyor” contracts).
Not that I can be of much help here,
Just found out I have 10 followers (that info has always been available, I just never looked for it before) and as you can prolly tell by my lowly point count, I don’t post a lot of crafts or even attempt to run up my points on this site (or any other). In the last 3 years I mostly just browse the forums and try to provide technical support for those needing it, that and playing the game is where I get enjoyment and not so much from trying to be the most popular here (as gauged by points or upvotes).
………..
I’m sure there is a method to getting a lot of followers and running up a metric crap ton of points (like making extremely detailed and interesting craft and sharing them, getting a ton of downloads/upvotes) but it takes a lot of effort, not just making those craft but keeping at it and posting new good craft every few days! In other words, it’s almost a full time job for some!
…………
There’s almost certainly a fair amount of luck involved as well. Like in any new business, will your idea/product be the next big thing or a total flop? And let’s not forget that those players who already have 40 million points and 10 craft on the “hottest” list are more likely to have their next build take off and become extremely popular then if they posted that same great craft with a brand new account! So there’s a lot of factors involved here, if that’s what you want from this site just keep at it (and frequently) and with a bit of luck and some hard work you just might get there.
Actually nvm there's an easier way if this is the "simple Beast" command module.
........
just click on its docking port and disconnect the "base" from the "crew tunnel" and reconnect it to the "surface" of the "bruno capsule"
Unless you're referring to the "Simple Beast" that's downloaded with the game, It would help if we could see the craft in question!
.......
However, I looked at the "simple Beast" Command & Lunar module and it appears there is an issue with it and might also be the case with whatever design you're using.
.....
in order to facilitate "crew transfer" you must have a "space Habitat" (or one of the space capsules) connected either directly to another "Space habitat" or connected with a pair of docking ports between them. In other words, you can't have any other part (like a "fuel tank") in between a "space habitat" to "space habitat" (or "space habitat" to "docking port") connection!
.......
in the case of the "Simple Beast" command module, it appears the capsule has a "fuel tank" (that's labeled 'crew tunnel') between it and the docking port. Unfortunately "fuel tanks" will not hold crew members or allow them to pass through! If you did want to make it so a crew could transfer through you would need to remove that part and replace it w/ a "space habitat" section of the same dimensions.
Increase forward friction of the wheels (landing gear)! Generally the forward gear are fine (can leave them alone) and you then want the rear wheels to have twice the forward friction of the front gear. This solved practically ALL my take off issues!
My “Pocket Rocket Juno Village Racer” is more then capable of completing the first “cutting corners” air race! (You only need to complete the first one for progression and she isn’t quite fast enough for round 3,4 or 5).
…….
The download has sufficient instructions on how to fly her to get started.
@BlackVoidAerospace yeah it would be neat to have them but I honestly don’t know how much more complicated that would be or how much more computing power it would require (keep in mind most players here seem to be on mobile devices). But since even KSP doesn’t have them I can understand why they didn’t bother to add them!
@InherentUnstable I’d only call the career games “barebones”.
……
I can’t speak for the developers in any way but I get the sense career games were not originally conceived by the team. But because of another game, not to be named, it was a feature repeatedly requested that they eventually committed to adding! And they did, it’s just rather basic in nature!
No it does not model Lagrange points!
……..
I believe Kerbal Space Program has a mod that will add those in, but don’t think this game has a similar mod yet. You can check the mods list to make sure however.
Well I don’t think this game is “in development” anymore. Again I don’t want to say they will NEVER come back to it (and they have thankfully addressed some bugs with career games recently even if a little slow) but otherwise this game seems rather complete.
@InherentUnstable ok so just adding in more propellant options in general, whether that’s more fuel or oxidizer options and the ability to independently select them.
…….
Well there are mods out there that add in more propellant combinations. They seem to have decided to leave this task to modders rather then putting them into the main game (though they have incorporated some mods made by players into the base game in updates before).
………
But as for having independently selectable fuels and oxidizers: this would likely require some amount of tweaking to the game code to allow for it (similar to the ability to change fuel/oxidizer mixture ratios would which they have previously rejected as a feature). The developers main focus right now seem to be on completing their new game SimplePlanes 2. Though I can’t say for sure they won’t come back to this game at some point and add onto it, it’s likely going to be some time before they do.
@InherentUnstable ok yeah!
…….
That feature has been requested a few times in the past and rejected by the developers, likely won’t be added unless they dramatically change course.
Well this is the first time I’ve EVER seen this addressed by anyone so:
…….
To answer your question: No one seems to have thought it was a bad idea until 2025!
Lolololol uh what!
…….
There’s only one oxidizer type in game, and it’s paired with all 3 fuel types that require oxidizer. Or are you more specifically wanting to control the fuel/oxidizer mixture ratios.
