Jestersage

Members
  • Content Count

    865
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

244 Excellent

2 Followers

About Jestersage

  • Rank
    Rocket Scientist

Contact Methods

  • Website URL Array

Profile Information

  • Location Array

Recent Profile Visitors

3,127 profile views
  1. TL;DR: Check the root of your entire craft, and make sure the root is at the upper stage/payload. One of the problem I discovered is the root of a craft can caused unexpected behavior upon stage and acceleration Specifically, assume a craft have 2 stages, if a part in the the first stage serve as the root, without rerooting to a part in the uppermost stage, upon decoupling, a pogo effect on the supposed upper stage will be exhibited. This may or may not be related to MH engines plate. In the case of my example, there is a reason I explicitly tell user to reroot once stack size is confirmed; otherwise, upon decoupling, the 4 terriers on second stage will launch itself into the fuel tank. The 2 solutions are either 1) Re-root or 2) Add struts from engine to fuel tanks.
  2. Quick update: I have updated my "Adamas" Almaz APOS clone: https://kerbalx.com/Jestersage/Adamas-LCP2Tr2-APOS-+-Butalae-Hexa
  3. Is there an option to not have "remove from symmetry" button during flight, even assuming someone have enabled advanced tweakables? The reason i am asking is because of BG design, where I use two servos for rotation, and plan to share the craft. As they are connected with struts to a center point, I want to do as much as I can do to prevent others from summoning the kraken. I actually ran a test where the lack of symmetry only prevent it from rotating to the full degree, but had not tried to attempt it with mismatch target angle, shift PoV to somewhere else, and then either shift back to the in-orbit craft or load it from that savepoint.
  4. 1) So basically the top node corresponde to another 1.8m tank? or just a 1.2m? 2) I resent the "useless" aspect, in that the KV-3 is a very compact way to stuff 3 kerbalnauts in tight space, which is helpful when one (ie. me) put a constrain as to what the maximum size a craft should be (I really dislike using the 3.75m for the dragon capsule, since 3.75m is used to represent 6 to 8m IRL tanks -- way bigger than Falcon/Dragon's diameter)
  5. Oh come on, the Soyuz is beautiful. Especially its inside -- very roomy!
  6. For both builders and downloaders: When do you say there are too much Aesthetic parts (eg "Rockomax Adaptor 02"), and when do you consider more work need to be done to make it look good? One of the reason I even start to build my own stuff is that many of the replicas require more CPU processing power due to the high part counts, but I noticed that as time goes on, I started to add more and more parts that exist solely for looks. Furthermore, many aesthetic parts does affect the Delta-V/TRW/Cost of a craft (eg Structural panels)
  7. Thanks for the info. It is always better to grab info from the native language. Thanks for the translation. And this make sense, seeing that it is a follow up on the L3M lander, which itself is a 3 man version of LK-1 The only reason why I am wondering if it's actually airlock (instead of automatically assuming the side circle thing is one) is due to knowing the Vulkan version is have at least 2 compartment (just like L3M): The ascent cockpit, which in the case of Vulkan LEK is heatshielded; and the descent use cockpit, which is why it have 2 window niche, so the descent pilot can look down. Due to the paper-project nature and dual compartment layout, it is possible for the descent cockpit to act as an airlock while the inner sphere stay pressurized, but it just as well as a shirt-sleeve habitat - especially for the Energia version, which does not have a base component and thus require to carry its own habitat The "window niche being indication of descent cockpit" can also be seen in the Lockheed Martin 2024 lander (both proposal), except it has one square niche. EDiT: Yes, it's possible - one of kerbiloid 's example actually compared LK lander's "instrument compartment" with the circular thing, and some consider them identical. All in all, it's speculation.
  8. That I believe is unlikely. It's designed to use with the Vulkan launched LEK Habitat complex. It may be adapt to one when they repurposed it for the Energia LEK lander.
  9. Yeah, number 4. According to http://nickd.freehostia.com/OrbiterVault/img/lek26.jpg (which is a render), they are the only one then label it "lunokhod" Not sure whether that's true or not. But if that is an antenna, it is HUGE.
  10. So I am researching for Energia LEK lander, and noticeed that big round circular thing on the side. Problem is there are no description about what that thing is, and according to http://nickd.freehostia.com/OrbiterVault/lek.html, it's a container for rover. So based on what everyone know and guess, what do you believe it is? Is it really a cargo pod/rover container, or is it airlock? Or somethign else?
  11. So after some tinkering and testing, I have released my first Munar/Minmus base module, the "M-Exploration Komplex" Seeing that I do not have a Munar base or ISRU module, I hope this will make my munar exploration a bit more useful. So for those looking at this, you may say it's not really based in a real-life project. Well, it sort of does -- it was actually based on the Soviet's LEK (Lunar Expedition complex), with input of an evolution from a LESA design that I have. The "oxygen collection" sold me well for such purpose.
  12. Nice. Still, as stated in KerbalX, I have a feeling that this comes about because N1 chew up CPU and RAM too much.