Jump to content

RealKerbal3x

Members
  • Posts

    4,967
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by RealKerbal3x

  1. While parts like the MEM and the service modules really only have one use, I've found that most of the Making History parts have plenty of uses outside historical recreations. The 1.875m and 5m tanks are just as modular as any set of tanks in the base game, the Wolfhound and Skiff are great for efficient upper stages, and the spherical re-entry modules work out nicely as compact but crew-dense command pods. There are some balance issues of course, but if you treat the parts like anything in the base game, rather than limiting yourself to using them for recreations, they're a nice expansion to the standard parts catalogue.
  2. The cheat menu is a pathway to abilities some consider... unnatural.
  3. Given that this is referred to as 'Mammoth II' rather than just 'Mammoth', I'd assume that the original Mammoth still exists, and this is just placed later in the tech tree. IIRC we haven't yet seen a detailed view of what the Mainsail looks like, so I imagine they'll try to make them visually distinct in some way.
  4. fails to contain excitement That is one mean looking engine. Is it 3.75m diameter like the original Mammoth?
  5. As I said on the first page, this is the sort of thinking that makes sense if your large number of launches have to be made with a big expendable booster, ie SLS or Saturn V. Every architecture designed with those launch vehicles in mind has been all about minimising the total number of launches, because cadence is low and you have a large amount of hardware thrown away every flight. It all falls apart when you consider a large, reusable rocket such as Starship. Even if we assume that Starship only manages to get launches as cheap as $70m (the same as a Falcon 9 launch), then 16 launches is still only a little over half of the cost of a single SLS launch at $2b. Put rapid reuse into the equation - as SpaceX is required to do for the HLS contract - and you have something that definitely approaches a routine. You should probably read through all the posts on the rest of this thread explaining why kitbashing SLS and Ariane is probably unworkable.
  6. Had to order myself one of these. Looking forward to it!
  7. I mean, the engines are all there and seem to be in the same positions they were pre-testing. Worst case in this scenario would have been an engine literally exploded, and I would have expected to see more collateral damage in that case. Of course, the engines may have suffered internal damage, but if they're lucky, the flexible boots around the engines prevented that from seriously damaging other engines. I'm not saying this is good, only that it looks like it could have been a lot worse.
  8. There's a lot of scorching (which I suppose should be expected), and I see a few broken/bent pipes, but the engines themselves look fine from this viewpoint. Still waiting for more info from Elon, but this is encouraging. Hopefully either this wasn't as violent of an event as it looked, or the booster and GSE are well-hardened to this sort of thing.
  9. My understanding was that any test involving CH4 loading needs an overpressure notice, but something may have changed (either it's not needed anymore, or residents were discouraged from posting them online)
  10. Didn't look that nominal, but I guess it was:
  11. Thanks to the walls of High Bay 2 being decidedly opaque, we missed this completely on the live cameras:
  12. The coverage seemed a little subdued today.
  13. The oval at the bottom is an access hatch, I'm not sure where the Starlink antenna(e) are on S24. I do know that B7 has a couple on the small HPU aerocovers near the base.
  14. 24 gets the Shuttle paint treatment:
  15. @Gotmachine So, I hate to be the bearer of more bad news, but I found a bit of an issue with the new autostrut patch: If you add an autostrut action group to a craft in the VAB and then launch it, the action group assignment will vanish when the flight scene loads. The action group will work fine if you add it via the inflight action group editor, but it disappears when moving from the editor to flight. I don't know if this is related to the issue dok_377 reported above, but I thought I would let you know. I was able to reproduce the issue in a clean 1.12.3 install with only KSPCF, MM and Harmony installed, but if you need a KSP.log I can provide one.
  16. QoL feature request: would it be possible to allow autostrut to be toggled via action groups/KAL controllers? If this isn't doable, ignore me, but I've been fiddling around with robotics recently and thought this would be useful.
  17. Probably one of the coolest screenshots I've taken in a while.
  18. Yes, they want it to leave the pad with ~1.5 TWR.
  19. Not sure this would work, for stability during descent the main tanks are almost empty, leaving only propellant in the header tanks for landing. Once the ship is landed, it's stuck there until a refuel is possible.
  20. I think the takeaway from this should be "if you fire a bullet at a rocket, you and/or the rocket will probably have a bad time".
  21. Falcon 9 enters the atmosphere more or less vertically. It is able to use body lift and the grid fins to descend with an angle of attack, but left to its own devices it would descend like an arrow.
×
×
  • Create New...