• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,951 Excellent

About Servo

  • Rank
    Amateur Rocket Scientist

Profile Information

  • Location In the SPH
  • Interests KSP, Minecraft, tabletop games, Magic: the Gathering, and more.

Recent Profile Visitors

5,729 profile views
  1. Tagging @katateochi (KerbalX site admin). You're not the first person to have voiced concerns about unoriginality and whatnot on KerbalX. Unfortunately, Katateochi is only one kerbal, and he does enough amazing work just keeping the site running that to expect them to moderate everything would be unfair. One potential solution to this which I see (I forget if I've mentioned it before or not) would be to have a sort of auto-moderator that prevents this sort of thing. Here's my sort of brain-dump on the issue. Things that KerbalX already knows, which can determine whether a craft is identical to another: Mass, Part Count, Cost, Part composition, image links, dimensions, game version Whatever filter is (theoretically) put into place would need to be accurate enough to permit craft which are similar by coincidence (I'm sure there are unique planes with identical part counts out there; there's just so many craft out there), but still nab craft which are exact copies. Additionally, the filter should be optimized as to not take up too much server space on upload (it gets exponentially more difficult to check against every craft as more craft are uploaded, and server specs are expensive). Therefore, this filter should be as specific as possible (at least in the early part of the filter) while relying on as little information as possible. Given this, I think a good trial filter would look something like this: stage 1. Select all craft within 200 funds price (this should narrow things from ~30k craft to 300, by rough estimation) (30k comparisons) stage 2. Select all craft within 1 part count (this should narrow things to maybe 2 dozen craft) (300 comparisons) stage 3. Select all craft within 1m in all dimensions (this should narrow things to no more than 3 craft) (50 comparisons) stage 4: compare part counts. Assume any craft with a deviation of less than 1 part is plagiarized and flag it (~200 comparisons) (most expensive comparison per craft) This still works out to approximately one comparison per craft in the database. This could be optimized by creating a database of prices, which saves individual computation time at the cost of server space and time in compiling/updating this database. As with all auto-moderation techniques, this would be easy to fool (adding some parts somewhere, or changing fuel loads, etc). It would really only cut down on the no-effort copies, but do nothing against anyone intentionally 'reposting' craft with slight modifications. But in conclusion, it's unfair to accuse Katateochi of not caring about KerbalX. They're the only reason we're sharing craft alongside pictures and descriptions on such an awesome platform. There's only so much one person can do.
  2. FWIW, I consider a distinction between 'Stock' and 'Pure Stock' as "can you load it in the base game" vs "can you build it in the base game", with reasonable exceptions to the latter for stuff like RCS build aid, editor extensions, and KER. Regardless this is an extremely creative craft, and it leaves me wondering what else is possible with this technique. It would certainly make good-looking stock airships a reality, as well as extremely accurately shaped aircraft noses/fuselage sections (within the limits of radial symmetry).
  3. Full Scale, Full Stock, Full Function On April 21, 1981, STS Columbia launched for the first time. Just as Yuri Gagarin’s first flight exactly 20 years earlier, Columbia opened up a new era of space flight. The Shuttle provided an unparalleled capability to service satellites in orbit, providing a flexible base of operations for seven astronauts for two weeks in low earth orbit. It is not too much of an exaggeration to say that without the shuttle we wouldn’t have Hubble, the ISS, and many, many scientific advancements. About the replica This craft began about five months ago, as I realized that I was rapidly approaching 100 craft uploads on KerbalX. I wanted something BIG to mark the milestone. This craft went through two major revisions, and countless minor revisions. Of note, this craft wouldn’t be where it is without the help of @HB Stratos who took my poorly made cargo bay and made it work 100% of the time. Additionally, this craft deserved a proper craft video. I'm really proud of it, give it a watch: Flight Manual Launch Orbital and Payload Operations Reentry and Landing Download Link Enjoy! This is a difficult craft to fly, but I promise you, it's well worth it.
  4. Servo

    What did you do in KSP today?