@BlueStarAerospace Yeah I'm prolly recalling the same graphic renderings you've seen, one of the most notable being the image a top the Wikipedia page "Dleta (Rocket Family)". Prolly just drawn that way out of ease (hesitate to call it laziness as they musta spent some time making that diagram).
......
Though I've been unable to verify the color of an uninsulated Delta IV tank (without the orangish foam coating), I can say that the Delta II & III blueish color appears to be due to the primer paint color originally used on these "Extended Long Tank Thor" boosters! Originally (prolly in the late 60's early 70's) they painted over top the primer with a white coat of paint but then decided to forgo that step and just leave the blueish primer coat as the main color to save weight. This also helped them better identify where ice formed (over the liquid oxygen sections of the tank) but they also just liked the color as well so it all worked out!
........
WB BTW after your computer hiccups and thinks for making me look into this topic! More useless information I'll never ever need but it's always fun to learn some stuff!
@deepfriedfrenchtoast I kind of doubt this because by the time the Delta IV was proposed (in 1994) they would have known that painting over the foam was a counterproductive step that only added more weight to the vehicle (that lesson was learned with the space shuttle in the early 80’s). I suspect whoever rendered the drawings that depict the Delta IV with the same blue green painted tanks that previous Delta launch vehicles was just uninformed.
Yeah a solid rocket first stage (not as strap on boosters but used by themselves) are unfortunately very hard to control not having engines that can gimbal (which some in reality can actually do and should be a feature in game). I did manage to solve that problem somewhat by using very large “multidirectional RCS” but…
……
I ultimately gave up on an Ares I type concept because the price of solid rocket engines spiked dramatically in one of the more recent updates! Two and a half years ago I could make an orbital launch vehicle using a solid rocket first stage (with engine) for around 1/5 the cost of a liquid fueled equivalent. But after that update the price increased so much that the liquid rocket version actually became slightly less expensive!
I assume you’ve found on the flight instrument panel the box that shows where your craft is relative to Droos surface in Lat/Long?
……..
The problem is that in the time it takes your craft to reach that point, Droo rotates below you so when you conduct your geosynchronous orbit burn you are no longer “hovering” over the spot you meant to be!
……
I’ve only found two ways to get this correct. First is just trial and error! Once in a low orbit (200 km let’s say) “quick save” then place your burn node and see where you end up at apogee. Then if you fail just “quick load” and make adjustments till you get it correct! I know it might seem like cheating but this is how I place a geostationary sat up usualy!
……..
Second method is more time consuming but more realistic if you prefer. Place the payload into an orbit close to 8800 km and see where it is relative to droos surface. If it is W of the 39E location then go into a lower orbit then 8800 km and your craft will slowly but surly drift to the east until over the location you want. Then burn your engines to raise the orbit to the desired 8800 km! If you are too far E of the 39E location the do the exact opposite! Go into a orbit higher then 8803 km causing droo to rotate faster then your craft until your desired location “catches up” to you craft (then just like the other case, lower your orbit to the desired 8800 km)
Yeah I had to look up the SOI boundary (don't know that one off hand). Seems Droo's SOI extends out too 412 Mm (million meters) so that would be ... 412,000 km right
.......
Although I actually can get an apogee of 413 Mm before leaving Droo orbit when playing with a burn node. So the SOI extends somewhere to 412-413 Mm
......
And just for reference: Geostationary Orbit is around 8802 km!
As far as pressure goes: at around 100 km above Earth air pressure becomes 0.0 kPa! Going off Earth and Droo’s diameters the is would translate to about 20 km above Droo. But as previously stated, Droo’s atmosphere isn’t scaled back as much as Droo’s volume relative to earth! Droo’s atmosphere drops to 0.00 kPa at around 78.1-78.2 km.
…….
So for atmospheric comparison you can set 100km above earth equal to 78.2 on Droo!
…….
The specific boundaries between LEO, MEO and HEO as far as I can tell were simply set at certain altitudes for definitional purposes and not necessarily because of any major orbital property differences between them (beyond the obvious one of having different orbital periods). I’m not sure if you were to scale them to Droo if you would want to scale them to there physical distance above Droos surface or scaled to the atmospheric properties of Droos atmosphere. I’m not even sure scaling them makes any sense or weather Droo should entirely have its own diffrent boundaries for these types of orbits to be honest!
Well there’s a bit of a problem with this:
……..
As you correctly mention Droo is scaled smaller then Earth in terms of diameter. But the atmospheric properties of Droo are not scaled back as much as Droo’s physical properties are.
…….
