Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Clamp-o-Tron

  1. Yo @CobaltWolf- while you’re working on the subject of the S-IB engine mount- would you consider an alternate history configuration (never proposed as far as I can tell) for removing the outer 4 engine mounts? I was messing around with a Saturn 1B with 4x UA-1205 boosters for launching USAF Lunar Gemini, and found that it was optimal to use only the inboard engines (longer burn time with still good TWR). I used the engines with gimbals btw, but in real life it would probably use LR-101s to avoid larger changes to accommodate the gimbals. This was a real thing I believe, if anyone has any primary sources (or secondary! Not just Astronautix/Wikipedia), I’d love to see! http://www.astronautix.com/s/saturnib-d.html
  2. I’m interested in contributing a few airports to this- I had done a similar project in the past just for myself, which has sadly been lost to the sands of ssd cleanups. Here’s where I put them, roughly. I’ll be recreating these slowly and posting the zips here as I finish.
  3. Right. I can get it to you in an hour if you can solve the problem with patching multiple instances of ModuleRCSFx using the same ModuleB9PartSwitch. (joking of course, I have to sleep- like I have been doing for the past 12 months) (self-depreciating jokes do not save me)
  4. More than happy to do it, not a problem. I want this for myself too, and some of the future plans might not make sense for someone not living in my twisted mind.
  5. Oh definitely! To be completely honest with you and the rest of the people in the thread I was kind of intending to let it die a slow, agonizing death. But now that I know that there’s demand I would be happy to crank up dev again… if not at 100% because of university (not like it ever was lol)- it should be smooth sailing after I get past a single technical problem.
  6. That’s quite odd. My Falcon Heavy can easily send the included Crew Dragon or Dragon XL translunar, and the normal F9 can put ~15 tons into LKO, or an entire Cygnus (by Beale with some life support canisters clipped in) to TMI. You’re right that RTLS F9 doesn’t have a lot of capacity- about 5 to 6 tons in my experience. But if you expend the booster or even do ASDS landing, you can double or triple that. Important for FH- don’t attempt to RTLS the center booster, it will go badly. This doesn’t seem like flight profile issues by a large margin though, something is probably broken with the dry masses.
  7. KSPTOT would be the best thing for this kind of mission in general, pinging @Arrowstar preemptively so that they can provide advice. But this ^ was the planned trajectory for the actual flight (from False Steps), which may or may not scale to Kerbin-Eve in JNSQ, stock, or even KSRSS. The general idea should hold though, a regular transfer with an Eve/Venus gravity assist that flings you out into an orbit that intercepts Kerbin/Earth on the way down from Apohelion.
  8. You shouldn’t have to even do that- there’s a button labeled “force run” in the experiment panel (can be accessed from the main Kerbalism menu) that will allow you to gather it again. I would also pay attention to that craft, because it’s possible that it’ll keep running after it collects all the data it needs- which will show up in the data menu- creating a lot of excess sample mass. My solution for that has always been to re-root to my X-plane’s fuel tank, note the configurations of the X-1 cockpit I have attached, detach it, replace it with a new cockpit from the part selector window, and configure it as it was.
  9. Maybe so that we can fully enjoy it, make those radiator panels fold up with an animation?
  10. This sounds like something I'd like- is there a link somewhere? Google shows nothing and I can't find it on CKAN (if I even used CKAN)
  11. In the top left picture, if some of the minor detailing on the launch tower and the smoke cloud were gone, I’d have no problem accepting that that was a KSP screenshot!
  12. That's not a normal occurrence for 95% of players. The technical support section of the forums might be able to help you out- I would even suggest verifying your game files through Steam (if you got the game that way) as a first step. I would like to avoid "handwavium" technology that allows things outside the realm of physics- KSP1 is an orbital mechanics simulator, and KSP2 purports to expand that to colonies and propulsion. But, in the other direction, it shouldn't be *too* accurate, necessitating micromanagement. Just like you don't have to account for the gravitational influence of Kerbol while entering orbits of Mun, KSP2 shouldn't require you to monitor propellant mixture ratios to keep your turbopumps from melting or set up a colony government to ensure it doesn't fall into chaos. I'm not too concerned about the above happening (save for The Propulsion Technology That Shall Not Be Named), but more pressing IMO is the possible lack of focus on the early game. A lot of players, myself included, have the most fun designing our spacecraft and mission architectures when you don't have multiple thousands of seconds of Isp or orbital construction. So far, we've seen mostly advanced propulsion technologies and colony parts, probably because they're the shiniest and sexiest, but it doesn't fully dispel my concerns. At least Intercept have overhauled the career mode we know and tolerate- that's already a significant advance. Probably the thing I'm least concerned about is alien life, which has been mentioned a couple times in this thread. I'm not very concerned because out of all the planets showcased so far, none are green with plant life and they all seem to fit the laws of physics. I definitely don't want macroscopic (or at least the alien equivalent of eukaryotic) life elsewhere than Kerbin, and would probably only like microbial life in the seas of Puf/Vall, and maybe something much cooler like stromatolites on the relatively hospitable seabeds of Laythe. Kerbin can and should get the complex variations of life evolution should produce as part of Operation Spice Kerbin Up (please Intercept make OSKU a real thing).
  13. W… wow. This is so much better in every aspect but the most marked improvement is in the SLA. It’s astoundingly good.
  14. Looks excellent! Though if you weren’t referring to it, changing the CO production would be nice because you wouldn’t use industrial production methods in space, you’d use SOE (like MOXIE), and in fact that’s the only reason CO+O2 is ever considered. I’m not at my PC with the MoreFuels update partially done, not will I be for another few days, but I think I arrived at something similar for CO/LOX ratios.
  15. Thanks, but I can't quite find what you're referring to. I've decided to go the alternate route (that probably should have been at the top of my head anyway) of simply applying each SUBTYPE in its own portion of the patch, all referencing the same ModuleB9PartSwitch, and using :HAS (the boolean has been moved to be inside ModuleB9PartSwitch).
  16. @JadeOfMaar for the most part, those look pretty good. I do have a few suggestions: Looking pretty good so far, and I'm also working on some tech for the next major MoreFuels update that I think you'll find some use for (related to my plea for help on the MM page).
  17. I've got a small question for someone more skilled in MM-fu. I'm working inside a ModuleB9PartSwitch and I need to check the part's config for a value, to inform if a SETUP should be applied. This is a simplification of my current state: @PART[*] { BooleanToCheck = False // foo bar MODULE { name = ModuleB9PartSwitch // foo bar SUBTYPE { // foo bar } SUBTYPE // should only be applied if BooleanToCheck = True { // foo bar } } } ... so I'm wondering if there's an elegant solution. I'd be surprised if something like the below worked. SUBTYPE:NEEDS[#$/BooleanToCheck$[True]]
  18. oh hey! I know someone who could use those that person may be adding carbon monoxide as a fuel in the near future, in case that informs your decisions
  19. I doubt it. Paint is mass and Every Gram Counts (thanks W. Chung), plus painting your MLI white and black kind of defeats the purpose of MLI.
  20. More video chronicles! This one is simply a crew rotation- not too exciting. We'll get to the cool stuff soon enough though.
  21. I’ve been, and without spoiling too much- it won’t be a disappointing end.
  22. Nope, 4.0 is under active development by GotMachine. There are commits quite often to the development branch. EDIT: they're actually here: https://github.com/Kerbalism/Kerbalism4
  23. @Well Do you remember these parts? I know that it's not in the scope of KNES, but I can't find a good download of this. Would it be possible for you to release this separately or at least send me the files so I can use it for myself?
  • Create New...