Jester Darrak

Members
  • Content count

    65
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

30 Excellent

About Jester Darrak

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Since we need a dedicated Relay Satellite for the Scarab, which probe out of your catalogue would you suggest in terms of capability, cost and durability? Or did you even have plans for a Deep Space Network?
  2. If I was just able to read... xD
  3. Maybe I'm stupid, but to me it looks like the Scarab Cruise Module is either out of balance itself or very prone to even light weight imbalancies. I strapped a MJ2 case onto it and wasn't able to hold attitude while using the Ant Engines. Additional note: Since MechJeb has it's problems with RCS thrusters I try not to use RCS whenever possible.
  4. @Raptor9, I just wanted to say that I love your Centaur upper stage analogue. All those 1.875m parts from MH allow highly capable but still very compact and economic crafts that I am twice as Money efficient than in my Last game. The bang for the buck really outclasses the larger parts/vessels for Kerbin SOI exploration. I built a small probe to complete 3 satellite contracts in one flight and still had enough go-juice to send it to Duna/Ike for the fourth contract. Outstanding Work there!
  5. There is also the option to decouple service modules manually. What I was wondering for a long time now, did you ever consider your Atlas analogues to use a double engine setup instead of the single Mainsail? Maybe the Twin Boar or a similar solution? That would make the Thunder 3 and 4 series even more different.
  6. Although I like the reduction in size and probably biting off a big chunk of the launch cost I must say that the revised ScyCrane looks kinda clumsy, it not fat. But I do like the Rover and it's 'camera'.
  7. What has happened to the Lockheed Martin style Duna Lander/SSTO, the one I suggested bringen christened Dragonfly? Is that still a thing? Because I don't like leaving stuff around that has no purpose anymore.
  8. That, sir, is a monstrousity. And I like it. I like it a lot.
  9. Well, if there is one good use for the engineer class it's operating mining and processing equipment. And the problem with attaching legs myself is to find the right angle an position to bring them in line with the other stuff. Maybe even a dedicated mining control module for the HLV-5 series could be useful. With the cupola on top to give the engineer superb 360 degrees field of view.
  10. Is it possible for the HLV-5 Crew Transport to have landing legs too? Makes it some sort of habitation and/or ISRU control unit.
  11. I didn't look at the new Rover wheels but I wish there was the possibility to have the HLV-5 motorized without the need to burn that prescious LfOx.
  12. Did you take a look at the RV-1 Veniers as possible lander engines yet? Maybe you can use them on your ISRU lander rigs instead of the good but(t) ugly Poodle. Or what would be a good yet unappropiate use for them? I think I found a place for them to be, simultaneously solving your EV-2B problem. Maybe you should take a look at them that way, if you geht the pun.
  13. He already wrote that he decided to not keep 2 iterations, DLC and non-DLC as it would require way too much work. Plus the DLC is only a couple of bucks and in my opinion a must have. (abreviates as MH, see what I did there?)
  14. What about the KE-I2 Skiff? Wirth only a ton this would benefit the HLV-5 since their cargo mass is limited to 50% of their own maximum gross weight.