Print

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

[Aseaheru]

Everything built in space for use in space us unstable in atmo.

As for hauling it up, parts dont have empty space within and are smaller, and so costs less to launch.

(Not to mention that you're still experiencing about as much gravity in orbit as on the surface, unless you're crazily far out.)

Not really, no. Ever hear of weightlessness? Yah, that is experienced even within the atmosphere.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Depends on the parts. Air doesn't weigh much; padding to make sure that your sheets of metal doesn't shake around or break? Tools to assemble stuff in orbit? Rendezvous fuel? Less so.

If everything for space is unstable in atmosphere, how did we get shuttles and stations into orbit? Hm?

(And I was making a minor physics quibble.)


Overall...orbital construction makes sense for a few things, but if you're making those things, you should be willing to put in the sweat, tears, and Kerblood to actually haul all that crap to orbit before assembling it.

[Aseaheru]

Depends on the parts.

True, but overall it still costs less, as among other things aerodynamics.

If everything for space is unstable in atmosphere, how did we get shuttles and stations into orbit? Hm?

Designed to work solely in space. Space stations would not work in atmosphere (beyond that in LEO) and are built in PARTS to allow them to get up there. You shove a spacestation in the area a jet goes and... Well there goes the space station.
For a comparison, look at early concept ideas for the lunar lander VS what they actually landed.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

THIS
VS THIS

[GreatWyrmGold]

I specifically noted space stations as being among the few things that make sense to assemble in space--and they make no sense to launch from an orbital launch pad, which is the thing we're discussing! See, the big problem with space stations is less aerodynamics and more structural strength. If you make a space station strong enough to survive being strapped on a rocket, you've wasted a lot of resources on structural material that you really didn't need to.

Aerodynamics? Remind me, what kind of space ships are you building, that it's easier to make all-aerodynamic parts--as well as hauling up all the other little bits that let you assemble the thing in orbit--than to make the whole thing aerodynamic (or add a few small fairings to cover the un-aerodynamic bumps)?

[BigD145]

Sometimes you need to lift something enormous and the engines you use to get it from Kerbin's surface will tear the craft apart. This was more of a problem in 0.23.0. You can absolutely get your part count down by building in space. There's no more space tape ends among other things.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Again: What are you building that is that big, and why do you feel that anything that insane should be pre-assembled in space for you? Someone needed to get it all up there, neh? (And what's the point of the pad, anyways?)

[BigD145]

Pullers are actually a prime example. They tend to be long and spindly. You can dock them in orbit, but that's often a terrible thing for stability. You get turn wobble at the very least (Manley's Duna Express I'm looking at you). If you can strut all or most of a multi component craft that is unliftable from the surface then orbital construction is it. It doesn't have to be heavy, it just has to be unwieldy. Enormous stuff does tend to be tall. Stacks upon stacks. Those things do not lift well in one package and often you could just remove docks and just strap things together. Those do not lift well from a surface.

[GreatWyrmGold]

That's what KAS and quantum struts are for. No need for something stupid, unrealistic, and above all lazy.

[nogoodnames]

I don't even know what this argument is about anymore...

In other news, I figured out that the struts attached to the torpedoes on my battleship were causing them to veer inward when fired. The problem is that removing them causes the torpedo stacks to wobble around wildly.

[BigD145]

That's what KAS and quantum struts are for. No need for something stupid, unrealistic, and above all lazy.

What, like KAS (prone to exploding) and quantum struts (unrealistic)? KAS struts often fall off at physics reload.

[GreatWyrmGold]

I don't even know what this argument is about anymore...

Orbital launch pads.

That's what KAS and quantum struts are for. No need for something stupid, unrealistic, and above all lazy.

What, like KAS (prone to exploding) and quantum struts (unrealistic)? KAS struts often fall off at physics reload.

Not familiar with KAS, but it's there.
As for quantum struts...ignore the word "quantum" in the name, and they're basically struts you can install after docking two spaceships. Very unrealistic. And not needed for your idea.

[BigD145]

You brought them up and I'm well aware of their shortcomings and how they work.

[Rose]

Anybody had this issue with mechjeb?

http://i.imgur.com/KFXJFMT.png

basically, I keep buying it from the science building, and it keeps saying I need to buy it from the science building before I can use it, and it keeps duplicating.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Mechjeb comes in modules, I think. Make sure you actually purchased all prerequisite modules.

[GreatWyrmGold]

You brought them up and I'm well aware of their shortcomings and how they work.

I'm just saying, cheating your spacecraft into orbit isn't the only--or best--way to do it. And Quantum Struts seem to be rather issue-free, aside from the word "quantum" in their name.

Anybody had this issue with mechjeb?

http://i.imgur.com/KFXJFMT.png

basically, I keep buying it from the science building, and it keeps saying I need to buy it from the science building before I can use it, and it keeps duplicating.

Make sure you didn't install two versions of MechJeb simultaneously. That happened to be; it was fixed when I located and deleted the old version.