• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Drakenred65@Gmail.com

  1. Well currently im just using the kaboose as an inverted unmanned micro booster + monoprop tank and RSC unit + small battery that gets stuck upside down under the probecore, that replaces the Kerbal with a small mono prop tank giving you a small bit of everything and a place to grab onto it later if you need to do anything with it. like building a unmanned scan sat satellite and making it possible to send it from LKO to the Mun Minmus and beyond.
  2. I occasionally boot up oblivion or Skyrim or fallout new vegas or fallout 4. that said, I doubt I will mess with ksp when 2 gets up to speed. After all I haven’t played sims 3 since 4.
  3. Actualy just flip the thing over, stick a 50 kilo Monopropellant tank where the kerbal used to be and repaint it grey or white . Oddly it works just fine for me like that when inverted.. While you still have the 4 micro solid rockets, those are technically good enough to kick you away from your last booster. Stage, just reset them to have a minimum fuel of like .1 or so, and let people tweek that up to 4 if they really want it.
  4. And this is why i never should touch actual models with anything to extravagant., somehow the extra Monopropellant thruster I added is making the thing spin at any thrust like I put it on the edge and not dead center, but a just tweek the numbers version that doesn’t have an actual extra thruster added to it remains stable. Granted I did not add the parachute as ballast, but you would think it would be just as unstable rather way. Or maybe I’m just not spotting it when not useing the monothruster because it’s less of a torc issue then. granted the extra Monopropellant in kaboose mode seems to give better control on ascent and maneuvering, so for me it’s still useful.
  5. I would say since I’m subtracting off the mass of the heat shield and technically the mass and volume of the Kerbal and allowing 50kg as the naked mass of a kerbal,* with the mass of the suit being a non issue, for the mass of the Kerbal (replacing the micro srbs with an inline mono prop thrusters is a wash since you don’t need them as anything but a mass and volume replacement to allow an inline Monopropellant thruster) your lookin at most 10 maybe 12 total for Monopropellant. After all your changing it from a kerbal re entry pod to a unmanned maneuverability and maybe battery-pack (Jeb is probably getting tired of his tv remote battery’s getting swiped) that you bolt on to the base of the probe core. The parachute mass and volume can be used for the control package that your wire in on top of or replace outright the existing “control” package. Or more battery’s. Then paint it white or grey since it’s no longer a rescue pod. =========== * please don’t visualize that
  6. I’m seriously thinking of taking your pod cloning it striping out the Kerbal seat and solid rocket fuel, replacing both with more Monopropellant and batteries, and making it a clip er bolt on self contained part for add on satellites to provide Monopropellant thrusters for orbital maneuvers and station keeping. Just add a probe core. Replace the heat shield with a thruster pack and or and the parachute with a Monopropellant tank, turning it into a koose probe bus. er kaboose? Ill look at the numbers latter I’m not at home.
  7. Well kind of not Quite taking them orbit diving, but you can take up to 7 tourists suborbital in it very reasonably for me that is... Although for what they payed for the 10 min thrill ride they could have gone to Kisneyworld and ridden all the rides and had plenty left over for Keaworld and Kniversal Ktudioes
  8. To bad you can’t take Kerbals sky er deorbit diving as tourists.
  9. I use it as a crew delivery and return bus just pop it on the bottom of whatever I'm sending up and it's a convinent 6 pack. Then dismantle it for parts once you send down it's current load. And now I need to build and launch an actual 6 pack......
  10. Modular...... you um don’t want to give me anything too “modular”.....I kind of go mad scientist as it is... https://m.imgur.com/rJ3a7L1 I also used those to make a literal triple wide transporter erector. The transporter was reusable after launching a mainsail powered ship from the squad monolith after moving it From the main launch pad. But to be honest I use the wheels on a lot of things.
  11. http://www.astronautix.com/r/rescue.html at least one of those is Indiana Jones Approved.
  12. Well the thing was I was able to use a tweaked ballute to replicate the paracone concept, for a given value of working, ( somehow it keeps flipping over the instant it’s no longer in the red hot stage then starts spinning like a frisbee which since it does it as it’s droping below hypersonic or at hypersonic velocity is weird, I suspect a mod conflict) , but getting a model that would inflate and animate properly is kind of beyond me. That and now I’m going to shoot auto correct.
  13. I was about to suggest that you may want to take a look at inline ballutes mod., but then I remembered that what I used was a modded a command chair with Ballute and a tweaked of the size on the ballot till it until it was tinny and that worked just fine,,, and I’m about to murder auto-correct sorry it wants to auto correct Ballutes to ballot.
  14. This is me having a debate about designing an Orion Drive space ship Me: Orion Drive Me meh Me: now wait a second Im thinking we take 5X Orion drives linked with a tweaked out AT industries Skycrane that carries more nukes as its reserve fuel ... Me: Go on Me: then build 4 more set of thoes.... then link them to another AT industries Skycrane for 25 Onion stanged Orion Drive boosters...... Me: hmmm needs something....MORE. This is perobably why I make people from NASA nervous when they are around me.
  15. Onion stadging in massive rings of engines of whatever the largest engine is. why do you ask? After all that is what I with Orion's.
  16. If anyhing i supect it will be the same on rails system weve had in KSP, if for no other reason than its simpler to put in new systemsthan to go in and hand tune each one to deal with the peculiaritys of each one, given that while you can tweek the base systrm to be stable in the current games timeframe, we still have a much larger game with a much greater timeframe, given we now have at least two new game time acselerations on topon everyting else, in addition to the inevitable loss in precision that entales. Yes
  17. The simple version. In the late 40 s they detected trace levels of Uranium carbide and thorium oxide in air samples and eventually figured out that was probably coming from coal burning in Eastern Europe. They then tried to establish a baseline level for how was "much coal Ash Uranium was normal, but not before the test the US labeled Joe 1 rendered the question irelivant.
  18. Actualy there used to be...until they started paying attention to and realised coal is actualy contaminated with Uranium And thorium. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/
  19. Ok first off, there developing in Unity. That by itself imposes limitations in what you can do. Seriously I doubt you could model a synestia type planetary system event as anything other than a heavily scripted giant “part mod” that spawns a “planet” never mind that toroidal gas cloud is , a crazy plasma atmosphere with wind shear that is measured in terms of orbital velocity, and planetary shrapnel that ranges in size from micrometer to hundreds of kilometers, never mind the computational modeling to simulate that things crazy gravity, never mind the computational workload imposed by a Theia type impactor, or the moonlet “snowfall” roche dismantling model implied by some of the more recent theory’s about The 1000km moonlet *, the problem being the need to spawn a variety of models in the hundred or even literal thousands because that ironically would be unrealistically low. * in some theory’s that moonlet was at least partly soft captured by Roche limit triggered dismantlement. Basicaly some material gets torn off, some gets deposited on the moon, the rest flung away from the earth
  20. Ok enough with the mutual pettynes guys. There developing KSP2 Not US2 KERBAL edition .
  21. Given that the moon was apparently impacted by a 1000 km object that may have basically just shed rock onto the surface in a long sequence of surprisingly gentile impacts....yes plural....you have a really rediculous range of possibility’s out there.
  22. Ok I think I fixed it, basicaly I re wrote it from scratch. My intention was to create a variant Hull that was more capable that could be left in orbit with a orbital station while reducing part count so you dont need a 1 man command pod + science lab. i think I may just kit bash a new model that has both without deleting seats. I found loosing one scientist not worth it since I end up adding hab space anyway for an engineer.