SnakyLeVrai

Members
  • Content Count

    116
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

165 Excellent

2 Followers

About SnakyLeVrai

  • Rank
    Rocketeer

Contact Methods

  • Website URL Array

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Good luck for your endeavour ! I did that a while ago (sorry I didn't realize how even darker YT would re-encode it )
  2. Another Apollo tribute, focusing on the flight plan and a few technological aspects, like ullage engines... Note this is not an Apollo-11-only remake ^^ Posted the Sound FX only version for the Apollo 11 tribute on reddit! I tried to get things as right as I could. Just noticed a few inconsistencies though, like I think CSM and LEM are not docked right (90° off I think). The LES tower does not jettison the right way either. Also I did not mess with "which RCS thruster is activated when I want translation or rotation along this axis". No idea how I would have done that with the ascent module O_o. Overall I'm quite happy with the result !! French version here!
  3. Hm... I started to worry when +Z acceleration got down from 2.1 to 0.7m/s², because Mün Moon surface gravity is 1.62m/s² and... they were less than 10km to surface. As this probe is unlikely to have a Kerbal powerhouse with a TWR above 50 that allows suicide burns 20m above the dust at suborbital speeds, this was definitely not an encouraging sign. Sad ending :\ Well, they tried! now I hope they'll learn plenty of things... for SCIENCE!
  4. It all depends how you reach it. From my experience it costs about 1500-1550m/s tops, to get to Gilly from LEO (100x100km around Eve). From LEO, burn so that your orbit intercepts Gilly at its Ap. That's a 1300m/s burn, tops (1287.26m/s if everything's perfect...) ; Wait for Ap to make any orbital inclination change!!! A bit of orbital mechanics 101 here According to Gilly's orbital elements, the argument of its Pe is 10°, meaning it's very close to its ascending node... What does that even mean?? ---> when you'll intercept Gilly at its own Ap around Eve (48125km ASL), you'll be close to its descending node As inclination change depends on your orbital speed in m/s, a 12° change will not cost much, because @Ap, as you are close to Gilly's DN, your orbital speed around Eve will be low. It's about 15 to 20m/s depending on how close to Ap you are. That's why it is always better to make inclination changes at low orbital speeds... If you changed inclination at 100km above Eve, it would cost 937m/s, theoretically (on a 48125 x 100km orbit). As you intercept Gilly, you'll have to achieve capture, that'll cost about 201m/s to stay in Gilly's SOI. Of course, you may merge the capture burn and orbital change in the same maneuver... no big deal here. Before you perform orbital injection around Gilly, your orbit, around Eve, is still 48125 x 100km, more or less (that's what it would be if you missed Gilly's SOI, I mean...). So, to match Gilly's orbit, you'll have to accelerate so that your orbit becomes "48125 x 13475km above Eve's sea level". That's why the 201m/s burn. That'll get you captured around Gilly. Gravitational help from Gilly won't be much... It may vary a tad bit, given your final orbit above Gilly... but not by much (1 to 10m/s maybe?). All in all, you'll get there for about 1500m/s ... Costs the same to go back to LEO. If you tried to intercept Gilly when it is at its Pe around Eve, all in all, it would cost you 1950 to 2100m/s (depending wether you make orbit inclination change @Ap or Pe). I've made myself a spreadsheet to calculate all my maneuvers and determine my dV budget, roughly. Helps a LOT when designing missions... The figures below are not exactly right because inclination change is not exactly at Ap, it's lower. But won't affect it by much. Also, it doesn't take into account the gravitational influence of the bodies I meet (gravitational slingshots and all).
  5. Built and tested this big space truck, to refill a Space Station in Low Eve Orbit, in 1 single trip. I could have built it with huge size 4 tanks but, the ship was too long to my taste... so I devised a slightly more compact design with a more industrial look. Kudos to @SQUAD for the Mk2 lander's rover look RCS is powerful enough to take-off from Gilly at full load (4 Verniers! ain't that cute?). It has enough fuel to deliver the payload and go back to Gilly. And 4 fuel cells to keep mining during night time (takes a couple of days to refill everything when I land on ore-poor biomes...). This big Eve exploration mission is taking shape. I'll make a movie out of it, this planet is an awesome engineering challenge
  6. Challenge of the month: Get back from Eve, not from the bottom of the sea but, this time, from the bottom of a pile of junk covering your ascent vehicle, by brute-forcing your way though it. Bonus points for every explosion it makes.
  7. I've designed this bad boy for hauling my Kerbals back to orbit. It has a lot of dV left when circularized, they'll use it to rendez-vous with their interplanetary ship, which is bigger and way more comfier Tested and approved! KER dV information is accurate: I've added a 575kg weight in the VAB to simulate the mass of the 6 Kerbals in their seat (they barely reach 575kg anyway...).
  8. My only complaint so far is how it broke the missions I've already launched... I don't mind when it comes to designing new ones but, for those I've launched, it's really annoying, as I calculated the exact dV I needed, with a small percentage for maneuver errors and whatnot. I've had to write a MM patch to unnerf them util my current missions finish all their maneuvers. That's quite annoying. Couldn't @SQUAD make the thing they did with obsolete decouplers and tanks, so current missions don't get sabotaged by nerfing? I understand the need for nerfing but, come on... this feels like a punishment for trying to engineer things properly rather than overengineering all the time...
  9. Yay! Give this Kerbal a cigar! It works like a charm now. I had 2 rovers out of 12 with a path in it. Deleted it, loaded, now it works. I can still upload the save file if you want to review it. As far as I am concerned, the issue is solved. Thanks a lot for your help and for maintaining this gem of a mod
  10. @majaThanks for your answer. That's very weird. Let me put some order into this: The firstRun = 1 thing: set the flag to 1, launch KSP, load my save, go to tracking station without clicking on the BV controller in the toolbar, select one of my rovers with a BV part and switch to it, the part is present on the rover so, I right-click it, try to open the BV panel but it does not open, I open the panel from the toolbar and the window is empty (I should have a dozen rovers in the list but none shows up). I've got the same exceptions in the log: So, I go back to SpaceCenter and open the BV panel from the toolbar. List is still empty, so I click on Reload BV controller, I get this in the log: I gave up and quit to try something else... I thought the problem was linked to the fact one of my rovers was still on the move. Back in 1.4.5, I wait for the rover to stop, make sure every rover is still, I save and quit, firstRun = 1 in config.xml, launch KSP 1.6.1, load save, no change, still the same problems I quit and try something else... In old KSP 1.4.5 (with BonVoyage 0.13.3.0), I create a brand new sandbox career and a simple rover with a BV controller. I launch it and leave it next to the KSC Runway... I quit, launch KSP 1.6.1 (BonVoyage 0.14.3.0 , firstRun = 0 this time), load my brand new save, Everything works: the panel opens from the right click menu of the BV part, the rover is available in the BV panel from the flight view and the Spacecenter. mind blown O_o Are there dependencies to other mods I should worry about? (mandatory ones, incompatibilities?) Or is there any influence from other parameters? (if COMMNET is activated or not? other?) When you mention "some rover with wrong path data, which is messing the loading", is there something I could do to right this? (like hand-editing a save? it doesn't scare me, I can do it). This is all so strange
  11. Haha found a funny one. I've just updated from KSP 1.4.5 to 1.6.1 directly. Bon voyage was 0.13.3.0 on KSP 1.4.5. -> Updated it to 0.14.3.0 on KSP 1.6.1 and copied my save files from there (all the content from the KSP\saves folder). The BonVoyage controller part disappeared from all my rovers Subsequently, the rovers disappeared from the BonVoyage toolbar panel too. So I tested it from the VAB: build a simple rover, launched it on Launch Pad at KSC, right-clicked on the BonVoyage controller part on the roof of my Rover, left-clicked on the "open BV control panel". Nothing happened. Not even a trace in the log (I left the alt-F12 console open at the time). Then I opened the BV panel from the toolbar and clicked on "reload BV controller", popped exceptions as described below. Here is the log: (tests start on line 12238 and ends on line 12308) : https://www.dropbox.com/s/3gzeop5dpwi1zd8/KSP.log.zip?dl=0 Look at lines 12252 and 12266: when I click "on reload BV controller" from the toolbar's BonVoyage control panel, the exceptions in the log happen (I clicked 2 times, waiting a few seconds between the 2 attempts). Here is the config.xml content : I've tried deleting and reinstalling the BonVoyage mod clean but to no avail O_o weird huh?
  12. I think it looks great, I like it, the variant too Now @SQUAD, if you have other MH engines rebalancing to make: when the engines specs change just like that out of the blue, a lot of already launched missions just fail. That's quite unfair I think, to have to choose between upgrading to get the next features you work hard to build, and losing a lot of our previous work because ships are suddenly useless. That's why I haven't upgraded to 1.6 unfortunately... I honestly don't mind changing the way I build future missions, taking into account the new specs, really, but if only the already launched missions wouldn't get sabotaged by rebalancing ...
  13. You can hunker down on Earth with less risk than the Jovian system, and at the same time send robots to harvest whatever awesome space fuel you need anywhere, with a much smaller crew if you need to monitor the operation from up close. Heck, you can bury them into Ganymede's or Callisto's crust. They'll have some limited gravity, maybe some water in the rocks, a thick and solid roof against radiation and meteorites, they can build a bunch of solar-thermal sources, even a nuclear reactor a few kilometers away (could be a molten salts one for safety's sake)... They'll be comfy. Plenty of time to play KSP even. As for electric energy sources... I still don't understand why they put a power station around Io. That's... strange. The ONLY think I'd build near Io is a giant pizza oven. That would make more sense. Going for Proxima is a great "if". Taking this destination as a solution to an imminent existential risk is quite the Hail Mary... And the steps between that, Io & stuff, that's a big risk to take. Was the Io and Proxima plot really necessary? I remember a book I've read long ago, there was a brutal ice age and mankind took refuge underground. The plot revolved around a small recon team that ventured outside to see if things got better. That sounded more credible and the whole story was a good read. Back on the movie: maybe they should have upped the risk a bit to give a good reason to bail. Like epic asteroid strike or something? grey goo? what other existential risks can you think about?
  14. "Let's go to Io!" "Why?" "Because geothermal energy is cool!" "yaaaayyyyyy!!!" feels like a Don Hertzfeldt animation... And they don't even gravity turn when the rockets blast off. That's an awesome tech they got here. I mean come on. To settle on Io, or in orbit of Io even, you'll need to sustain mankind over there. To stay for good. For dramatization's sake, let's just say they Earth got so toxic only a fraction of the population survived. Let's say only 100,000 people survived (that's 1 in 70,000, quite the drama huh?). How do you sustain this amount of people in a hostile environment where : thanks to @Gapone doing the homework I was too lazy to do , we know we have the least amount of water in the solar system there, we can't grow anything in the ground - my sources tell me it's even harder to have vegetables grow spontaneously out of VACUUM, unless you wait 10^10,000 years and expect for something to happen out of quantum fluctuations, we have no atmosphere outside so we need reinforced hulls to hold the pressure in, pressure that pushes tons against the walls, nor do we have a credible ballistic protection against projectiles hurled around screaming, by the biggest slingshot around, save from the Sun itself, did I mention RADIATIONS? There's no safe place to be, only hazards everywhere, that we don't have on Earth. So, we need some sort of super advanced tech to thrive in such a bad place. Soooo... why not use some of that tech and build a nice mansion with an airlock, decontamination shower, and stay safe from micrometeorites, asteroids, radiations, volcanos, tidal quakes, the vacuum of space, low sunlight due to distance from the sun... Or build a Zen cabin in the Himalayas? Why do everything we can to put ourselves in more danger than need be? how is it possible that all those epic rocket scientists and biologists and whatnot developped some epic tech, to enable mankind to live in hell like it's a vacation, but none thought about cleaning the darn lawn? Feels like: oh, the bog is clogged and it's starting to smell. Let's abandon house and live in the Gobi desert. Mind blown.
  15. It doesn't happen on Io it's happening on Earth. Those two were left behind when everyone left for Io and now they're trying to join the rest of mankind. Why they named it Io is completely beyond me. Why those two are trying to join their friends on Io is not making sense either, because it's a hellish place to be. I guess in the NEAR future, as advertised in the trailer, people are smart and skilled enough to jerry rig an orbital capable vehicle with a team of 2, but not enough to decide of a better course of action than cruising to a certain death. That's quite an expensive way to commit suicide, if you ask me. And it takes patience to get there... Is that 9 years to go to Jupiter? I don't remember... edit: Ha, yeah maybe this is a B Ark : "LIFE IS BETTER ON IO! FREE SEATS!"