For example: The ISS orbits earth about 420km above earth, this is equivalent to about 84 km above Droo. You can actually orbit earth for a while at around 200km but the equivalent for Droo would be 40km (which is an impossible orbit for Droo). So as you can see Droo’s atmosphere and physical size are scaled back relative to earths but not proportionately, Droos atmosphere is more dense then earths is (assuming earth was scaled down to the size of Droo). Hopefully that makes sense!
……..
So this makes answering your question a bit difficult. Altitudes relative to Droo’s size? Or relative to parameters of Droos atmosphere?
@AstrumY “not necessarily unexpected”
……
Ok well if it was the plan was for starship to be destroyed in flight when it was (about 8:30 into the flight) then I’ll revise my assessment. But if not, sounds like we’re just lowering the standards so we can claim success.
Correct, the booster landed back at the launch site! Unfortunately that's far less mission critical then keeping your primary craft (and payload) from exploding!
@BlueStarAerospace
......
Care to share your solution?
......
Unfortunately although this game gave us a very nice military style cockpit (a sorta F-16 style one) they kinda neglected to add in an ejection seat to it! I've seen a few players try and design an ejection seats but they usually end up rather bulky and a bit unaesthetic in appearance, So just curious as to weather or not you improved on their designs.
.......
Not that I condone ejection seats on rockets, they were always somewhat controversial (particularly on Project Gemini, less so with STS 1-4 and Vostok) but they could be nice for some fighter aircraft designs in game!
@Skye93 I guess my iPhone Auto-text fill was confirming you are whole. It has also confirmed polite people to be "well manured" and that octopus have 8 testicles. Wish I was joking but it's happened!
“Payload to orbit is a useless metric, considering the Starship test launches weren’t meant to put anything in orbit in the first place”
………..
You’re whole comparison of the two programs was moot given SLS has demonstrated it can get the Orion MPCV to the moon and back, and starship still has yet to demonstrate: ability to get HLS built and into orbit, fueling platform built and into orbit, 10-20 refueling starships into orbit and docked, HLS to the moon and landed on the surface. You’re comparing a nearly completed launch system to one that isn’t even half way to accomplishing what it’s intended to do.
………..
I don’t think too many here are gonna take issue with your original talking point here about the SLS. But you throw out a lot of figures and dates (without any citation I might add so must be questioned) that are extremely optimistic, much like they did with SLS as well! Unfortunately no amount of posts are going to resolve what will happen in the future (we’ll only know in time, 2027-28 according to OP). But I will definitely be bookmarking this post and eagerly awaiting revisiting it in the future to see if any of these events occur as predicted!
@ExplorationMS well it strikes me there are two different philosophies going there!
……….
NASA/SLS: delay, delay, delay until everything is almost perfect and the system works on the first try!
………
SpaceX/Starship: launch, make correction then repeat until the system eventually works! (Similar to the early NASA days)
………
I’m not inclined to state which method is best, SLS has worked, Starship not quite there yet. But they may have had different program start dates, different program deadlines, and so on.
Then again when you say SLS is “done” (assuming you are correct) you don’t specify exactly when she is done! This does leave open the possibility to use SLS as a sort of crutch until a better launch platform is developed/completed.
……………….
That would likely be best option to keep the current program on track. Use that platform for the first 2 or 3 missions then transition over to a more sensible launch platform!
I remember the old “constellation program” with its Aries rockets, and President George Bush announcing (in 2004) our intent to return people to the moon by 2020!
……..
Didn’t Elon state in 2016 plans to launch the first manned mars mission in 2024 (to land in 2025)
……………
I think what’s being missed here is: every time they drastically change the logistical platform for getting to “wherever”, it sets the goal back at least 5-10 years! Perhaps this time will be diffrent and everything will go perfectly as planned! But the history doesn’t suggest this to be the case at all!
“Just use a normal crew starship” … you do understand no such craft exists! It’ll have to be designed, approved by NASA, tested, in short that would push the first crewed flight back to 2029-2030 (assuming they even let a crew launch in a craft without a launch abort system).
………..
There might be other launch systems for Orion but with them recently pushing back the Artemis 2 mission into 2027 it’s looking more and more like we’re prolly not going back to the moon. There’s no real appetite among the public to do so (I mean among the real people outside of us handful of nerds) and no outside force pushing us to do so like there was in the 60’s.
Unfortunately that’s the new mechanism how they get people to make accounts! You can sometimes get lucky and find a direct address to a video (or if someone posts the direct address to said video) but often times you’ll just get a onsite “search result” and then if you want to select + view the video, you need the account!
————
Twitter/X has done the same with viewing posts (only see top rated posts on someone’s account but if you want to see “most recent” you need an account to select that option) likewise Facebook allows you to usualy see a handful of someone’s posts, but scroll down too far (or try viewing comments) and you’ll find you need an account!
————
Sadly this is just how these cooperations attain new members and I don’t see this changing prolly ever!
