Jump to content

Jestersage

Members
  • Content Count

    1,042
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

301 Excellent

1 Follower

About Jestersage

  • Rank
    Senior Rocket Scientist

Profile Information

  • Location
    !Canada

Recent Profile Visitors

4,217 profile views
  1. Knowing this is definitely subjective, May I ask when would you pick one over another?
  2. I see. The reason I asked is whether you want to mine ore because the tutorial start with that (it's just a suggestion, not the only reason to build a base), or because you really want a refinery. As stated previously, thanks to how the MPL Lab works, Any Lunar science points can be boosted by having a lab on the surface, and thus most of the Munar labs are lab focused If you really want to look at how ISRU/Refinery is delivered, you can look at Raptor9's IV-1B, or (self-plugged) my MEK. Both are non modular, and thus uses a straightly lander designs. Alternatively, if you are f
  3. Also, all these are talking without regards for Breaking ground DLC. If you do, you can build some cranes and then stack them, join by one of the many docking ports. Also, "Base" in this game doesn't imply refinery. For all the game care, a MPL-Lab, with some electricity generator, such that it generate additional science, is sufficent for either the game or players (like me) to consider it . (Read: https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Mobile_Processing_Lab_MPL-LG-2) Basically, there is a 10% bonus when the lab is on a surface, 25% bonus for processing experiments in the same SOI that
  4. What version of KER do you have? Current version is 1.1.8.2.
  5. Question: If a clipping part sticks out, does it matter where it is attached to the ship for collision detection? Say for example, the Service Bays: internally, there is 2 attachment point, a top and bottom. So say I want a part to be placed in, with the end result have the part stick out from the bottom of the service bay (will use move tool to move as necessary) -- for the collision detection, does it matter if it's connected by the inside-upper point, or the inside-lower point?
  6. Question: want to confirm that Hitchhiker is indeed 18 slots/1500L, while Mk3 cab is 16 slots/400L If so, may I ask why the Mk3 have so little cargo spaces?
  7. That would make it close to Saturn "modular rocket" concept, and place it in the former. (I would not consider them as modern... May be China's CZ-9 would make a better example) For those that are wondering about N-1 and N-111: The N-1 would use the second, third, and fourth stages of the N1. The N111 would use the third and fourth stages of the N1, and the second stage of Korolev's R-9 In essence, they are not unlike Saturn-II INT-17 (stage 2 and stage 3 of Saturn V) or Saturn-V-INT20 etc Right -- I recall the other stages were also suppose to be redstones/Jupit
  8. I included the proposals and studies, but what they comes out reflect what you mentioned. For example, the first planned version of Saturn II, INT-17, utilize a S-II.... modified with 7 HG-3-SL. Then they found out the HF-3-SL is not THAT better. Thus INT-18, which is the exact S-II, but having 4x Titan SRB. Then there's the Multiple variation of Saturn V, which usually is missing 1 stage, and then modify the remaining stages. That being said, I think that modular structure thinking still require too much modification of a stage to fit the "modular structure" concept to save money
  9. Researching both the IRL and ETS-timeline, I noticed that the Saturn series actually take a multiple-module approach. Basically, there is a set of stages, and depending on the mission, assembles the required stage as a single-stack rocket. Eg: If using a modified Stage 2 of Saturn V, combine with S-IVB, you get Saturn II. Nowadays, except for SLS (which is more Senate Laundry System), the approach seems to be using a "Core rocket"+Upper VAC Stage, then either strap in Solid Rockets, or 2 (or 3 or 4) "Core Rocket" if extra capacity is needed. IOTL, that will be Delta IV and Atlas V, as w
  10. Noticed I haven't post much... busy with work. The 1.11 finally give me the push to truly differentiate between cargo spacecraft and tankers. In the past, we all have been mimicking pressurized containers by either using the payload bay, or use it to deliver fuel. Now we have a way to properly mimic pressurized containers (along with the use of the Hitchhiker) - and we may actually need to use the inventory space -- I expect the selection of cargo spacecraft will be better than before. So here it is: My HTV / ETS-Aardvark Clone, the Aardvark Cargo Spacecraft.
  11. Have anyone been able to find out, based on the currently available parts, the maximum overall mass of each SEQ can reach? Currently I have the maximum filled mass of SEQ-24 at 2.44, stuffing 2 heatshields and some jet engines.
  12. While trying to rebuild my Skylab analogue (with an eye toward some ETS stuff), a question that I have is the issue of Trash disposal. Specifically, they used the oxygen tank for trash disposal, as they didn't have any plan for resupply, which in turn allows disposing of trash (In ETS canon, NASA developed a cargo spacecraft, thus freeing up the Oxygen tank as extra pressurized volume) So aside from basic physics which affect the orbiting craft's trajectory, what other things made them realize it's a bad idea to throw trash out into the Orbit? To my understanding, Kessler Syndrome theory
  13. I think it depends on what one mean by "building a craft". The fact that you can store probe cores (or even command pod as stated) means if you just want to cobble a relay sat (which really just need a probe core, a relay antenna, power source, battery, and maybe engine + fuel tank), you can do it. The question rather becomes when would it be better (outside of fun factor) to send parts up and assemble, instead of just sending modules.
×
×
  • Create New...