Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jestersage

  1. Putting it here because it's less "which docking port should i use so it doesn't break", but more "Which docking port would you prefer for such purpose?" Let's start out with mine: I am trying to make a propellent depot, and as of now I can only put 1 docking port on it. That being said, I still have to debate between the Junior Docking port and the standard size docking port. In that light, would you go with a junior size dock or standard size dock?
  2. But not crew transport. Okay. That's all I need to know -- need to decide on some solar panels/placement for my crew transport.
  3. So nothing else? Basically the only refoldable solar panels are those on Space Stations? (earlier example: the Zarya module and Saylut)
  4. Question: Are there any solar panel systems that is re-foldable? Or are they all technically refoldable, just bad idea to do so? To my recollection, the only refoldable solar panels are those on Zarya... and may be one or 2 of the Salyut. Had Soyuz ever fold its solar panels? What about any satellates/solar powered probes?
  5. Nah, I am good. For me it's a selfish reason: To see which mod I should include in my release-to-public craft without alienating too many players that maybe interested.
  6. Those are just most popular, not what this community think "yup, you should have it"
  7. It's been a while since I visit the official forum, so I want to check: With the 1.12 being the last KSP1, have we so far come to a situation where there is a few part mods community members will likely use? (Restock doesn't count, but restock+ do, for example, due to adding new parts)
  8. Just want to make sure the new parts are of follow: the Medium solar panels, (4 of them) the 1.25m Engine plate firework dispenser (2 of them) docking ports (5 of them) are revamped Really want to minimize the refactoring of old crafts
  9. In case anyone wonder: Yes, the Starshot can be used to destroy orbital facilities
  10. What mods are there that provide 1.25m or 1.875m lab (Aside from BD)
  11. During reentry, my plane can flip upward if the angle is bigger than 30. Now I do not want to reduce the wings near the front (which makes take off difficult), so I want to adjust the weight, such as fuel distribution or consumption priority. The question then is: How much mass-distribution actually contribute to flipping?
  12. Knowing this is definitely subjective, May I ask when would you pick one over another?
  13. 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 fine with just a lab or crew cab, you can look at Raptor9's LV-1U/1H (Apollo based) and LV-3B (Constellation based)
  14. 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 they were taken, TBF, even just having the hitchhiker can to store all the stuff (and Kerbals) is enough to be consider as a Base. So the question is: Why do you want a base? Then build from there. Aside form tutorials, feel free to explore KerbalX.com to see what kind of base is available. Some can be as simple as lab on a landing stage. Other is a mobile base with everything. Another is just a for looks city built of many Hitchhiker can. Then of course we have numerous replicas of the planned lunar base (so those are likely to be lab based) There is. In Vanilla game, that will be the Mk3 Cargo Bays, Mk3 cargo ramp; They are stored in "Payload" section. They are also much higher tech in career. And as I mentioned, there are hungers, rotors etc from Breaking Ground DLC. For Example, my Apollo clone use a unfold and drop for the Lunar rover, while my Chang'e 3 Clone use an elevator-ramp mechanis, My recomendation is to play some Sandbox to familarize yourself with the game
  15. What version of KER do you have? Current version is
  16. 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?
  17. 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?
  18. 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/Jupiter clustered. In short, S-I (or in fact, the entire series of Saturn) originally is also a bunch of clustered rocket, butr then modification here and there, and then we get our "modular rockets" In fact, that's basically what happen to UR-500/proton. originally using 4x UR-200 clustered as first stage and 1x UR200 as upper stage
  19. 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 Would you say that ETS' launcher progression is a more proper way of progression, once factor into budget and performance? (Saturn IB --> Monolithic Saturn I using 1x F-1B and single "tank" for first stage --> Stretching the first stage and uprate the F-1 as Saturn MB)
  20. 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 well as Angara, the Proposed Irtysh, and Space X Falcon 9. In the ETS, those are represented by Saturn-Multibody and their version of Vulkan. So my question is: realistically, is there advantage to use the Modular approach, versus the bundling approach?
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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 is not developed until 1978.
  • Create New...