BillKerman123

Members
  • Content Count

    21
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

11 Good

About BillKerman123

  • Rank
    Bottle Rocketeer

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Unfortunately i couldn't find the patch on Github, so instead I looked through the KSP files and found the cfg that controls kerbal traits, and pasted your code into it. Amazingly, it worked! I actually cant believe that worked. Amazing! With that being said though, it would be nice for actual over-throttling to be in the game, where you can temporarily go over the engines throttle limit at the penalty of overheating, massively reduced efficiency, and/or the engine exploding. Unfortunately as I said earlier, i have no idea how to even start coding that.
  2. Heres what I had in mind: (yes I drew that myself) X-33 dry mass: 28,600 kg X-33 payload mass: 20,000 kg X-33 propellant mass: 95,300 kg Carrier aircraft dry mass: 80,000 kg Carrier aircraft propellent mass: 260,000 kg X-33 Isp (Near-Vac): 400 sec Carrier aircraft Isp (High-atmospheric): 380 sec X-33 ∆V: 4,255 m/s Carrier aircraft ∆V: 3,024 sec We wouldn't launch on a conventional booster because the entire point is to have it be cheap, and developing a custom reusable first stage that can do retropropulsion and vertical landings is not cheap. Nor is it very efficient, if we go the aircraft approach we can use jets for takeoff, reducing the ∆V needed. I have a friend who works with Reaction Engines, and I can confirm first hand that Reaction Engines have no plans on developing Skylon (which is a shame considering how great of a launch vehicle it would be), and are instead focusing solely on SABRE, with the hopes a third party will build the LV. I presume the blueprints still exist, the X-33 wast that long ago, most of them will probably have been computerized. Even if they haven't, why would the blueprints have been destroyed? The biggest problem is probably whether or not the 95% assembled prototype still exists. Reaction Engines is willing to, there are making SABRE after all. And we can do the separation in a near vacuum environment, say, 50 to 80 Km. I agree, the problem is business / political. But with SpaceX continuing to develop reusable architecture, other companies may have to build reusable spacecraft of there own to keep up.
  3. By the way, the latest Danny2462 video has a glitch in it identical to what you described.
  4. Amazing mod! I've got some really good ideas on how to use it. Question though: could you make the wings slightly shorter so they don't stick out the back of the craft as much?
  5. Ok, that's fine. I would agree that redoing the LEM should wait until you have all the other stuff ironed out first. On another note: the SheLab looks amazing, when you get to the AAP stuff you need to make one of those! And the little rover that it deploys. For that matter, any Lunar rover would be good, since currently, it's very hard to make ones that fit on the side of the MEM. Also, if the MOLEMs wheels are that difficult, you could just make the MOLEM ascent stage variant and the wheels can be borrowed from another mod, or from stock. For now, though, we can always stick to trying to modify the already existing MEM parts: https://imgur.com/gallery/y9DhLU3
  6. Another question: Have you considered making it so you can toggle on/off the RCS redirector thingies on the LEM descent stage? The problem is they get in the way when you're trying to mount anything other than a LEM ascent stage on top, which makes making stuff for the AAP difficult. Which is another thing, have you considered adding more LEM variants for the AAP? You can make LEM shelters, etc right now but it would be nice to have proper dedicated parts for them. You wouldn't need to do too much work, just a version of the LEM ascent stage without fuel and more living space, maybe a bigger airlock assembly, and larger equipment racks. And adding in dedicated wheels for a MOLEM would be amazing. The MOLEM is an amazing vehicle and severely underappreciated. http://www.astronautix.com/m/molem.html http://www.astronautix.com/a/apollolmshelter.html And that's just two examples. There were hundreds of ideas for the AAP, from artificial gravity stations tethered to spent SIV-Bs, to Moon bases, to Mars missions. Of course, that's a lot of work if you want to make parts for all of them, but I think at least some of them deserve dedicated parts. And by the very nature of the AAP, such parts would be modifications of existing ones, so it will require less work. Of course, for now, simply being able to toggle the RCS guards on the LEM will suffice.
  7. Question: are the things you're showing here (specifically the transtage) currently available or are they a future update?
  8. Do you know where to get the upper stage that's mounted behind the X-20 in this shot? I have the mod and BDB but I can't find it. BDB has the engine for that stage but not the tank.
  9. Does anyone know how to calculate the kinetic jet energy rate per unit flow of propellant in a rocket engine given its thrust, propellant consumption per second, the velocity of the vehicle, and the energy content of the propellent assuming 100% combustion efficiency? Yes, that's a question straight from Rocket Propulsion Elements.
  10. When I saw your post, I thought "I think I've seen this before, I vaguely remember Hazard-ish encountered something like that a while ago", and after checking, I found it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nhk1BPQxoHE - We see square orbits at 4:18, among various other things (the planets overlap), and we see the terrain glitch at the end. The square orbits I've never seen anywhere else. The Kerbin terrain glitch is known (it shows up in almost every Danny2462 video), and most of the other stuff you mentioned has been reported once or twice before, but to my knowledge never to that scale. I also have never heard of a loading screen glitching to that extent but based on my knowledge on how the loading screen graphics are created it could be a rare side effect of the Kraken.
  11. It's not supposed to stay solid. The idea is it liquifies (or gasifies) in a controlled manner.
  12. Is anyone continuing this? It was just getting really interesting...
  13. Okay, what about something like this: Would that solve the problem? The only surface of the SCH4 burning is small and controlled. As the SCH4 burns, the heat melts the SCH4 behind it, which flows downwards and burns, and the heat rises up and melts more SCH4.