Jump to content

lemon cup

Members
  • Posts

    413
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by lemon cup

  1. Thank you! The footage is sped up, but I also use a mod called BetterTimeWarp to tweak physical time warp speeds. You can make your own speeds past 4x, all at your own risk! This was shot at 8x physical time warp with MechJeb set to Prograde. Much higher summons the Krakken but that should not stop you from trying
  2. To get around this problem in real life, NASA engineers would have probably gone into the .cfgs and edited the mass values.
  3. Here is a good look at some of the planned components in a handy breakdown The most notable of the bunch being the SPP (Science Power Platform). It would have allowed the Russian Segment to be powered independently from the US Segment, thus freeing up extra power for more modules to be added. By my guess, this full station would have only required 3 more Shuttle missions and either 3 or 4 more Proton launches.
  4. Is there a way - such as a lightweight program or file viewer - to look at a .dds file and see the actual mesh definitions/names other than Blender? I am trying to write some custom coloring configs using Textures Unlimited, which allows you to pick and choose which meshes on a given texture file you want to apply the recolor to. But that requires actually knowing the mesh name! If the only answer is that I must download Blender, I can live with that. But my current location is not really conducive to downloading large files so alternatives would be nice.
  5. Yooooooo... that thing looks sick! Not sure how you did it/what mod that is from, but the design is really great. And seems very capable. In fact, I might have a payload I'd like to see launched aboard the Kratos, if that is okay...! I've got something for a little side project I'll be starting soon - currently taking place in the 1990s, fictional of course, and due to various reasons I don't have an ideal launcher for it - but the Kratos-E would be perfect... It is an 8.3 ton payload that needs to go to MARS! Questions: -when you say 5.4m in diameter, is this converted to human size? Or is that the actual size it is in KSP? (In other words, it is actually about the same size as the BDB Delta IV, with 3.5m fairing correct?) -are those strap-on boosters, or are they integral to the first stage?
  6. Back when Space Station Freedom was first being drawn up, plans were to feature two Space Shuttle docking adapters. The PMA was designed so that two could be mounted next to eachother, with the slant opposing one another, for clearance between the two orbiters. This concept was cancelled and eventually morphed into the ISS, but by that time Boeing had already begun initial development of the PMA so the design stayed, even though there was no longer a use for it. I’ll try to find a source here because this very well be highly anecdotal. Here is a couple of graphics I was able to find, not my work:
  7. I've been looking for something like this as well. So what is Multi-Kerbs?
  8. Tons of stuff is possible with the mod Conformal Decals Those are actually text decals sized up to max thickness, to where they appear as solid blocks, then hand placed. Essentially custom colors for any part.
  9. In case you (or anyone else) are still wondering about this, it is just a matter of the Attach Rules in the part .cfg. Instead of "1,0,1,0,0" it should be changed to "1,0,1,1,0" to allow surface attaching objects, like decals. All @EStreetRockets has to do is go in and change that for the two SAF fairings but in the meantime you could do it manually. Or this very simple patch should work (haven't tested so maybe not lol)
  10. @EndAllFilms I am not a dev so the help I can give is limited. But on a hunch, do you have correct version of Kopernicus? I have been led to believe the correct version to have is version 1.12.1-70, here: https://github.com/kopernicus/kopernicus/releases
  11. I've had this issue before with robotics. Of course it might not be related to yours, but could be worth a shot: Try setting Autostrut: Disabled to all parts of the Rover after you've landed and are ready to unfold, including the hinge mechanism.
  12. Yep, that would be Kerbal Konstructs. A very good classic mod that has held up excellently over the years. There’s a wiki guide in the thread on how to use it. But in a nutshell, you load up the game and spawn on craft on the default launchpad. Then you press Ctl-K and that brings up the menu for spawning launchpads and buildings and such. Also, there is Tundra’s Space Center which adds some custom-made pads and structures to go with Kerbal Konstructs. If you go with this mod as well, there will be a bunch of preset launch pads placed around KSC when you load up the game (I think?)
  13. If you mean the how to put the Truss pieces together, I posted in response to another user about the same question. Also part of his question was answered on the page before that, Page 60.
  14. Man these shots are awesome! While I am not exactly a proponent of SLS… you gotta admit it is a really nice looking rocket. Here’s an interesting fact about SLS, particularly Block 1. In order to take advantage of the huge amount of energy in the core stage, they have selected a pretty unique launch trajectory for it. Most terminal stages are designed to burn out just before or right after orbital insertion, but the SLS has a good bit of fuel left so it keeps burning and injects Orion + ICPS into a moderately eccentric orbit, with an apogee of something like 1700km, and a perigee that dips into the atmosphere. ICPS then coasts up to apogee and makes a small burn to raise perigee, then upon reaching PE burns for the moon. Without the additional energy provided by the core stage, ICPS wouldn’t be able to push Orion to TLI, and even then I believe a small extra kick is needed by the Orion service module.
  15. Actually, this is exactly what the Mission Reports forum needs. Can’t wait to see what you got cooked up
  16. If you are willing to entertain an ET “redesign” being part of a lunar shuttle program, you might be able to sell it by switching the ET from orange to white. Reason being is that is would sort of resemble the Saturn S-IVB, which used more effective cryo insulation on the inside of the tank and kept its fuel cold for longer. The shuttle ET used external spray-on foam which was lighter but not as effective. Reason for this was it only needed the fuel for the 8 minute launch so no need to refrigerate it for very long, and the foam helped prevent ice build-up on the outside of the tank when sitting fueled on the pad. So for a redesigned ET with heavier internal insulation, storing LH2 for a week+ might be reasonable.
  17. How about a set of small solid rocket motors, sepatrons maybe? But the biggest hurdle with realism I can think of is return to Earth and reentry. The shuttle would not survive an entry coming from the highly eccentric lunar return orbit. Multiple aerobraking passes would be the best bet but I’m not sure if that was possible or not.
  18. Hmm depends which project …Yo wait why am I awake? Hmm guess I’ll cheat and use the active member roster… @OrdinaryKerman
  19. Got it, thank you. I see this configuration has some interesting limitations in regards to G-Forces. In a lot of ways the INT-20 reminds me of a super-sized Atlas-V, which does not have the same problem with peak acceleration. Of course this is due to the awesome throttle-range of the Atlas' RD-180, whereas the F-1 could not be throttled at all. But the F-1 could be shut down early in flight correct? So starting off with say 4 engines, then shutting down a pair of outboard engines early would preclude a huge G-load towards the tail-end of the first stage? Of course then I suppose you are accepting that you've basically paid full price for a pair of F-1 engines to be useful for half of the mission, and dead weight for the second half.
  20. Okay guys, so for someone like me who is uneducated on the history of the various Saturn proposals, I've got to use online sources like astronautix.com for info. I could have sworn I remember seeing something like this as an official proposal, yet now I can't find anything about it: Basically just a standard S-IC first stage (minus the center engine) and a standard S-IVB second stage. Was this a real proposal? If not, why?
×
×
  • Create New...