This is the sixth such post I’ve seen on SR2 forums of a player accidentally deleting the station. I can say with high degree of confidence that you never received a reply because there is NO KNOWN FIX for this issue!
……….
You’ll likely have to restart the game to
Fix this!
@ExplorationMS Droo is 1247 km in diameter whereas Cladh is 666 km. So about half…..
………….
ADD: Luna is 350 km and Clyero is 674 km. So it’s closest to the Clyero in size.
Any controlling of a separate craft will have to be done using the Vizzy programming!
…….
However once you get beyond 10 kilometers of another craft no control is possible. Craft beyond that distance actuality despawn and do not exists (only exist as an invisible place holder).
I got this when “validating” system files a few times! Turned out in doing that many of the planets I downloaded (that other players uploaded to this site) had been deleted! I had to re-download this planets to get the custom system to work again.
……….
So somehow you’ve lost files associated with the planetary system you made! Hopefully you made or can find backups of them!
Highest point in the orbit above planet/moon sea level, no?
……..
Pretty sure, for instance, if you place your apogee (or perigee) above Brigo’s giant Crater, it gives the height above “sea level” but you will still have 20-30 km above ground level.
Could be many reasons for this: would help to see the craft in question but….
……….
If you have a gyroscope in the craft, it will of course try to keep the heading locked during a burn. This will use battery power so you need to make sure you have enough battery (and a way to recharge it) so it does not run out. If the batteries were to run out of power in this situation the gyro will cease operating and a spin could ensue.
………..
Also sounds like maybe your center of thrust (CoT) and center of mass (CoM) might not be aligned well enough. When CoT and CoM are not aligned this will cause the craft to point a few degrees off from where it should be pointed during the burn (and lead to less accurate burns). It probibly is possible to have those two so out of line that even a gyro will not be able keep the craft pointed in a steady direction and the craft begins to tumble (or as previously stated if the gyro runs out of power) Agian we’d really need to see this craft to diagnose the issue but there’s a starting point.
Unless someone else chimes in with exact coordinates (might happen but this forum can have a lot of unanswered posts), you’ll prolly need to send a rover to do some exploring near some equatorial spots. You’re unlikely to find a perfectly flat area but there are surly some with very gentle sloping somewhere on the ridge tops (the lighter color areas next to the darker colored ridges on that moon). I’ve found a few areas like this but do not know the exact coordinates.
@Pandariptor doesn’t really matter.
………
1. Because these ideas have already been suggested several times.
…….
2. The suggestions page was closed down some time ago because most of the suggestions (like this one) were just duplicate suggestions.
………..
You can still add a “suggestions” tag apparently, but that seems more for other players who are searching through forum posts then anything.
@SDNS well you’re gonna find a realistic design nearly impossible to duplicate anyhow! The Juno system is scaled differently than Earth’s! So if you try to replicate a real world rocket (same size, same mass, same amount of fuel, same fill in the blank) it’s going to over perform in the scaled back system …… and not be “realistic”. You’re going to have to make some compromises to make it look like it’s real life counterpart and perform similarly.
Upon further investigation: You also have a faulty "Command Disc". When you click on the command unit in the designer, there is a sub-menu titled "pitch control". This is NOT a standard property listed when I pull a generic "Command Disc" from the parts menu.
one month ago........
I replaced the command unit from your build with a NEW one from parts list and the erratic behavior ceased.
........
The command Disc seems to have been tinkered with, On the "Parts" section (in tinker panel advanced properties) there is extra line labeled "RootPart". There also seems to be an extra page of properties for the disc called "Input Controller" (this is likely why there is an extra sub-menu mentioned above). Whatever has been tinkered with regarding this part, it has obviously broken it's ability to function (hence why the tinker panel warns "use at your own risk")
Ok so …… there’s a few things terribly wrong with that craft.
one month ago……..
1. The engine is WAYYY too powerful. Its starting thrust-to-weight ratio (TWR) is 744! I throttle up to just 1-2% throttle and still get a TWR near 5 to 7 (that quickly increases to 10, 16, 20). You only really need a starting TWR around 1.4 to 1.6. I can’t even get the craft to orbit, it accelerates to Mach 8 in 30 seconds, then begins to take heat damage because it’s going to fast through the atmosphere then explodes!
……..
2. You need to enable a gimbaling range on the engine. You need to do this in order to steer the rocket. If you’re attempting to use a gyroscope to steer the rocket during liftoff it’s just not gonna work (this is not what gyroscopes in the game were designed for)
What are you using the gyroscope for?
one month ago………
They’re designed to orientate a craft that is in orbit, any task beyond that could result in odd behavior (or more likely just very poor performance).
It’s pretty easy really!
one month ago……..
