Jump to content

SciMan

Members
  • Content Count

    697
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

165 Excellent

About SciMan

  • Rank
    Config tinkerer

Contact Methods

  • Twitter
    @SciMan314

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. This mod looks VERY promising, I look forward to what it becomes in the future! Regarding the ion thruster causing the craft to spin, that should be relatively easy to fix. I think all you need to do is add in the line "CoMOffset = X, Y, Z" where X Y Z are numbers that create a set of coordinates telling the game where to put the part's COM relative to the part's origin. Mess around with those numbers a bit and you should be able to find (or calculate) numbers that make the COM of the satellite line up with the thrust axis of the ion thruster, therefore eliminating the source of the
  2. That's a valid method since it gets the job done, but the reason I use the Rendezvous Planner is that it has all the buttons for the functions you need right there, and it includes very helpful displays of your current orbit, the target orbit, your relative inclination, the time to the closest approach (only valid if closest approach is less than one orbit from now), and the distance at closest approach (also only valid if closest approach is less than one orbit from now). I find that it has all I need to get within physics loading range of any vessel in any orbit, assuming the craft I am
  3. I find I get the results I want much more consistently if I use the Rendezvous Planner and just hit the right buttons in the right sequence, instead of letting the Rendezvous AP handle things (which does the same thing, but with you theoretically only having to push one button). What you would do when using the rendezvous planner is hit the Match Planes button, execute the node, then Hohmann transfer, execute the node, use RCS to trim the closest approach to ~ 150m (trim this value to suite the size of the thing you're intercepting, further away for bigger things), then hit Match Velocity
  4. That's fair, but it did make me take a second look at what I said and compose my thoughts in a better way, which I'm thankful for.
  5. When I said we already know 99% of what we need to know to make better parts IRL, I didn't mean we know 99% of everything there is to know. I meant that further data from the types of experiments that KSP 1 has to offer, simply inform us of the conditions on another world, instead of informing us about how to do something to get better rocket engines or bigger fuel tanks or something of the like. What I meant is that there's no fundamental difference between the starting fuel tanks and the largest fuel tanks in the game. Yet somehow those larger (and smaller) fuel tanks cost "science" to
  6. Well if you're going to go with the "any random gas" idea, and you still want electric propulsion, there's not much better than some kind of electro-thermal thruster. It's very much a thermal propulsion method, as you're heating propellant to produce thrust, but the heat comes from electric energy. There are several types of electro-thermal thruster, with most of the difference in the types being in exactly how the electric energy is transferred to the propellant. On paper a resistojet is about the simplest and therefore most reliable electrothermal thruster you can get. Just stick a
  7. In my limited experience, for a surface base there's little reason to choose anything other than a cheap but heavy molten salt fission reactor, because even tho it's heavier than a fusion reactor for the same power output the need to save weight is much less on a surface base. Additionally, the power requirements for ISRU are rather modest, with total power output not usually going much over a couple hundred megawatts, meaning you can get away with a surprisingly small reactor and radiators provided you target the power output you need, and don't go chasing thermal efficiency. Plus, most
  8. Some of the first ideas for sending manned missions to Mars were using lifting-body gliders (Von Braun mars landers). It took several probes (flybys and later orbiters) to determine that the atmosphere was in fact quite problematic. The information gathered by several flyby and orbiter probes painted a problematic picture: Mars' atmospheric density is in a "sour spot" where it's really hard to take advantage of it. The atmosphere of Mars is dense enough that reentry heating is high enough to require a heatshield of some kind, but also not dense enough to enable use of parachutes alone to
  9. I was writing a big post about how you should need science of some sort to get the ideas for new part concepts, and then it takes money and time to do the R&D to actually produce parts from those concepts, but now I'm thinking we don't even need a science points system. The reason is simple. NASA doesn't send experiments to distant worlds to learn how to make better rocket engines. That's backwards. What NASA does is build better rocket engines so they can get science experiments to distant worlds. So how do you get better rocket engines? You invest in science research RIGHT AT H
  10. I'm glad someone was willing to put more work into finding UR-700 pictures than I was, I really didn't do it justice. That last one from @kerbiloid looks to be of a similar quality and style to William Beck's excellent 3d models, would be really nice if we could get the engines for it in Tantares so we could build it with the Proton fuel tanks that are already in. EDIT: also, @kerbiloid that first image you linked (the early versions of proton) didn't seem to work right. I'd love to see it, but it doesn't load for me.
  11. IDK how, but nobody has mentioned the OTHER soviet moon rocket (sadly it never left the drawing board). The UR-700. Just like in Kerbal, they wanted to use fuel cross-feed. Just like in Kerbal, it seems to have been created at a time when they did not have the tooling to simply "make a wider cylindrical fuel tank" instead of clustering smaller tanks and engines. It even had a proposed nuclear variant that would have been able to put 700 tons in LEO. IIRC, it was fueled by hypergolic fuels, so you also get the "infinite restarts" found in KSP. Having a hard time linking the picture fr
  12. Just downloaded NF Electrical, and I was going thru the files as I usually do to make sure everything is in order before I actually install it. I noticed one minor problem, the included version of Module Manager is not the most recent one. Included is 4.1.3, current is 4.1.4. EDIT: I got the addon from SpaceDock as I usually do.
  13. If I was going to do it, I'd probably use module manager to strip out the stock magnetometer experiment entirely from the stock magnetometer boom, and in its place put the DMagic magnetometer boom experiment code. The only problem I can see with this is that it would probably mess with the new moho probe mission (if you have the DLC for missions). EDIT: Thinking about it some more, maybe you could keep both experiments but DMagic would nerf stock science experiment science collection to account for the fact that there are more experiments to do now.
  14. Not sure about how to fix it, but I know that other modded fairings have been having issues in 1.10.x so it doesn't really surprise me to see that this mod's fairings are having issues.
  15. Is this still usable in 1.10.x without any major coding changes? I'm unsure if this is needed anymore, but I'd like to have it just in case there's even a small chance of issues cropping up that could be prevented by installing it. Granted it was I think around a year or so ago now that I saw a base obliterated by the bug this fixes (on EJ_SA's twitch channel, his fuel refinery on Minmus got wrecked by it) but I'm still fearful that anything I land on the surface of a planet or moon that is over a certain size would have a similar fate, and I want to prevent that because I want to do a Jo
×
×
  • Create New...