• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

288 Excellent


About Jestersage

  • Rank
    Senior Rocket Scientist

Contact Methods

  • Website URL Array

Profile Information

  • Location Array

Recent Profile Visitors

3,674 profile views
  1. Those holes are caused by RCS thrusters?!
  2. OPSEK (Russia), China Large Module Space Station (china), and various Commercial Space Station such as Axiom and etc. (US AFAIK have no plans for new space station)
  3. One thing I notice in Mir 2 and Freedom is the usage of truss/keel structure. Clearly there are some physics that is IRL but not in KSP. May I ask why do they decide to go with a usage of truss/keel? And why are the newer designs forgoing such concept?
  4. What about info from IVA? (orientation and speed, I think?)
  5. Fair enough. Would love to see how you plan to do the BG-body flap. On the other hand, the nice thing for Apollo style landing is that it's an all-up launch scheme. Obviously a Nova/LK700/LEK would be the easiest due to Direct landing, but even the Apollo-LOR is not too bad, since rendezvous and docking is easier around the Moon. Regardless, just because we can do Rendezvous/Docking, doesn't change the fact it is a pain in the behind. Feels like I need to baby sit each flight and go back and forth in tracking station. As for me, I am debating whether to go with a KVV poster at all myself. I think by not using KVV for soem crafts, it cut down the amount of time spend uploading craft and more on designing.
  6. Didn't you consider leaving your STS Shuttle Vanilla?
  7. Can someone do an explanation/discussion on the new engine plate values? Namely, why? the 5.0m plate is 1 ton with the short shroud!
  8. For those that want to forcefully change the craft parts to the new ones, without doing it in KSP. NO GUARNATEES! USE AT YOUR OWN RISK! ///1.9/// // Skipper engine engineLargeSkipper_ --> engineLargeSkipper.v2_ // Mainsail engine liquidEngine1-2_ --> liquidEngineMainsail.v2_ //Correct errors back radialliquidEngineMainsail.v2_ --> radialLiquidEngine1-2_ // BACC "Thumper" Solid Fuel Booster (no change) solidBooster1-1_
  9. Skip glide: As stated in the article: "The technique was used by the Soviet Zond series of circumlunar spacecraft, which used one skip before landing. In this case a true skip was required in order to allow the spacecraft to reach the higher-latitude landing areas. Zond 6, Zond 7 and Zond 8 made successful skip entries, although Zond 5 did not. The Chang'e 5-T1, which flew mission profiles similar to Zond, also used this technique. The Apollo Command Module used a skip-like concept to lower the heating loads on the vehicle by extending the re-entry time, but the spacecraft did not leave the atmosphere again and there has been considerable debate whether this makes it a true skip profile. NASA referred to it simply as "lifting entry". A true multi-skip profile was considered as part of the Apollo Skip Guidance concept, but this was not used on any crewed flights. The concept continues to appear on more modern vehicles like the Orion spacecraft, using onboard computers." TBH, it's useless in KSP pure vanilla play, since Kerbals are fine with 8g re-entry. However, if you want to re-enter a bit more precise, skip glide is one of the way to to land further down. In real-life, skip glide is used for two things, aside from above 1. To avoid landing in place they have no business/ permission to. 2. Out of necessity, they want the re-entry to be more gentle, but retain the usage of capsule. This is used mainly either for delicate cargo return, or an astronaut who suffers physical issues, an re-entry from Moon or even Mars. A test scenario developed during Constellation is the following: Suppose an astronaut is physically injured during moon landing. How to transport that person from moon to a medical facility, either using ISS or even a terrestrial facility? Well, if that is the requirement to be consider "glide entry", I will try...
  10. Is it actually possible to do a skip glide entry with a capsule in KSP -- and how can we tell it's such and not just "I have put the PE high, so it dipped briefly into atmosphere before coming in for a return" From what i can tell, the heat shields have some amount of lift, and I assume the lift value is designed for such purpose.
  11. So in the old EDS plan (where EDS send both Altair and Orion to Moon), the Orion will be orbiting moon in a high inclination orbit that is achieved during TLI? So how much delta-V would be required if a change of longitude is needed?
  12. Question about mission profile, and specifically more on Constellation/Pre-gateway: There is always a requirement to land on the Polar region. May I ask how are the seperate, descent, ascent, and docking operation was supposed to be done, especially under Constellation using EDS? I am trying to think of a few possibility: Capture by Moon so that when orbit inserted, the combined craft is high inclination. Stay in that inclination Insert into a low inclinatrion orbit, then Lander seperate, then land at pole; ascent at pole, then change orbit back to low inclination Both craft goes to polar orbit, then do the seperate, land, ascend, and dock in the orbit inclination Which one is the actual proposal?
  13. Trying to figure out which docking port is better. No, seriosuly...
  14. With the 1.9 Skiff revamp -- and nice looking graphics -- I am curious what is the point of Skiff. Skiff comes in two variants: 2.5m with 2.5 shroud, and the 1.25m mount with 1.875 shroud. Its current performance, in mass, a bit more than half of Skipper, while its thrust is a less than half a skipper. (so if one use 2x skiff, total mass is 3.2t, with thrust at 482/600 kn; comapre to skip's 3.0t, 568.75/650 kn). ISP is comparative identical, and once mounted to a stage it really make minimal difference if you need that amount of thrust (and typically you do, as it is a upper stage engine) So would someone provide a good reason to use 2x skiff instead of 1x skipper in 1.9 (namely bare variant), aside from looks?