eloquentJane

Members
  • Content count

    1447
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1564 Excellent

About eloquentJane

  • Rank
    Mission Architect

Profile Information

  • Location All the planets. All of them.
  • Interests Space; designing spacecraft; writing sci-fi/fantasy stories.

Recent Profile Visitors

2925 profile views
  1. @Probodobodyne QBE Wing segments used as structural parts is a great design choice. I would question the use of ridiculously inefficient monopropellant engines on the same vehicle as ion engines, but in terms of pure aesthetics the space probe looks great. @roboslacker That's an incredibly unique space probe, and I like the structural cage around the probe core. @spacebrick3 A very entertaining entry. I think it sums up many people's feelings towards KSP. @proteasome I like the looks of that probe. The layout is nice and although it doesn't appear to have many parts, it's still not exactly lacking in detail. Your spaceplane is also quite aesthetically-pleasing. @luizopiloto I saw that space telescope in the shuttle challenge and I'm still incredibly impressed by it. It has some of the cleverest uses of stock parts that I've seen. Structural panel hexagons...
  2. Actually the flat probe core doesn't have any reaction wheels (unless you have a mod which adds them).
  3. I've somewhat neglected this thread of late, for which I apologize. There have been some pretty great entries. @UnusualAttitude I really like the design of your Fontanes space probes. They have some nice realistic design considerations (like the shielded reactors) and I like that they deviate from the common layout wherein the longest axis is the one aligned with the thrust vector. @Speeding Mullet Both the space probe and its launch vehicle have a lot of great details. I think you made very good use of structural parts, and spin-stabilizing the Laythe lander was a nice extra touch. @Calvin_Maclure One of the things that stood out most to me about your Duna Multi-Spectral Satellite was the fuel tank layout, which I thought was quite a clever way of making the design compact without sacrificing the structural elements. @DerekL1963 Like you said, a very functional-looking design. It looks quite convenient for launching, particularly if you were to launch several at once for a relay network. @Calvin_Maclure That Duna SAR Altimetry satellite is another really nice design. It looks quite functional and I like the fact that it uses RCS instead of reaction wheels (or at least visible reaction wheels) for attitude control. @Veeltch That design is very cleverly compact. I quite like asymmetrical space probes, and yours is very nice.
  4. You don't need an "insert into post" button. Embedding an image to the forums is literally just as simple as pasting the image link directly into the post editor box.
  5. You have to right click the image, click "open image in new tab", and paste the url of that new tab into the forums. Be careful not to click "open link in new tab"; you need the image on its own in a tab in order for the embed to work.
  6. I'm actually quite a quick builder usually. Whenever I install a new parts mod the first thing I do is familiarize myself with all of the parts. Then I have a good idea of what aesthetic options are available, which makes designing a lot quicker because I start out with an idea of what I want the vehicle to look like and I pretty quickly find the right parts to make it. A full series of similarly-styled launch vehicles takes me at most a couple of hours to assemble and test, and I can put together a pretty good Apollo-style Mun spacecraft in about 20 minutes (30 minutes if it's particularly detailed). Spaceplanes and other vehicles which need to be well-balanced do take longer to perfect, but even then I can almost always do it within 2 or 3 hours. A large amount of that time ends up being spent testing them out to make sure they fly properly both when fully fueled and empty. I do often keep going back to a design and tweaking it, but the total time I spend on any one spacecraft generally doesn't exceed about 3 hours (modular vehicles may take longer but that's only because I have to design them whole and then attach each module to a launch vehicle independently).
  7. If you assume that your lifter will be at full throttle until the SRBs burn out and the tanks on top of the SRBs are empty, you don't need to balance it for each different payload since the burn time will be the same. Balancing it initially is still a pain, but you don't need to rebalance it each time. Obviously a design that has to remain at full throttle all the time isn't always ideal, but it's the easiest way to make drop tanks on top of SRBs work.
  8. I learned how to do a proper gravity turn by watching how MechJeb does it. Because of this, my stock-scale launch vehicles have actually evolved in such a way that they work well with MechJeb anyway (except when there are interstage fairings, which MechJeb refuses to autostage below 50km). However, it doesn't work so well for scaled-up versions of Kerbin, and I've found that the high thrust required plus the different launch profile that's needed means that its generally more effective to fly manually in a scaled-up system. Docking is another thing where MechJeb is extremely useful only up to a certain point. It's great for routine docking maneuvers and it doesn't use too much extra monopropellant (I can dock extremely efficiently now but when I first learned to dock MechJeb was far better). However, it fails when you need to dock in a tight space. Cargo bays or the inside of structural trusses really don't agree with MechJeb; the way that it's coded means that its docking autopilot won't dock if the target docking port is inside the vehicle. So for situations like that, it's good to dock manually. The rendezvous and docking autopilots are pretty good for beginners though; I learned to do rendezvous and docking maneuvers properly by watching it happen automatically with MechJeb.
  9. I love that new accretion disc around Olu'um. It's one of my favourite things I've seen in a planet mod.
  10. I uploaded some of the early details for my new Kerbin Orbital Mission Architecture, thus beginning my Mission Architecture series. Details can be found here. This is inspired by the ISS but isn't intended to be an exact replica.
  11. Another excellent mission @foobar. You've completed the Extended Duna Mission and earned the relevant badge.
  12. I'll most likely be getting the DLC so I'll probably be making spacecraft with it. Whether those will be spacecraft that I release for download will depend on what parts are added by the DLC and whether they're useful for my design styles, rather than the concept of DLC itself. I already make modded craft so I know not everyone's going to be able to download and use them; in fact, I expect more people will have the DLC than the number of people who have the full set of mods that are required for my entire spacecraft portfolio to work. I would anticipate that on KerbalX there will be a category added for spacecraft which require paid DLC in order to function. There will still be spacecraft uploaded which do not require it, and players who do not have the DLC would presumably be able to narrow down their searches to exclude DLC craft.
  13. My home.
  14. The thing I find particularly odd about asparagus staging in KSP is that it's almost never necessary unless you're ascending from Eve. If you know how to do a gravity turn well, you can fly a rocket to orbit efficiently enough that there's never a need for asparagus staging. @Wanderfound That's quite an interesting design because of the outer layer of boosters. Having drop tanks on top of SRBs probably doesn't fall under the usual definition of asparagus staging (since they don't feed the engines they're connected to) but it's definitely an interesting design that makes more sense when compared to real engineering than normal asparagus staging does (basing things off of what's doable with current technology). It's a pain to work with if you want to minimize wasted fuel though.
  15. Judging by the looks of the launch vehicles they should fly pretty much perfectly. Are you sure you're flying them correctly? If you're starting the gravity turn closer to 20km altitude than 2km, that's what the problem is.