Jcking
-
Posts
331 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Jcking
-
-
On 7/21/2022 at 9:00 AM, benjee10 said:
Quick progress update/screenshot dump on Orion:
Solars use Breaking Ground robotics to slew forward/backward. If you don't have BG installed they will function as regular solar panels without the ability to slew them.
Stage adapter comes in 3 sizes, 2.5m, 3.125m and 3.75m (service module adapter is a separate part):
Currently hoping to release before Artemis I launches.
Still to-do:
- Parachutes (main & drogues)
- Service module length variants
- Flag decals
- Simple IVA
- Specular textures
- NASA docking system variant for APAS
- Tweaks, balance, testing, part descriptions, config stuff
- Compatibility patches for waterfall + TAC LS
- Take a nap
Would it be possible to have a switch to remove the solar attachment points, because some of the Orion proposals used basically the same service module with different solar and RCS arrangements?
-
7 minutes ago, bigyihsuan said:
Transtage v0?
What it says on the tin: a widebody Agena. Transtage and Agena have nothing in common (and shuttle Transtage was one of the upper sages considered)
-
27 minutes ago, dababykerman said:
Heya guys, I was wondering how I could launch the Juno I and II and actually get it in orbit, I don't know how with the Solid Rocket Motors, I'd appreciate some help, thanks!
These rockets have an ascent profile that one would most often use in stock where the first stage sends the vehicle on a suborbital trajectory followed by a cost to apogee and the subsequent solid stages circularize the orbit by firing sequentially at apogee (or slightly before, the maneuver node for the circularization burn that you should have made will tell you exactly). BDB solids have a action to prematurely shut down the engine, so that you can more accurately choose an orbit.
-
33 minutes ago, Adventures said:
Just downloaded the GitHub one and I can't find any parts, or anything named LRV? is the Golbat part of a joke I'm not getting?
Are you cloning the 1.11 repository, because that is where the lrv (and some other parts) live at this moment.
-
1 hour ago, GoldForest said:
Saturn C-8 and Nova have been shot down every time they've been asked for. Cobalt thinks it's an ugly rocket. Don't know how Zorg feels about it, I've forgotten. Invader, Idk either.
If you want C-8 or Nova, you can build it using the 7.5m parts from NFLV, just have to kitbash it.
The user was asking about Direct ascent Apollo (of which there were several and some could fit on C-5), not C-8 or the Nova direct ascent vehicles. I’ve believe I remember hearing Cobalt mention that he would be open to (or at least entertained the possibility of) making a direct ascent lander that one would launch using an uprated Saturn V, but that doesn’t mean it’s on the cards as I don’t speak for the BDB team.
-
7 hours ago, Shlyopa said:
Where can i see bdb part modelling process from scratch?
Cobalt occasionally streams his work on parts for BDB in various states of completion that have various levels of work on them. He’ll link the stream in this topic when he is streaming.
-
3 hours ago, TheLoneOne said:
zorg would you argue that the voyger probes were the best probes design reliability wise ever produced? (given the conditions they are subjected to and the time its been)
Pioneer 6, 7, 8 (launched in 65, 66, and 67 respectively) were still in a partial operational state in the late 90's and Pioneer 6 had successful telemetry contact in 2000. 6 held the record for the oldest operating probe untill beaten by voyager 2 in 2012, with contact with those 3 probes (9 was unable to be contacted in 87) believed to still be possible, but none being attempted.
1 hour ago, Transformatron said:Did a fresh install and the Saturn I works now, but I was exploring the new craft files, why does MLV-V/4-260 have random S-IVB tanks on the SRBs?
MLV V /4-260 was designed with cross-feed in mind with main engines and strapons lit at launch and auxiliary fuel tanks drained at SRB separation (the fairing is hammerheaded which is why it looks weird). the S-IVB tanks are about the right size and serve as a suitable stand-in, but should be set to liquid fuel and oxidizer with fuel level adjusted to match burn time.
-
6 hours ago, GoldForest said:
Big G is sometimes shown with a LES, but I don't think regular Gemini was going to get one. I could be wrong.
I like how your pads are just floating on the water. Like NASA couldn't be bothered to terraform the marsh, so they just made man-made Islands and just transport all their rockets by barge.
Some early concepts for the VAB featured waterways with barge transport instead of the crawler.
Advanced concepts for Gemini and Geminis launched on Titan III and Saturn IB used the LES. Crewed big Gs always launched with an LES.
-
2 hours ago, JustDark said:
Why
The clipping is only visual and not with the actual collider of the interstage (further more that blanket bit clips with the stringer bit). the interstage still separates cleanly with the aft MDA if you used those ports and the 0.625 node.
-
12 minutes ago, GoldForest said:
I think the only way to stop the micrometeorite shield from jettisoning it would be to make a non jettisonable/permanent micrometeorite shield Skylab version.
The MM shield has an auto deploy at altitude setting enabled by default. You turned that off too?
-
30 minutes ago, donnager fan said:
So I was Building the MOL, And a saw some odd parts named "Shuguang - retro, equipment" Etc. So what are these parts for? Are they for a concept that's not on the wiki or are they for the Big Gemini Spacecraft?
They are part of the Dawn of the Dragon alternate history series.
-
3 hours ago, Clamp-o-Tron said:
Regardless of the IRL feasibility of the full concept, a mini SM like this for Apollo Jr. would be a lot of fun. Mercury retropack vibes.
@CobaltWolf is this possible?
Mercury style retropacks were featured in some NAA studies.
-
46 minutes ago, DeadJohn said:
If you're taking Gemini requests, a modified capsule with a 0.9 or 1.25m upper node to accept existing BDB docking ports (CAD and the other name I forget) would be awesome. It might also need a BDB-ified radial chute unless you think a chute+port belong in a single part.