You made 30 million on “Brigo Orbit”, between 90 and 200 million on the following orbit contract (depending on weather it was Brigo, Luna or T.T.) and you should have easily been able to complete those contracts for less then 5 million (took me only 3.15 each). So you should be literally swimming in money by the time this contract pops up and can take a low payout!
……..
Later in the game, as the “Flyby” and “Orbit” contracts keep reappearing: you are expected to pair those exorbitant paying contracts with these under paying ones (example: pair “Brigo Flyby” and/or “Brigo orbit” with one of the “Brigo Explorer/Observer/Surveyor” contracts).
Not that I can be of much help here,
+4 2 months agoJust found out I have 10 followers (that info has always been available, I just never looked for it before) and as you can prolly tell by my lowly point count, I don’t post a lot of crafts or even attempt to run up my points on this site (or any other). In the last 3 years I mostly just browse the forums and try to provide technical support for those needing it, that and playing the game is where I get enjoyment and not so much from trying to be the most popular here (as gauged by points or upvotes).
………..
I’m sure there is a method to getting a lot of followers and running up a metric crap ton of points (like making extremely detailed and interesting craft and sharing them, getting a ton of downloads/upvotes) but it takes a lot of effort, not just making those craft but keeping at it and posting new good craft every few days! In other words, it’s almost a full time job for some!
…………
There’s almost certainly a fair amount of luck involved as well. Like in any new business, will your idea/product be the next big thing or a total flop? And let’s not forget that those players who already have 40 million points and 10 craft on the “hottest” list are more likely to have their next build take off and become extremely popular then if they posted that same great craft with a brand new account! So there’s a lot of factors involved here, if that’s what you want from this site just keep at it (and frequently) and with a bit of luck and some hard work you just might get there.
@Darthan184 wait what! You mean the command discs, that have battery and gyro capabilities in them?
2 months agoActually nvm there's an easier way if this is the "simple Beast" command module.
2 months ago........
just click on its docking port and disconnect the "base" from the "crew tunnel" and reconnect it to the "surface" of the "bruno capsule"
Unless you're referring to the "Simple Beast" that's downloaded with the game, It would help if we could see the craft in question!
2 months ago.......
However, I looked at the "simple Beast" Command & Lunar module and it appears there is an issue with it and might also be the case with whatever design you're using.
.....
in order to facilitate "crew transfer" you must have a "space Habitat" (or one of the space capsules) connected either directly to another "Space habitat" or connected with a pair of docking ports between them. In other words, you can't have any other part (like a "fuel tank") in between a "space habitat" to "space habitat" (or "space habitat" to "docking port") connection!
.......
in the case of the "Simple Beast" command module, it appears the capsule has a "fuel tank" (that's labeled 'crew tunnel') between it and the docking port. Unfortunately "fuel tanks" will not hold crew members or allow them to pass through! If you did want to make it so a crew could transfer through you would need to remove that part and replace it w/ a "space habitat" section of the same dimensions.
Increase forward friction of the wheels (landing gear)! Generally the forward gear are fine (can leave them alone) and you then want the rear wheels to have twice the forward friction of the front gear. This solved practically ALL my take off issues!
2 months agoMy “Pocket Rocket Juno Village Racer” is more then capable of completing the first “cutting corners” air race! (You only need to complete the first one for progression and she isn’t quite fast enough for round 3,4 or 5).
2 months ago…….
The download has sufficient instructions on how to fly her to get started.
@BlackVoidAerospace yeah it would be neat to have them but I honestly don’t know how much more complicated that would be or how much more computing power it would require (keep in mind most players here seem to be on mobile devices). But since even KSP doesn’t have them I can understand why they didn’t bother to add them!
2 months ago@InherentUnstable I’d only call the career games “barebones”.
+1 2 months ago……
I can’t speak for the developers in any way but I get the sense career games were not originally conceived by the team. But because of another game, not to be named, it was a feature repeatedly requested that they eventually committed to adding! And they did, it’s just rather basic in nature!
No it does not model Lagrange points!
+1 2 months ago……..
I believe Kerbal Space Program has a mod that will add those in, but don’t think this game has a similar mod yet. You can check the mods list to make sure however.
Well I don’t think this game is “in development” anymore. Again I don’t want to say they will NEVER come back to it (and they have thankfully addressed some bugs with career games recently even if a little slow) but otherwise this game seems rather complete.
2 months ago@InherentUnstable ok so just adding in more propellant options in general, whether that’s more fuel or oxidizer options and the ability to independently select them.
2 months ago…….
Well there are mods out there that add in more propellant combinations. They seem to have decided to leave this task to modders rather then putting them into the main game (though they have incorporated some mods made by players into the base game in updates before).
