Jump to content

Beriev

Members
  • Content Count

    28
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

30 Excellent

About Beriev

  • Rank
    Rocketeer

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Hello all. I recently returned Jebediah Kerman from sea level at Jool's North Pole (linked here), and decided to throw down the gauntlet for others to attempt, too, as there is quite the disappointing lack of return missions from Jool's lower atmosphere. (Credit where credit is due - the format used is very heavily based on the Jool 5 Challenge) THE CHALLENGE Tier 1: Get at least 1 kerbal below 120 km on Jool and return. (120km is the "upper atmosphere" threshold) Tier 2: Get at least 1 kerbal below 0 m on Jool and return to Kerbin. (Crush limit is at -250m) Anyb
  2. Thanks! As for the torque countering, the rotor was a separate craft to rotate freely, only contained by 2 stayputnik bearings inside the structural fuselage at the top. The 3 reaction wheels beneath it are connected to the actual rocket part of the Jool Escape and help counteract the forces from the rotor wobbling, with shamelessly extensive help from MechJeb, since it's far more precise.
  3. Hello all. I have played KSP for the past 8 years, and have been on the forums for almost that long. Across that whole time, I've only ever seen a small handful of people return kerbals from Jool's lower atmosphere, only a portion of them returning from sea-level, and an even smaller portion of them doing it without cheating (though I do consider excessive part-clipping cheating). However, a few months back, while thinking about those past sea-level missions, I realized a common trend across all of them: they all landed near Jool's equator! So, I laid before myself the following challenge
  4. I may as well post my submission, done with Real Solar System in 1.11, using only stock parts. I took some liberties with the spacecraft design to not be too part-heavy (also since I don't have either DLC), but I am pleased with how it turned out. The album link is below, along with a picture of the rover. Enjoy! https://imgur.com/a/Xeo8wQm
  5. Hello. I have been toying around with early-game KSP-IE parts, and I have noticed that no matter what I do with the Rutherford engine, no thrust is created, although the heating effects still show up on the part itself. I have checked to ensure the fuel types on the tank and engine are the same, but I am still not sure if there's something I am missing. Any ideas?
  6. @ralanboyle I would like to extend my congratulations to you on being the first finisher of this challenge! I'll add you to the list promptly.
  7. Hello all. The new 1.11 update made kerbals' parachutes into a separate part - the "personal parachute". I realized, though, that this could allow for another nice addition to the game. Allow the personal parachute part to also be radially attachable to capsules, where it behaves exactly like a parachute does except that it responds to controls in the same way a kerbal's parachute does. I feel that since the part, the parachute mechanics, and the steering mechanics are all in the game, the only tricky thing should be combining the three (though of course, this is a skin deep analysis of t
  8. @camacju I gotta say, I'm enjoying watching you progress through the missions! My only extra thought for future players based on watching your career is that offsetting parts on only one specific CRPU (like on the lander) is likely frowned upon, as in my mind, it's kind of equivalent to changing some core characteristic of the CRPU. I understand why you did it (landing gear clearance), but I feel it may be interesting to see future solutions to counteract this inherent issue of the CRPU (I would personally propose attaching girders to place the landing gear at a lower level on the CRPU, while
  9. @TheJewelOfJool If you want, you can. I'll probably be moderating this quite loosely, so long as the basic idea of the CRPU is upheld. @camacju I like that depot idea a lot. The answer is "yes, you can" to both questions.
  10. May, 2013, though I had been playing the 0.18 demo for the previous few months before purchase.
  11. I may not be the best person to answer this one, but I feel like the problem boils down to that there's no way to see exactly where you will impact the terrain at any given moment in ship-view. I usually get around this by installing a mod that shows predicted landing location in ship-view; Trajectories, Mechjeb, and Engineer all seem to have this ability. Once you can see where you are going to impact versus where you want to actually land in ship-view, you can make course corrections while braking to fine tune your landing spot. This is the easy way out, but if you don't want to install a mo
  12. Looking at the map, I don't know if there's a much better area than the one you picked out, but a possible alternate location could be the peninsula between the two bays at 1deg N, 192deg E, which is much smaller, but closer to the equator while still being relatively large and flat. Brotoro built is base on that site in his old "Long Term on Laythe" series, so if you look that up, you can check out what it looks like on the ground.
  13. Along with the Not-Rockomax Micronode, I'll made a case for the Probodobodyne QBE. It's basically an OKTO-2 (no reaction wheels, tiny battery), but repackaged into a much larger core, without any major advantages. High impact tolerance? Nullified by the fact that nothing else you can add to a probe is, resulting in a crash landing which the probe can only survive for a few minutes before the battery dies. Low cost? When you add a reaction wheel to get the desired control, an OKTO is cheaper overall, and if you don't use a reaction wheel (where mass is low enough to make not having it matt
  14. I've played since 0.19, and I love the old school sense of playing with stock parts almost entirely, without either DLC or parts mods. I do concede though, that I've inevitably added EPL and/or a late game engines mod (like KSP-IE) to just about all of my careers, as I feel they add a dimension that lengthens the game that is just not possible with stock.
  15. Based on the name "Chequers", I immediately thought of a checkerboard and subsequently, chess. I propose naming your new launchers after chess pieces, such as "Pawn", "King", or "Bishop". Another idea could be my current career's naming scheme of army ranks for each series of rockets (aka each major tech relating to launch hardware), with the first generation being the "Corporal" series (early solids), and my current series being the "Captain" series (Mainsail, Thoroughbred, and Twin Boar).
×
×
  • Create New...