DrScarlett

Members
  • Content count

    212
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

33 Excellent

1 Follower

About DrScarlett

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

826 profile views
  1. Hi @FreeThinker, since we now have three antimatter storage parts, I wanted to post my understanding and see if I am correct. Can you comment yes/no or anything I missed? We have a small and a large Electrostatic Antimatter containment device. The large one used to be called Diamagnetic Antimatter containment device, but now is a 'regular' large sized Electrostatic device. I was not able to collect antimatter before the update, but now they both work the same. They both collect a resource called "Antimatter" from the collectors and I can transfer this resource between the two. The third container (shown off earlier by @FreeThinker - beautiful modelling, btw) is the Diamagnetic Antimatter trap, it holds a new, much more compact, Antimatter resource called "Anti Hydrogen" and can convert any present "Antimatter" to "Anti Hydrogen" (or vice versa), compressing the Antimatter to a more dense stuff in the process, but it needs an Antimatter Containment device to hold the Antimatter to be converted. It cannot be used directly in conjunction with Antimatter collectors. As far as Anti Hydrogen goes, I only tested the PBC Antimatter Reactor. It seems it can consume both Antimatter and Anti Hydrogen (calling it 2 variants in the status window) so we do not need to convert Anti Hydrogen back to Antimatter before we use it. It also seems that Anti Hydrogen is consumed more slowly in proportion to the higher density. (Does this work the same for all Antimatter consuming parts?) Thanks very much for this great update, Dr. Scarlett
  2. YESSS!!! Thank you!!! <3 <3 <3
  3. Hi again @FreeThinker, What I forgot to mention previous week also is that the Diamagnetic container also failed to collect AM when in a vessel with collectors. Possibly the same resource conversion thingy you mentioned?
  4. Great fixes, can't wait to get them live, thank you!
  5. Hey @FreeThinker, actually, I have a few questions about this. Maybe you can enlighten me. I have a Diamagnetic AM Containment device, not a trap, and it doesn't look like the one you are showing. It does look like it holds much more AM though. Can i use the Diamagnetic container to power devices, the same way as the Antistatic containers, or can I only use it for transport? I did a bit of testing, build a new tanker, and it looks like I cannot transfer antimatter between the two different types of containment devices i have. That makes using the two types in parallel very impractical.
  6. Nope, didn't know. Thank you!
  7. Interesting, I see a couple more things than MechJeb (what I have been using) gives me. I'll check it our. Thanks
  8. Are you using TCA at all? Thank you, @FreeThinker, for your encouraging words! I understand you are trying to up the challenge - I appreciate that. However, disregarding the fact that this thing wasn't purposed for travel to other bodies, if I consider the mun landing proposal, I have to put serious question marks to it. First, along the lines of what @Nansuchao said, it can already transfer to, and land on the Mun. I just land it on its ass on the Kerbstein. See below Using rotating VTOLs for that introduces a complication that seems impractical. For using the thermal jets in a rotating fashion I would have to put them near the CoM, or use two pair or them, which would move the CoM way back again, giving me an unbalanced plane. if you want me to make a VTOL based on thermal jets that can rotate the engines, I can try that, but giving it wings as well is weird hybrid mixture. Second, using the thermal jets in a non-atmospheric environment (rotating or otherwise) doesn't make much sense to me. I would have to haul more propellant to the Mun. I am fine with going for a VTOL concept, but I would not like to design it for both atmospheric gliding as well as non-atmospheric rocketing purposes. it's either - or. I'm sorry, the whole idea just weirds me out. Maybe you should specify the challenge more clearly? How do you want it to take off? How do you want it to land? In atmosphe? In vacuum? Now adding FTL that is a challenge. i might take you up on that. If you read earlier with my discussion with @Ciro1983811, we already discussed that. I did a quick adaptation, add some legs and move the tail plane forward, but I nailed it. Barely. Enter the MunMoth
  9. Dear interstellars, I would like to, finally, share another succes story with you. I wanted to create a space plane that picks up anti matter from a hauler in orbit, and that uses @FreeThinker's excellent fission and fusion tech to go SSTO. The basic principle was easy, copied from @Ciro1983811's SSTO rocket example, but turning that into a working space plane was not. It took me a week experimenting, learning about stability and aerodynamics to go from an awful pilot to a point where I can build a stable space plane and actually land it on the runway. The turning point was my discovery of the procedural wing, and to a lesser extent, the landing gears from Kerbal foundry. I do not think I could have done it without those. So I want to show you the result, which I call "the Moth". Here is the Moth's predecessor, which looks way cooler, bit it tended to go into a flat spin on re-entry, in such a way that I could not recover from the spin.Turns out there is more to center of mass than just putting it in front of the center of lift. Boy, I wish KSP would give me more information on the center of drag! Can't wait to try out Ferram once it goes 1.3. So below here is the Moth. Notice the difference in configuration which puts its center of mass just before the middle of the plane. I would have loved to pull it forward even further, but with all the reactors and the Kerbstein needing to be all the way at the end I could not figure out how to do it. I am open to additional suggestions. Also I found a wing position that gives a nice balance between stability and maneuverability. If this thing spins out, if I have enough altitude, I can always recover. I am very proud. It is very tough to find the right way to side-attach things to your vessels body - nacelle-style. I made use of the MKS Honey-badger's side-attachment parts The Moth takes off on thermal jets with pebble beds, starts out air breathing, moves over to methane (tank is in the middle in the body under the wing, balance is the same with or without fuel) about 16 KM up, when fuel runs out its apo is between 45 and 50 KM. Coast until 40 KM after which the Kerbstein can kick in. It does a 35 degree climb all the way to the top, no need for leveling out, increasing horizontal velocity, none of that stuff. It's wonderful. It used to be able to climb steeper, until I put the wings at a slight angle, which allowed for the final touch I needed - a smooth take-off and more importantly, smooth landing at a low angle of attack. 2 pics of the Moth taking off. Switching to Kerbstein above 40 KM. Here it is during re-entry, the air breaks are very nice, they also help to provide a soft and slow landing. Finally here is the image showing glorious victory: the Moth handing off 1.5 Kilograms of anti-matter to the Termite! VICTORY! I hope you enjoyed this report. I had great fun using interstellar technology to create this plane!
  10. Exactly! So it is very good to know what this vector is @FreeThinker do you think you might come up with a way to visualise your exit vector without having to drop out of warp?
  11. No. Neither. You want to drop out of warp so that your retained vector becomes your orbital vector.
  12. What I usually do is drop out of warp outside the SOI of my destination, sometimes in the middle of my trip. This does two things: 1. It shows you the direction of your Kerbol related vector - which is exactly the vector you will retain when you drop out of warp around your target. 2. If I want I can then do an in between hop to use the change in my Kerbol orbit to get a more desirable vector. Kerbol gravity well shenanigans. Now using the new indications @FreeThinker has shown, you can use the gravity well to greatly affect this vector. But it helps very much to understand what this vector is to begin with. It lets you know whether you need to drop out in front, next to, above, below or, god forbid, behind your target body.
  13. That is amazing, that are some VERY nice additions that will make gravity assisted FTL exits much easier. You just need to make sure you have the power to put a negative exponent on your c multiplier (going ever slower than one c) to give you time to pick your best exit. Seems to cost just as much as going multiple c's. How is that by the way, what is the theoretical physics idea behing that (if any)?
  14. forum rank catolog

    Whoohoo, thanks, @Hotaru