………
But as for having independently selectable fuels and oxidizers: this would likely require some amount of tweaking to the game code to allow for it (similar to the ability to change fuel/oxidizer mixture ratios would which they have previously rejected as a feature). The developers main focus right now seem to be on completing their new game SimplePlanes 2. Though I can’t say for sure they won’t come back to this game at some point and add onto it, it’s likely going to be some time before they do.
@InherentUnstable ok yeah!
2 months ago…….
That feature has been requested a few times in the past and rejected by the developers, likely won’t be added unless they dramatically change course.
Well this is the first time I’ve EVER seen this addressed by anyone so:
+1 2 months ago…….
To answer your question: No one seems to have thought it was a bad idea until 2025!
Lolololol uh what!
2 months ago…….
There’s only one oxidizer type in game, and it’s paired with all 3 fuel types that require oxidizer. Or are you more specifically wanting to control the fuel/oxidizer mixture ratios.
Makes me think of Wall Street (1987)! Blue horseshoe LOVES Bluestar Airlines!
2 months ago@BlueStarAerospace Yeah I'm prolly recalling the same graphic renderings you've seen, one of the most notable being the image a top the Wikipedia page "Dleta (Rocket Family)". Prolly just drawn that way out of ease (hesitate to call it laziness as they musta spent some time making that diagram).
2 months ago......
Though I've been unable to verify the color of an uninsulated Delta IV tank (without the orangish foam coating), I can say that the Delta II & III blueish color appears to be due to the primer paint color originally used on these "Extended Long Tank Thor" boosters! Originally (prolly in the late 60's early 70's) they painted over top the primer with a white coat of paint but then decided to forgo that step and just leave the blueish primer coat as the main color to save weight. This also helped them better identify where ice formed (over the liquid oxygen sections of the tank) but they also just liked the color as well so it all worked out!
........
WB BTW after your computer hiccups and thinks for making me look into this topic! More useless information I'll never ever need but it's always fun to learn some stuff!
@deepfriedfrenchtoast I kind of doubt this because by the time the Delta IV was proposed (in 1994) they would have known that painting over the foam was a counterproductive step that only added more weight to the vehicle (that lesson was learned with the space shuttle in the early 80’s). I suspect whoever rendered the drawings that depict the Delta IV with the same blue green painted tanks that previous Delta launch vehicles was just uninformed.
2 months agoYeah a solid rocket first stage (not as strap on boosters but used by themselves) are unfortunately very hard to control not having engines that can gimbal (which some in reality can actually do and should be a feature in game). I did manage to solve that problem somewhat by using very large “multidirectional RCS” but…
2 months ago……
I ultimately gave up on an Ares I type concept because the price of solid rocket engines spiked dramatically in one of the more recent updates! Two and a half years ago I could make an orbital launch vehicle using a solid rocket first stage (with engine) for around 1/5 the cost of a liquid fueled equivalent. But after that update the price increased so much that the liquid rocket version actually became slightly less expensive!
I assume you’ve found on the flight instrument panel the box that shows where your craft is relative to Droos surface in Lat/Long?
2 months ago……..
The problem is that in the time it takes your craft to reach that point, Droo rotates below you so when you conduct your geosynchronous orbit burn you are no longer “hovering” over the spot you meant to be!
……
I’ve only found two ways to get this correct. First is just trial and error! Once in a low orbit (200 km let’s say) “quick save” then place your burn node and see where you end up at apogee. Then if you fail just “quick load” and make adjustments till you get it correct! I know it might seem like cheating but this is how I place a geostationary sat up usualy!
……..
Second method is more time consuming but more realistic if you prefer. Place the payload into an orbit close to 8800 km and see where it is relative to droos surface. If it is W of the 39E location then go into a lower orbit then 8800 km and your craft will slowly but surly drift to the east until over the location you want. Then burn your engines to raise the orbit to the desired 8800 km! If you are too far E of the 39E location the do the exact opposite! Go into a orbit higher then 8803 km causing droo to rotate faster then your craft until your desired location “catches up” to you craft (then just like the other case, lower your orbit to the desired 8800 km)
Yeah I had to look up the SOI boundary (don't know that one off hand). Seems Droo's SOI extends out too 412 Mm (million meters) so that would be ... 412,000 km right
2 months ago.......
Although I actually can get an apogee of 413 Mm before leaving Droo orbit when playing with a burn node. So the SOI extends somewhere to 412-413 Mm
......
And just for reference: Geostationary Orbit is around 8802 km!
As far as pressure goes: at around 100 km above Earth air pressure becomes 0.0 kPa! Going off Earth and Droo’s diameters the is would translate to about 20 km above Droo. But as previously stated, Droo’s atmosphere isn’t scaled back as much as Droo’s volume relative to earth! Droo’s atmosphere drops to 0.00 kPa at around 78.1-78.2 km.
2 months ago…….
