• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

102 Excellent

About T-10a

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer

Profile Information

  • Location Array

Recent Profile Visitors

1,004 profile views
  1. On a side note @Shadowmage (pinging here while my Github account is having issues), I've noticed that the issue for custom tanks not saving properly happens only when I do "unusual" diameters (say, 0.9375m) that aren't selectable with the arrow buttons, while "normal" diameters (like 1.25m) save properly without issues. Strangely enough, this also happens in a similar manner with the procedural upper stages, but for those it inexplicably switches the tank mode back to split tanks without adjusting diameter or length modifiers.
  2. My idea of a reusable TSTO goes as such: Lower stage: Parafoil landing flying back to the launch facilities, preventing the mentioned headaches of water landings. Parafoil chosen due to low relative mass, and ease of removal for use as a disposable first stage (to accelerate flight times, allowing it to fly regardless of the readiness of the recovery). Also, it allows the first stage to fully deplete propellant regardless of recovery factor, as for SpaceX style reuse you MUST sacrifice payload capacity for reuse. First-stage engines are hydrolox for greatest specific impulse. Engines are designed to be swapped out quickly for other engines so that complex flight checks can be done without impacting the flight schedule while prepared, ready to go engines are fitted for flight. Hybrid boosters are provided due to relative low cost, and utilize LOX from the main tank as the oxidizer. This allows the shutoff and throttling of these motors, in the event of anomalous behavior. These are recovered shuttle-booster style, as the pumps are actually fitted inside the lower stage, allowing more "rough" recovery of motors. Upper stage Upper stage is of the following types: "Disposable" high-energy (ACES or something similar) stage (called HEUS from now on). Face it, not everything is going to be reusable on the ground so why not reuse hardware in space? Recoverable crew lifting body shuttle w/ pushing abort motors, which are jettisoned on a suborbital trajectory alongside the booster. Crew Shuttle-derived Recoverable Vehicle (a special cargo-focused vehicle derived from above-mentioned shuttle, either for use pressurized as a resupply vehicle or unpressurized for satellite recovery or external payloads. Upper stages also use LH2/O for greatest ISP as well, alongside being a common propellant for both stages. The HEUS is basically ACES, so see that for more details. What do you guys/gals/pals think of this?
  3. I've been making a custom system arrangement using Kopernicus configs, would testing them in Universe Sandbox2 be a good idea to ensure the system arrangement doesn't end up collapsing stock-Jool style?
  4. aw yiss, SSTU update with all of the major issues I've been having recently fixed
  5. I can confirm I also have seemingly random fuel tanks having negative mass.
  6. @mechanicH Use the Soyuz OM+DM+SM parts (maybe up the crew capacity in the DM to 3 seats, like the real TMA soyuz), and attach the escape tower to the OM. Attach a decoupler to the bottom of the SM and there is the Soyuz spacecraft done! Next up, we make a small tank of diameter 1.875m and height variant 2x (as Blok-I has these rough proportions IRL) and attach underneath an RD-0110. Strap a decoupler under that and put on a tank of approx 6x length and use the Soyuz 3 nose, and then put an RD-108A on the bottom of that. Strap one radial tank on facing the door of the VAB on the cylindrical part of the first stage, and then put an RD-107 underneath that radial tank (This is so we don't have to mess around with the rotation tool ). Reattach it on a 45 degree angle from last time and use 4x symmetry. Boom! Soyuz done, now all that's left is to fix colours as desired and check staging
  7. Since you have the parts now to do so, would it be possible to add premade launchers for a Titan 2/3 styled launcher or R-7? These could be new rivals for the long-standing "Big 3" lineup of Jeb's Junkyard, Rockomax and Kerbodyne's launcher families (Say, the R-7 style would be Probodobodyne's attempt to make a standalone launcher (Maybe the "Grizzly" family and vary it up to be either the Sputnik, Vostok, Molnya or Soyuz variants), and the Javelin could be expanded to a brand new 1.875m class launcher filling the role of Titan II (as seen already), the Titan III (1.875m SRB boosters using fairings, possible Thunder upper stage usage as well?), and maybe even the Jeb's Junkyard rival to the Thunder/Lightning launchers, the Javelin LDC in 2.5m emulating the Titan 3L2/3L4 or Barbarian proposals from the 80s! Regardless, these craft files are really good and I keep coming back to use them as a basis for my own crafts!
  8. Playing the new update now... These changes made just about all of my patches redundant, but also has new opportunities for many parts ! Now I can finally create an ACES style stage with no more than 2 or so parts for the stage itself.
  9. And Federatsiya is even more vaporware than DST, and afaik modern Soyuz doesn't have anywhere NEAR the dV to do lunar shenanigans, outside of proposals to slap a Fregat tug on the bottom (which will take time, money and effort that they aren't visibly showing).
  10. I've got a soft lock issue with Kerbal Konstructs, which I've posted more info in Github. TL;DR when trying to load a save game it softlocks the game due to a NRE with KerbalKonstructs. Will do further testing to find out how it works.
  11. As SLS uses old Shuttle hardware for assembly, this could actually be a blessing if Rocketdyne gets those disposable SSMEs produced. Cheap materials for tanks + cheaper engines/boosters = a (somewhat) quick launch rate (and by fast, optimistically twice-thrice a year). Even with that amount, 260-390 metric tons of payload is nothing to sneeze at, and with Vulcan/New Glenn/Falcon Heavy providing the fast turnaround for useful but lighter payloads, we have a large amount of flexibility for deep space antics. Yes, you COULD take out the SLS, but that would make Congress grumpy towards "new space", and when you need to go big like serious Lunar operations (or the big goal, Mars!), you NEED that government funding, as they have a bad tendency to become monetary black holes.
  12. Here's a site that has the different N1 paint schemes listed, done by Nick Stevens: http://www.starbase1.co.uk/pages/n1-variants.html
  13. So I take it we may not need to tank stack in the future with this new feature?