Request Artemis landers

gattispilot

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
6,469
Reaction score
806
Points
203
Location
Dallas, TX
In the orbiter directory is a file called orbiter.log? But I would say the cfg of earth got changed
 

MaxBuzz

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 19, 2016
Messages
478
Reaction score
728
Points
108
Location
Kursk
did you replace the cfg file Orbiter 2016\Config\Sol.cfg or Orbiter 2016\Config\Earth.cfg
 

gattispilot

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
6,469
Reaction score
806
Points
203
Location
Dallas, TX
5zm9D1e.png

can you post an image of the Orbiter 2016 \ Config \ Earth.cfg
 

MexSpace

Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2020
Messages
48
Reaction score
12
Points
8
Location
mexico
1620340436831.pngI think the problem is here, nothing appears from the earth and in another orbiter that I have it does appear
 

gattispilot

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
6,469
Reaction score
806
Points
203
Location
Dallas, TX
Weird, So the sol.cfg look right
Lets unzip and override your earth.cfg
 

Attachments

  • earthcfg.zip
    64.2 KB · Views: 4

francisdrake

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
770
Reaction score
143
Points
58
Website
francisdrakex.deviantart.com
Moonship11.JPG
Comparing Moonship Sizes

While the original Starship has a payload capacity of up to 100 ton, NASA's requirement for the HLS is only 12 ton. I wonder if SpaceX will reduce the size of the Moonship accordingly. This could be done by shortening the tank section only, so critical features like the crew cabin and engine section stay the same as for a full-sized Starship.

A full sized Moonship may have a dry mass of ~80 ton (heat shield and 3 sea level Raptors already deducted).
A "Moonship-Light" can have a dry mass of ~67 ton only , which brings down the fuel mass for a Lunar mission to 600 ton.
This would require 4 tanker flights only, which is an advantage over the 6-7 tankers for a full sized ship.
And the growth-option for future missions would still be there by enlarging the tank section if required.

Do you think SpaceX will downsize their design to suit NASA's requirements, or would they rather keep their standard design for all mission types?
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
36,091
Reaction score
607
Points
203
Location
Langendernbach
Do you think SpaceX will downsize their design to suit NASA's requirements, or would they rather keep their standard design for all mission types?

No, I think they will keep it, since it was part of the offer. Also it was the big advantage from NASAs perspective, the potential for future growth.

Yes, its looking oversized. But at the same time, this means: The risk is very low, that future engineering results in it missing the NASA performance requirements. SpaceX could half payload mass with a heavier structure, and it would still work out. The other designs already failed on the paper and need to cut away mass or increase propellant mass to compensate.
 
Top