So for atmospheric comparison you can set 100km above earth equal to 78.2 on Droo!
…….
The specific boundaries between LEO, MEO and HEO as far as I can tell were simply set at certain altitudes for definitional purposes and not necessarily because of any major orbital property differences between them (beyond the obvious one of having different orbital periods). I’m not sure if you were to scale them to Droo if you would want to scale them to there physical distance above Droos surface or scaled to the atmospheric properties of Droos atmosphere. I’m not even sure scaling them makes any sense or weather Droo should entirely have its own diffrent boundaries for these types of orbits to be honest!
Well there’s a bit of a problem with this:
2 months ago……..
As you correctly mention Droo is scaled smaller then Earth in terms of diameter. But the atmospheric properties of Droo are not scaled back as much as Droo’s physical properties are.
…….
For example: The ISS orbits earth about 420km above earth, this is equivalent to about 84 km above Droo. You can actually orbit earth for a while at around 200km but the equivalent for Droo would be 40km (which is an impossible orbit for Droo). So as you can see Droo’s atmosphere and physical size are scaled back relative to earths but not proportionately, Droos atmosphere is more dense then earths is (assuming earth was scaled down to the size of Droo). Hopefully that makes sense!
……..
So this makes answering your question a bit difficult. Altitudes relative to Droo’s size? Or relative to parameters of Droos atmosphere?
@AstrumY No one is twisting anyone’s words here, it’s literally what you typed!
2 months ago@AstrumY “not necessarily unexpected”
2 months ago……
Ok well if it was the plan was for starship to be destroyed in flight when it was (about 8:30 into the flight) then I’ll revise my assessment. But if not, sounds like we’re just lowering the standards so we can claim success.
Correct, the booster landed back at the launch site! Unfortunately that's far less mission critical then keeping your primary craft (and payload) from exploding!
2 months agoYou mean the least important part happened? Correct!
2 months ago@BlueStarAerospace Well no extreme rush, just curious to eventually see what you came up with!
2 months ago@BlueStarAerospace
2 months ago......
Care to share your solution?
......
Unfortunately although this game gave us a very nice military style cockpit (a sorta F-16 style one) they kinda neglected to add in an ejection seat to it! I've seen a few players try and design an ejection seats but they usually end up rather bulky and a bit unaesthetic in appearance, So just curious as to weather or not you improved on their designs.
.......
Not that I condone ejection seats on rockets, they were always somewhat controversial (particularly on Project Gemini, less so with STS 1-4 and Vostok) but they could be nice for some fighter aircraft designs in game!
@Skye93 I guess my iPhone Auto-text fill was confirming you are whole. It has also confirmed polite people to be "well manured" and that octopus have 8 testicles. Wish I was joking but it's happened!
3 months ago“Payload to orbit is a useless metric, considering the Starship test launches weren’t meant to put anything in orbit in the first place”
3 months ago………..
You’re whole comparison of the two programs was moot given SLS has demonstrated it can get the Orion MPCV to the moon and back, and starship still has yet to demonstrate: ability to get HLS built and into orbit, fueling platform built and into orbit, 10-20 refueling starships into orbit and docked, HLS to the moon and landed on the surface. You’re comparing a nearly completed launch system to one that isn’t even half way to accomplishing what it’s intended to do.
………..
I don’t think too many here are gonna take issue with your original talking point here about the SLS. But you throw out a lot of figures and dates (without any citation I might add so must be questioned) that are extremely optimistic, much like they did with SLS as well! Unfortunately no amount of posts are going to resolve what will happen in the future (we’ll only know in time, 2027-28 according to OP). But I will definitely be bookmarking this post and eagerly awaiting revisiting it in the future to see if any of these events occur as predicted!
@ExplorationMS well it strikes me there are two different philosophies going there!
3 months ago……….
NASA/SLS: delay, delay, delay until everything is almost perfect and the system works on the first try!
………
SpaceX/Starship: launch, make correction then repeat until the system eventually works! (Similar to the early NASA days)
………
I’m not inclined to state which method is best, SLS has worked, Starship not quite there yet. But they may have had different program start dates, different program deadlines, and so on.
Then again when you say SLS is “done” (assuming you are correct) you don’t specify exactly when she is done! This does leave open the possibility to use SLS as a sort of crutch until a better launch platform is developed/completed.
+1 3 months ago……………….
That would likely be best option to keep the current program on track. Use that platform for the first 2 or 3 missions then transition over to a more sensible launch platform!
I remember the old “constellation program” with its Aries rockets, and President George Bush announcing (in 2004) our intent to return people to the moon by 2020!
3 months ago……..