    A lot of news to report on, and all of it good! Firstly, this: I finally got my 1:1 STS to a releasable state. The addition of movable ore allows for stability during atmosphere and maneuverability on final approach. Moving 6 tons around does wonders for shifting COM, even on a 100 ton glider. I spent much of my evening doing multiple deorbits and reentries until I managed to nail down exactly how to get over the KSC. (start 80x80, lower Periapsis to 25km over the far landmass, prograde hold all the way home) This was an extremely welcome sight. I quicksaved here and took a number of tries to nail down the landing procedure as well. (Nose down 50 degrees until 6 seconds before impact, pitch up hard and land with less than 8m/s vertical velocity) On the sixth try, flawless success. That marked the end of the hard part for me, since now all I need to do is record a good launch sequence (already done), get cinimatic shots (partially done), and edit it all together (not even started). But, most importantly, this marks the beginning of the end of the months-long process that it took to build, test, and finalize this craft. It's been easily the toughest project that I've ever taken on in KSP, but it's been a challenge against which I have measured the best of my abilities, to paraphrase Kennedy.
  5. Looking great! Seems like you're right back in the swing of things. Speaking of all of those things, I'm revamping my T-38. I wasn't quite happy with it, so I spent some time fixing a lot of my gripes with it. The tailplanes are now a better shape, the dorsal razorback isn't curved as much, the cockpit is flatter, the engine housing has the proper arch, and there are slats now. More testing is needed to see if it's escaped its nasty habit of getting into near-unrecoverable flat spins or not. Even if it isn't, It's a good thing the engines are literally made of spin recovery chutes. All that, in addition to a bunch of smoothing edits, especially to the underside. Here's the old version for comparison, inspecting my other project as of late. The addition of 600 units of movable ore ballast helped the Shuttle immensely. This gives the Orbiter the ability to shift its CoM significantly, moving between a highly stable reentry position and a pitch-happy landing position so that it can finally pitch up and land safely* *this has yet to be confirmed from orbit reentry tests, only drop tests
  6. This Lockheed Electra Model 10 is the product of a spur-of-the-moment collaboration between KerbalX's PhantomAerospace ( and myself. He built a fine prop for this craft, plus helped with the finer details/tuning. It's not 100% done, as a lot of tuning has to be done (especially to keep the engines from failing). Props are a new experience for me, so I'll admit that seeing this thing take off at a blistering 22m/s was really something else. Props (hehe) to those of you who do this stuff regularly. Gardner Island, Southwest Pacific Ocean, 1937 (Colorized) And naturally, since the release of the MS-10 video, I've been wanting to try and make a proper Korolev cross myself - and that means proper. No sepatrons or ejection force for me. Still in construction, but I'm pretty sure the theory behind it is sound. What's required to make this work: Step 1: Lock prograde hold on the booster, shortly before booster cutoff. There are probe cores in each of the boosters to enable the rest of this, angled outward (away from true vertical). Step 2: Fire AG 1 shortly after booster burnout / as it is about to burnout. This enables crossfeed to give the booster engines a half-second more thrust. This also decouples the boosters and enables the "oxygen dump valve" (Puff) engine, but doesn't activate it. The boosters will begin to hinge upwards on the joints. Step 3: As the boosters rotate upward, use AG 2 to decouple to hinges from the core stage itself. The SAS/RCS on the boosters should kick in to cancel the rotation, and form the Korolev Cross for realsies. Forseeable issues: I may have to resort to simply activating the Oxygen dump valve with AG 1 after all, as the prograde hold/ RCS activation likely won't hold across staging.
  7. Servo

    A-10 Warthog replica

    Nice 'Hog! It looks really good - you did a great job capturing the shape of the wings and tail. Welcome to the forums!
  8. Servo

    What did you do in KSP today?