Gemini can't transfer crew through the front. you'll have to go through the back or out the hatch, and there are several parts to accommodate rear docking. Mercury has an escape hatch in the front, but you have to remove part of the instrument panel, and main and drogue chutes (plus containers) to get through it, and then squeeze through a space that's barely big enough for one to crawl out of.
-
2 minutes ago, Beccab said:
This is more or less the most detailed I've found on that
The vehicle depicted there is another direct ascent lander and is basically a vertical lander version of the direct ascent lander from "A Feasible Approach for an Early Manned Lunar Landing Part I Summary Report of Ad Hoc Task Group Study June 16, 1961" and is a NASA design from what I can determine (side note, there is a significant amount of lost development from May to October of 1961 for Apollo).
-
9 minutes ago, GoldForest said:
Take some creative licensing and just do what feels right. Tons of craft to choose from:
Personally, I'm in favor of the Final Direct Config April 1962 version.
Oh, right, I think it's one of the Extras. Do you know who maintains the fuel cell config in the extras folder?
Of all of these, the Grumman LEM and all the NAA and NASA direct vehicles are enigmas (NAA in general because there is pretty much nothing as to the winning study and almost nothing to track from original proposal to final product).
-
2 hours ago, MikoYurei said:
As I remember they've planned to use Nova for direct landing, not Saturn-V. btw nice looking lander! Maybe using NFLV 7.5m tanks and lower stage enging mount you could build a Nova and then complete the direct Moon landing with escape burn
There is a proposal for a two man direct ascent lander using C-5 and cryogenic propellants.
Spoiler
-
1 hour ago, GoldForest said:
Ah, came up when I googled Nerva II so got confused. Sorry.
Nerva II (known more commonly in period documentation as the 75k thrust full flow nerva) was from what I can find a later development after work was stopped on the heated bleed AJ31-6 and hot bleed AJ30-5 (though it seems that there was always work on or at least the idea of a big nerva as the nerva on Saturn C-2 nuclear has nearly identical performance as nerva II, but the switch to full flow was definitely a later thing). The engine compared to previous nervas has a thrust of 75,000lbs and specific impulse of 825 seconds compared to the 55,800lbs thrust and 757 seconds from AJ31-6 (30-5 is a slightly worse version of 31-6).
-
1 hour ago, MikoYurei said:
Ah yes, my bad, this is kerbalism stuff, not KA
Wow, this reminds me of some early shuttle concepts, especially the Saturn-Shuttle. Btw, where from those parts?
From what I can see: widespread use of tweakscale all around with Benjee Stowaway, Habtech2, BDB, Restock, NFLV, B9 aerospace, conformal decals.
-
1 hour ago, GoldForest said:
Seems to me that RIFT is a lot smaller than Nerva and is actually more the size of timberwind. So you're putting a lot of extra weight because of oversized engine.
I am using the telescoping nozzle timberwind and not Nerva II, the former is roughly the same size as the restock nerva I (the one with integral roll control nozzles).
-
4 minutes ago, Galileo chiu said:
I'm gonna put that on the space shuttle
It is a tight fit the cargo bay of the shuttle, let alone on the engine mount.
-
55 minutes ago, Beccab said:
Why use big saturn when small saturn do trick
Because you can use Atlas (note that this thing will barely make it into orbit with no payload).
-
On 6/2/2022 at 2:01 AM, Shlyopa said:
Looks like something push boosters to core stage. Once i saw aerodynamic cone got blue aerodynamic vector pointing away from core stage after separation, maybe thats the reason?
Even two separation motors cant separate it.
I typically have 4 separation motors on each booster. Two at the upper roll pattern and two at the lower roll pattern and it usually provides clean separation.
-
Just now, JoeSheridan said:
Probably not a good idea in case of BDB because not every part, not even every launcher, has it´s own graphics / texture-sheets (sorry don´t have the correct naming in mind atm) so you could end up breaking multiple parts that you just don´t like to kill if you are not carefull while deleting files. That´s the same reason for the fact that there aren´t any split BDB versions like for Tantares where you got Tantares LV, Spacecraft etc.
You can safely delete the folder groups like Mercury, or Probe Expansion to prune the size of the mod.
-
7 hours ago, DeadJohn said:
@CobaltWolf and Leo experts (adding to your huge inbox when you get back from vacation, but if I don't send this now I'll forget it)
Why does the "Zhengming-E" equipment module carry 1 crew?
Based on parts sizes and flavor text, I assume the intended stacking for the Chinese-inspired Shuguang(?) concept parts is Leo capsule on top, then "Zhengming-R" retro module, with the -E equipment module on bottom. The equipment module has to be jettisoned to fire the retro module which makes the crew space useless in that "official" version.
I'm not complaining just wondering if there's something I missed. The -E module makes a nice 4-crew round trip capsule combined with Leo and "Giotto". It also works well on stations that need monoprop storage. I just see no way to use the -E and -R together without wasting crew space.
The vehicle wasn’t really inspired by the real life concept, but rather the Dawn of the Dragon alternate history series which was loosely inspired by the real life concept, combines with US MORL proposals. The equipment module you should think not as a extension of the crew capsule (the rumble seat and Big G extension covers that), but rather a sort of mission/ service module akin to a tiny version of the TKS orbital and propulsion module.
[1.8.x] reDIRECT | Stockalike Orion, SLS, & Shuttle-Derived Launchers | (Fixes!) | v0.10.1
in KSP1 Mod Releases
Posted · Edited by Jcking
Not the solar panels themselves, but the 4 pegs that they lock into that are places around the panel (best seen on the fifth image).