Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Fikes]

Aaaaand "steampunk" rears its horribly overused and balding head again.  It has its times and places.  Hilarious recreations of Khrushchev-era spaceflight is not one of them.

The Kerbal Space Program is already basically "rocketpunk", to possibly coin a term.  The theme is plenty good as it is, be happy with it.

I mostly agree, but I still think launching a rocket from a blimp would be awesome.

Steampunk is cool, but you are right, it has no place in a space program.

[BloodBeard]

Hmm, rockets launching from the upper atmosphere from aircraft. We're going to need a bigger plane.

My new personal best for vertical speed on vanilla KSP, 5727m/s. It was a proof of concept for an even larger version. This one took off with 13 3-tanked LFR, the larger version should have 19 3-tanked LFR's and probably 12 SRB's.

[Xinvoker]

Even the most ridiculous deep-space adventures posted on here have only gone about 1/3 the distance required to get to our moon, so yes, it will be fun 

Any moon added the the game probably won't be that far out, but maybe. We'll definately need some kind of time-manipulator first.

But Kerbal's radius is 1/11th the one of the Earth. If Karbal's moon is also 1/11th of our moon, then its distance would be 1/11th of the Earth-Moon distance.
So people have already made it 3 times further than  the Kerbalian moon. If my logic isn't horrible messed up that is.

[TheBronzePickle]

Hmm, rockets launching from the upper atmosphere from aircraft. We're going to need a bigger plane.

Isn't the point of stages being a rocket designed to let another rocket take off from a higher altitude?

[DrPoo]

Am i the only one who cannot use radial decouplers?
I mean, nothing attaches to them, that is quite shit.

Also cant wait till theres planets and the sun is actually a sun so i can burn myself to death crashing into it..

[Jay]

I mean, nothing attaches to them, that is quite shit.

Only things that would logically attach to them attach to them.
That means solid boosters.
What, you expected to be able to attach an SAS module sideways on the rocket?  Because that would work super well :V

EDIT: That's mainly because you can only radially mount stuff that's allowed to be surface-mounted, and that's only the solid boosters.

[Saint]

I leave for a week and 42 pages. wow.

[BloodBeard]

Hmm, rockets launching from the upper atmosphere from aircraft. We're going to need a bigger plane.

Isn't the point of stages being a rocket designed to let another rocket take off from a higher altitude?

Well that would depend on what you're launching. If rockets become more dangerous, exploding from poor engineering and maintenance you could opt for a safer alternative in a plane-launch.

[Deadmeat1471]

'Plane launch'?

[Rilder]

'Plane launch'?

It works in real life.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[breadbocks]

Space-planes are the idea that you can fly a plane, and just keep going up, rather than staying at X altitude. They go up to space like a plane, and land like a plane. The Space shuttle is the bastard child of a Space-plane and a rocket.

[BloodBeard]

Actually a better reason to use planes is cost. I doubt spent boosters will be recovered and reused like real ones, a plane you can use over and over and all you spend is fuel.

But really after thinking about it more, rocket carrying planes probably won't happen. You can't control a plane and a rocket you just launched at the same time.

[Alehkhs]

Actually a better reason to use planes is cost. I doubt spent boosters will be recovered and reused like real ones, a plane you can use over and over and all you spend is fuel.

But really after thinking about it more, rocket carrying planes probably won't happen. You can't control a plane and a rocket you just launched at the same time.

Actually, HarvesteR has stated that in the future (once we're actually limited to a budget for ship construction), boosters that are parachuted back down to the surface will be able to be reused.

[Stargrasper]

Actually a better reason to use planes is cost. I doubt spent boosters will be recovered and reused like real ones, a plane you can use over and over and all you spend is fuel.

But really after thinking about it more, rocket carrying planes probably won't happen. You can't control a plane and a rocket you just launched at the same time.

No, that's not quite true.  Making something reusable costs a lot of money in terms of maintenance and general durability.  This is why the government is forcing NASA to abandon the shuttle program.  It's potentially less costly to use single-use equipment because it's so crazy much cheaper to produce and maintain.

And we do have rocket carrying planes in the real world.  JATO and RATO aircraft use jets or rockets to take off faster (such as from a short runway).  Sure, they don't fly in space, but scramjets come darn close and I'm pretty sure SpaceX is actually working on a space plane.

[Lightning4]

I'd feel sorry for the poor Kerbal pilots who would lift our monstrosities into the air. Odds are they would either get consumed in the flames behind our mighty 15-SB bearing rockets, or just get consumed in the fireball as it explodes immediately upon ignition.