wouldnt it be nice to make engines smaler (with bp edit)

[A Leek in Space]

i just want to hera your opinion bec my problem on building real missiles is that the engines are to big

 

[Horus Lupercal]

Ergh.

You are aware that the rocket motor on a 'real missile' will be less than a half metre sized object and will be smaller than the grid in the building screen.
You must also be aware that the majority of missiles are around 2-4 metres long and less than 40cm wide. Even with small 0.5x0.5m parts, they're always going to look wrong and they'll be roughly the same size as the 4x1 structural part.

 

[A Leek in Space]

Ergh.

You are aware that the rocket motor on a 'real missile' will be less than a half metre sized object and will be smaller than the grid in the building screen.
You must also be aware that the majority of missiles are around 2-4 metres long and less than 40cm wide. Even with small 0.5x0.5m parts, they're always going to look wrong and they'll be roughly the same size as the 4x1 structural part.

i mean the fact that the upper ends of the engine is often sticking out the sides and they dont need to be really small i mean it is your choise how small the engine is. by typing Y=0.500 normlay as you know this dont work

 

[Marmilo]

I'd like this (for replicas)

 

[Blazer Ayanami]

It will be a nice feature, but not because what the Leek says.

 

[Horus Lupercal]

It will be a nice feature, but not because what the Leek says.

Seperatrons.

 

[Blazer Ayanami]

Seperatrons.

No, I mean for replicas, for LESs.

 

[Horus Lupercal]

No, I mean for replicas, for LESs.

Well, apart from I see LES in SFS as a pointless exercise, are not the solid rocket motors that power typical Launch Abort Systems not seperatrons, since they are separating a part of the rocket from another part of the rocket...?

 

[Blazer Ayanami]

Well, apart from I see LES in SFS as a pointless exercise, are not the solid rocket motors that power typical Launch Abort Systems not seperatrons, since they are separating a part of the rocket from another part of the rocket...?

I am not sure they are called separatrons. And even if they are pointless they are still fun to use.

 

[Horus Lupercal]

I am not sure they are called separatrons.

No, i doubt they'll be named seperatrons. But in use, size and application, they'll be exactly the same. So regardless of what you call them (lets go with seperatorburgers), that's what they'll be doing.
Separating bits of rocket from other bits of rocket. The only difference between the ones on a LES and ones on top of an SRB is one is waiting for the rocket to go wrong, the other is waiting for it to finish its function.

And unless you're gonna tell me seperatrons (or its other named equivalents) aren't used in real life and thus have no place in replicas, I don't even know why you've tried correcting what I said...?

 

[Blazer Ayanami]

No, i doubt they'll be named seperatrons. But in use, size and application, they'll be exactly the same. So regardless of what you call them (lets go with seperatorburgers), that's what they'll be doing.
Separating bits of rocket from other bits of rocket.

That mentality of yours of “if it does the same thing it must have the same name” doesn’t always work. For example, a both a plane and a helicopter are air vehicles, capable of ferrying people and cargo between different locations, but they are not the same thing, and they work different.

And unless you're gonna tell me seperatrons (or its other named equivalents) aren't used in real life and thus have no place in replicas, I don't even know why you've tried correcting what I said...?

No.

Overcomplicating things, like always.

You said they were called separatrons, I answered I wasn’t sure they were called separatrons. That was the point of my correction.

Oh boy... I sense another wordy debate incoming...

 

[The Dark in the Light]

I love reading debates between Horus and someone else. Very entertaining, lol.

 

[Horus Lupercal]

Oh boy... I sense another wordy debate incoming...

Damn straight.

That mentality of yours of “if it does the same thing it must have the same name” doesn’t always work. For example, a both a plane and a helicopter are air vehicles, capable of ferrying people and cargo between different locations, but they are not the same thing, and they work different

Bad analogy there. Whilst you're sorta correct that rotary and fixed wing aircraft are different, they only differ in the method of which they provide lift for flight. Aside from that, they are identical in all other ways. Especially when you factor in tilt rotors like the V-22 Osprey, which do both.

However, regardless of what you call the little motors that push bits of rockets apart, they work in exactly the same way for exactly the same purpose. They ignite, and one rocket becomes more rockets.

You said they were called separatrons, I answered I wasn’t sure they were called separatrons. That was the point of my correction.

I know. But like I said, the name isn't important. Because there are quite a few names for them, depending on who is using them.
For example, NASA calls them BSMs (booster separation motors). UA called them fore and aft staging rockets. The ESA simply called the ones on Ariane 5 'separation rockets'.
I used 'separatrons' for the simple reason that any term I use wouldn't be 100% accurate, but I know that as a KSP player, you would know exactly what I was referring to.
Apparently.

 

[A Leek in Space]

It will be a nice feature, but not because what the Leek says.

it would be verry usefull for landers too

 

[Blazer Ayanami]

Bad analogy there.

However, regardless of what you call the little motors that push bits of rockets apart, they work in exactly the same way for exactly the same purpose. They ignite, and one rocket becomes more rockets.

A bad example. Perfect.

I’m still saying that just because thing A does the same thing B does, doesn’t necessarily means thing A and thing B are the same. Which is what you are trying to prove.

I used 'separatrons' for the simple reason that any term I use wouldn't be 100% accurate, but I know that as a KSP player, you would know exactly what I was referring to.
Apparently.

I obviously know what you are talking about. One, because I do play KSP, and Two, because I’m not stupid.

 

[Horus Lupercal]

I’m still saying that just because thing A does the same thing B does, doesn’t necessarily means thing A and thing B are the same. Which is what you are trying to prove

I'm not 'trying' to prove anything. Trying implies a possibility of not succeeding. I've proved that if A does the same thing as B in the same way as B for the same reason as B then guess what?

It's B.

I obviously know what you are talking about. One, because I do play KSP, and Two, because I’m not stupid.

Then if you obviously know what I'm talking about, why do you sound so confused at the concept of calling a booster/LES separation motor, a separatron for ease of recognition with non-stupid KSP players?

 

[Blazer Ayanami]

I've proved that if A does the same thing as B in the same way as B for the same reason as B then guess what?

It's B.

Not always.

All living species on this planet do the exact same things (survive, find food, avoid the predators, have descendants). Most of these things are kinda made in the same way and for the exact same reason, but still, a pelican is not a dog.

Yes, they both fall under the category of “lifeforms” but inside the category “lifeforms” they have some differences that make them different species. Even if they do the same things, in a kinda similar way, for the exact same reason.

why do you sound so confused at the concept of calling a booster/LES separation motor, a separatron for ease of recognition with non-stupid KSP players?

Because we weren’t talking about KSP. We were not talking about KSP until for some reason you brought the topic into light. We were talking about Real Life and SFS.

I am not sure why do you always need to bring KSP up to light...

Also, if we are discussing the same Kerbal Space Program, then you might know that a separatron and a LES are used for different purposes.

You can summarize and say that they are used to separate things from rockets, but all I’m saying is that category is a bit too wide.

I’m just being a bit more specific and saying that inside the laaaaaaaaaaarge category called “Rockets” there is a smaller category called “SRBs”, and inside “SRBs” you have a category for separatrons and another for LASystems.

 

[Horus Lupercal]

All living species on this planet do the exact same things (survive, find food, avoid the predators, have descendants). Most of these things are kinda made in the same way and for the exact same reason, but still, a pelican is not a dog.

in a kinda similar way,

And there you go. 'Kinda' isn't 'exact'. Hence why a pelican isn't a dog, but a jackal is. Because whilst a pelican 'kinda' acts like a dog in that it eats, shits and is warm blooded, a jackal is a dog because it a pack animal of the canine family and looks, acts and behaves exactly like a dog.
Even though it isn't a domesticated pet.
Kinda like how the motors on a LES look and act in exactly the same way as the motors that push empty boosters aside or the motors that fire to move the fuel to the bottom of a tank during staging (ullage motors). They all have different names, but exist under the same family.
Just like dogs. And not pelicans. Because that analogy was also...crap.

Because we weren’t talking about KSP. We were not talking about KSP until for some reason you brought the topic into light. We were talking about Real Life and SFS.

Blazer, dude, I love you but sometimes I have to pitch them low and slow.

I know we were talking about SFS. Trust me on this. I am absolutely, totally, 100% aware. The sole reason I said separatron is because it made recognition simple because it provided an extremely simple reference that I knew thought you would understand. If I had used one of half a dozen real world terms (which I have listed above), there may have arisen some sort of ambiguity as to my meaning.
But instead, by trying to keep it simple, it's grown arms and legs, created a committee for itself and campaigned for workers rights whilst it was at it.
Regardless of what term I use, be it separatrons, booster separation motors, ullage motors, LES motors, staging rockets, they are all the same bloody thing. Rockets that push bits of rocket away from other bits of rocket.

I am not sure why do you always need to bring KSP up to light..

Because you play KSP. I play(ed) KSP. And a simple name for really small rocket engines in a context I thought you'd understand without several thousand words of explanation sits nice and neatly inside the parts list for kerbal space program. As nothing more than a reference. That's it. A reference. I'm not sure how many times or how many ways I need to repeat that.

I’m just being a bit more specific and saying that inside the laaaaaaaaaaarge category called “Rockets” there is a smaller category called “SRBs”, and inside “SRBs” you have a category for separatrons and another for LASystems.

But since we're going to go down this road, we aren't allowed to say 'fighter'. Or jet engine. Or ship. Or car. Or gun. Because those are huuuuge categories for those unable to associate simple references to contexts.
Because what happens if we mistake an F-15 for a boxer? Or a turbofan for a ramjet? Or a small dingy for an aircraft carrier? Or a Fiat 500 for a La Ferrari. Or a 16"/50 battleship gun for an M92FS.

Or maybe...just maybe, 2 things can have the same name because under contextual circumstances between 2 intelligent adults, assumptions can be made as to its meaning without confusion?
Like spaceplanes being shuttles, regardless of how they get to space.

Also, that separate category reads 'solid fuel' not 'solid rocket booster'. And LAS are placed in a solo category because that is all they are good for. You can use a seperatron for a LAS, but you can't use a LAS to push off a booster or push a stage. Well, you can, but it'd be pretty stupid having a LAS tower mounted sideways onto a booster.
Hence why I said separatron. Because it meant I only had to say one word rather than exhaustively listing every single thing that uses small rocket motors anywhere in the world.

I mean, why no love for RATO bottles? If I described a RATO as being like a separatron pack but strapped to the back of a C-130, you'd have known exactly what I meant and not made any kind of a scene about it either. Even though they're most definitely not called seperatrons in the real world, and don't even separate things either.

 

[Pink]

Literally just 4 days after this thread was created and shrinking engines via bp editing has been added to the game.

 

[Mars Pathfinder]

Literally just 4 days after this thread was created and shrinking engines via bp editing has been added to the game.

Lol XD

 

[A Leek in Space]

Literally just 4 days after this thread was created and shrinking engines via bp editing has been added to the game.

O.O

 

[TtTOtW]

spaceplanes being shuttles

THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. THE ONE CAN'T LIFT SHIT BECAUSE GUESS WHAT? NO BLOODY BOOSTER. And if you have a problem with that, go have a talk with a certain Mr. Tsiolkovsky.

regardless of how they get to space.

It makes all the difference.

 

[Horus Lupercal]

THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. THE ONE CAN'T LIFT SHIT BECAUSE GUESS WHAT? NO BLOODY BOOSTER. And if you have a problem with that, go have a talk with a certain Mr. Tsiolkovsky.

Erm, Venturestar would've had the same payload capacity to orbit as your beloved space shuttle.

So no.

It makes all the difference.

It makes no difference whatsoever.

And if you've an issue with that, go and speak to mr. Aerospike.

 

[TtTOtW]

Venturestar

Would've.

Aerospike

Failed.

 

[Horus Lupercal]

Would've.

Failed.

Nothing Venturestar'd, nothing gained.

Still doesn't change my point. When they eventually get a linear aerospike to work, it'll be able to lift shit, it'll be an SSTO and it'll be a shuttle.

Your argument of 'it didn't work so it doesn't count' is a weak defence that I'd tear apart in about 2.5 seconds.

Also, I'm curious.

Since your problem with spaceplane SSTOs being shuttles is because of a (badly researched) reasoning that they don't have much lift capacity because they don't have boosters (utterly forgetting the problems behind the STS, which was the boosters and external tank), what's the payload threshold where a thing suddenly becomes a shuttle?
And I'd be very careful with your answer there.

in fact, Venturestar would've been mankinds first true space shuttle. The entire shuttle goes to space and comes back. Where as the STS, only the orbiter (less than half of the stack) does.