    I built a T-38 to train some astronauts: I tried reentry again with my STS (which is almost ready for release, I just need to make a video about it). First try, I got really close, but fell about 5km short. It has an absolutely terrible glideslope, so I wasn't able to extend the range at all. Work continues on my Crusader as well. All that remains is ironing out the problems with the wing not docking in the up position. If anyone has any ideas as to how to fix this (I've checked alignment and distances, but it refuses to dock even once), I'd like to hear them.
  9. 99th KerbalX upload is a good one! The T-38 Talon is one of the longest-lasting aircraft programs in U.S. history, due to be replaced only in the 2030s, after what will be 70 years of service. Download it here:
  10. Had an incredibly productive two hours to work on my STS tonight, and I am proud to say that I have finally ironed out the two kinks that kept this from being ready for release. Firstly, the cargo bay doors are now 99% reliable, thanks primarily to some help from @HB Stratos, and some further tweaking on my part to loosen up the tolerances. Just look at that massivev cargo bay. Reentry was smoothed out as well. The braking action on the tail, plus the addition of clipped elevons in the nose allow for control from orbit all the way to the ground. And for the first time ever, that means to the ground in one piece! Reentry testing revealed an absolutely abysmal terminal velocity of 70m/s in a full dive. It was utterly impossible to pull up for landing, even given enough control surfaces. Analysis showed that the MK3 parts which made up the forward and aft fuel tanks were responsible for most of this drag, so SCIENCE! was done. This particular brand of SCIENCE! involved crashing objects into the ground at high speed, so the ground crews were overjoyed. Here we see a controlled trial between an unaided Mk3 tank, one with a Mk3-2.5m adapter, and one with a Mk3-Mk2 adapter. Fuel/ore were balanced such that each had the same amount of mass. The addition of either adapter increased the speed they hit the ground at by over 20m/s (drops were done from 3km using VesselMover extended), and the Mk3-Mk2 adapter masses 300kg less, so it was selected, and they were added on the 8 exposed nodes on the shuttle body, and then clipped back into the frame to maintain aesthetics. The result was immediately obvious, as the new shuttle had an increased terminal velocity of over 80m/s, leading to the ability to develop landing procedures at last. On approach to the KSC, have a ~70 degree nose down attitude until KER reads impact in 6 seconds (~170m/s velocity). Pitch up to 30 degree nose down and level off at ~100m/s, and glide down as normal. Use the braking chutes and brake action groups to slow down.
  11. Servo

    Stock Boeing Pelican, *HUGE AIRCRAFT*

    At 1:1 scale, a death star would be between 140 and 160 km in diameter. For comparison, the Mün has diameter 400km. But if anyone can do it, Kronus can.
  12. Servo

    Stock Boeing Pelican, *HUGE AIRCRAFT*

    Look into K.L.A.W engines if you want them to be one part. That precludes SAS bearings, but it can be done with engine blowers iirc. Of course, that eliminates the main advantage of making propellor craft (using RTGs to power SAS wheels indefinitely, that is).
  13. Greetings from the early 1940's! Kelly Johnson sends his regards in the form of quite possibly the weirdest fighter concept ever - the Lockheed L-133 Starjet. I mean, just look at that silhouette. That's not to mention the fact that it's incredibly maneuverable and at a very reasonable part count! Download it here:
  14. A Sketch of a unique plane... what could this be?


    1. Show previous comments  3 more
    2. Servo


      Make an account on - it's free and really useful. It should walk you through all the steps as you go.

    3. BlueVapor1234


      I figured it out, but thanks anyway!:D

    4. Kerbalwerks


      I am thinking the L-33 Starjet  .....................


      I cheated  LOL

  15. Servo

    Space History near you!

    I grew up in the DC area, about half an hour from the Udvar-Hazy center, home to Discovery (and at one point, Enterprise) Even closer to home, Katherine Wright, mother of the Wright brothers was born about 5 miles from my house, in the next town over. I'm also studying aerospace engineering in the shadow of this thing. Purdue has graduated more astronauts than any other college, including the first man on the moon and the last (Armstrong and Gene Cernan).