But even empty, it is likely to be heavy and awkwardly shaped. Switch back to the first stage and follow it as it parachutes back to Kerbin. My strategy is to get out of the atmosphere, jettison the first stage, then do my circularization burn with the second stage. No need for SLS and it's 2-3 billion dollar launch costs. The second problem with this plan is getting the first stage to land intact. 20 tons and below will then be relegated to the new upstart companies. The main buildings are the Training Center, Vehicle Assembly Building, and the Launchpad. Set the throttle to 25 (3rd tick) and stage twice. Kerbal Space Program 2 features key buildings that you will engage with during your playthrough. 40 tons can be spread over the 3-4 various launchers to keep everyone happy financially and give redundancy if one has a failure and is shut down during investigation and corrections. Go to the launch pad, pick the stock ship ZMap Satellite Launch Kit, and launch. 40 tons is more than enough to build a cis-lunar program, especially when adding in space refueling or fuel depots. Finally there is New Glenn, reusable delivering 40 tons to LEO. Then Starship is being built and is to be fully reusable delivering 100-150 tons. It didnt take direct transfer as it visited Duna system and Dres first. Full recovery from Kerbin runway in the end. Next Vulcan will come on line and a Vulcan heavy is an option with 8 strap on monolithic solids and a new larger upper stage delivering about 20-30 tons, and upgrades getting 40+ tons. This 770t 'SSTO' mothership went everywhere except Eve surface with just 5500.6500m/s max depending on the burn order (Nukes, Mammoths). Like someone said above, first Falcon Heavy is available delivering 40 tons reusable and 63 tons expendable. It is going to have to die a slow death due to the lower cost launchers on line or coming on line during it's slow demise. Utah would be left out and the congressmen there would fight against it. Face the facts, the current SLS will not be made reusable, even if there was a 5.5m existing booster that was reusable, the same length as the solids, and delivered at least 3 million lbs of thrust each, and easily adapted to the core, it would not be done without the government spending another 10 billion to "make it work". No real savings, just make work for people at the cape, Utah, and the railroads. The attempt to make the solid boosters reusable was a joke really, as the cost to retrieve them, dissemble them, ship them back to Utah, clean and refurbish them, ship them back to the cape, then reassemble them on the stack cost as much as making new ones. However, shuttle was a compromise using a large drop tank and solid boosters. Most designers realized you can't sustain a space program with expendable rockets. ![]() Also, in original shuttle designs, most designs consisted of fly back boosters, and the orbiter large enough to have fuel inside to get to space and fly back to earth. They never tried to get money for either's development. Yes, NASA studied reusability of Saturn V booster and 3rd stage.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |