Nefrums

Members
  • Content count

    557
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

592 Excellent

3 Followers

About Nefrums

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer

Profile Information

  • Location Sweden
  1. The engines need to gimball less if the they are further from the CoM. so they can handle more shift in CoM. Moving the fueltank (and hence CoM) forward also helps. If the main engines are tilted more then they can gimbal they can't be used after separation of the fuel tank. But they should not be, only the vacuum engines should be used after tanks separation. If twr is the problem try scaling up those vector engines.
  2. Nice looking shuttle. One tip: it is better to have the shuttle main engines further back, as that allows for them to be less tilted. What payload capacity does that shuttle have to LKO?
  3. Yes i did the launch directly into the inclined orbit. Here is my next entry:
  4. I did it, I managed a proper landing with an asteroid: STS9 second attempt album
  5. 98% sure. I have been trying to improve stability while flying with the asteroid. To be able to more like "land" and less like "controlled crash". And I do not want to modify the shuttle to mush. The next plan is to attach a RCS system to the asteroid.
  6. Wow... that sounds really bad. I have after several attempts managed to land a class D astroid: STS9 Album
  7. The mk4 form factor is nice when building space stations out of the USI Kolonization parts. The shuttle can comfortably fit the size 3 "Tundra" parts, or even two 2,5m stacks side by side. I built this station in four launches: STS5-8 album
  8. When empty is is quite close. So close that I have been trying to move the CoL further back to gain increased stability. The Mk4 fuselage parts generate quite a bit of lift and CoM is very far back when empty. The size3 vecor is like 70t. Not really sure how tweakscale scales it but i think it keeps twr constant. And as the stock vector is like 5 times more powerful than other size 1 engines, it retains some of that when scaled up, It has more thrust (and mass) than 4 mammoths. I don't use FAR. And I try limiting the mods to ones that are reasonably stock balanced.
  9. While trying to land my improved shuttle I discovered a sight design flaw: Front landning gear is not there.
  10. So... If I build a small ssto, fly it to orbit and leave it there for a year before landing it. That would be worth around 2 million points? Would that be considered "bending" the rules?
  11. STS3 I'll do some improvements to the shuttle before doing STS4, It has some heat problems that make reentry harder then it should be.
  12. So I really liked the look of the mk4 parts, So I made a mk4 shuttle: It uses a lot of mods, mk4 system, SpaceY, TweakScale etc. I followed the reusable space shuttle concept that only discards a pair of SRBs and a fuel tank, no of the expensive engines are lost. It is powered by one Vector engine (3.75m), two secondary Aerospikes (2,5m), and two SRBs. It weighs 2,4kt and has a payload capacity of about 550 t to LKO. STS1a album Edit: Second mission: STS2 album
  13. That should be possible as a almost empty first stage has lots of twr, Doing it with any kind of accuracy will be very hard thou.
  14. There are two factors to consider you can only switch to a object (outside of physics range) if the current craft is above the atmosphere. A craft will dissiperar if it goes below ~35-40km? without being in focus. So the flight plan is like this: Drop first stage when AP is outside of 70km and more than a minute away. Boost the second stage for that minute. Try to keep AP more then a minute ahead. Switch to the first stage and preform the boost-back. Aim about 30km short of KSC to compensate for Kerbal rotation. Before reentering atmosphere switch back to second stage. Complete the circulation burn of the second stage and switch back to the first stage before it disappears.