Didn’t Elon state in 2016 plans to launch the first manned mars mission in 2024 (to land in 2025)
……………
I think what’s being missed here is: every time they drastically change the logistical platform for getting to “wherever”, it sets the goal back at least 5-10 years! Perhaps this time will be diffrent and everything will go perfectly as planned! But the history doesn’t suggest this to be the case at all!
“Just use a normal crew starship” … you do understand no such craft exists! It’ll have to be designed, approved by NASA, tested, in short that would push the first crewed flight back to 2029-2030 (assuming they even let a crew launch in a craft without a launch abort system).
+1 3 months ago………..
There might be other launch systems for Orion but with them recently pushing back the Artemis 2 mission into 2027 it’s looking more and more like we’re prolly not going back to the moon. There’s no real appetite among the public to do so (I mean among the real people outside of us handful of nerds) and no outside force pushing us to do so like there was in the 60’s.
Unfortunately that’s the new mechanism how they get people to make accounts! You can sometimes get lucky and find a direct address to a video (or if someone posts the direct address to said video) but often times you’ll just get a onsite “search result” and then if you want to select + view the video, you need the account!
+1 3 months ago————
Twitter/X has done the same with viewing posts (only see top rated posts on someone’s account but if you want to see “most recent” you need an account to select that option) likewise Facebook allows you to usualy see a handful of someone’s posts, but scroll down too far (or try viewing comments) and you’ll find you need an account!
————
Sadly this is just how these cooperations attain new members and I don’t see this changing prolly ever!
This is the sixth such post I’ve seen on SR2 forums of a player accidentally deleting the station. I can say with high degree of confidence that you never received a reply because there is NO KNOWN FIX for this issue!
3 months ago……….
You’ll likely have to restart the game to
Fix this!
@ExplorationMS Droo is 1247 km in diameter whereas Cladh is 666 km. So about half…..
4 months ago………….
ADD: Luna is 350 km and Clyero is 674 km. So it’s closest to the Clyero in size.
@Coop1999 lolololol sounds like meaningless garble to me! But that’s to be expected when over manipulating audio like that!
4 months agoAny controlling of a separate craft will have to be done using the Vizzy programming!
4 months ago…….
However once you get beyond 10 kilometers of another craft no control is possible. Craft beyond that distance actuality despawn and do not exists (only exist as an invisible place holder).
I got this when “validating” system files a few times! Turned out in doing that many of the planets I downloaded (that other players uploaded to this site) had been deleted! I had to re-download this planets to get the custom system to work again.
+1 4 months ago……….
So somehow you’ve lost files associated with the planetary system you made! Hopefully you made or can find backups of them!
@Pedro is it not calculated as: highest point of a craft's orbit above a planet's/moon's sea level?
4 months agoHighest point in the orbit above planet/moon sea level, no?
4 months ago……..
Pretty sure, for instance, if you place your apogee (or perigee) above Brigo’s giant Crater, it gives the height above “sea level” but you will still have 20-30 km above ground level.
Could be many reasons for this: would help to see the craft in question but….
4 months ago……….
If you have a gyroscope in the craft, it will of course try to keep the heading locked during a burn. This will use battery power so you need to make sure you have enough battery (and a way to recharge it) so it does not run out. If the batteries were to run out of power in this situation the gyro will cease operating and a spin could ensue.
………..
Also sounds like maybe your center of thrust (CoT) and center of mass (CoM) might not be aligned well enough. When CoT and CoM are not aligned this will cause the craft to point a few degrees off from where it should be pointed during the burn (and lead to less accurate burns). It probibly is possible to have those two so out of line that even a gyro will not be able keep the craft pointed in a steady direction and the craft begins to tumble (or as previously stated if the gyro runs out of power) Agian we’d really need to see this craft to diagnose the issue but there’s a starting point.
Unless someone else chimes in with exact coordinates (might happen but this forum can have a lot of unanswered posts), you’ll prolly need to send a rover to do some exploring near some equatorial spots. You’re unlikely to find a perfectly flat area but there are surly some with very gentle sloping somewhere on the ridge tops (the lighter color areas next to the darker colored ridges on that moon). I’ve found a few areas like this but do not know the exact coordinates.
+2 4 months ago@Pandariptor doesn’t really matter.
5 months ago………
1. Because these ideas have already been suggested several times.
…….
2. The suggestions page was closed down some time ago because most of the suggestions (like this one) were just duplicate suggestions.
………..
You can still add a “suggestions” tag apparently, but that seems more for other players who are searching through forum posts then anything.
@SDNS well you’re gonna find a realistic design nearly impossible to duplicate anyhow! The Juno system is scaled differently than Earth’s! So if you try to replicate a real world rocket (same size, same mass, same amount of fuel, same fill in the blank) it’s going to over perform in the scaled back system …… and not be “realistic”. You’re going to have to make some compromises to make it look like it’s real life counterpart and perform similarly.
5 months ago