Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Andras

  1. Question for ya, can you make angled nose caps for the large SRBs that will taper towards the central object like the boosters in the Ariane attached. And have them placed via the symmetry tool so the caps are angled correctly. I know the one set you posted has the angled nose, but the Large SRBs are more powerful. Also wanted to add my 'DeltaII' design. Kind of a mish-mash of various Delta and Titans actually I call it the -II because of the ring of SRBs.
  2. BTW, a ring of 6 large SRBs fired all at once breaks 2m couplers.
  3. Thanks! I built a bigger brother also, using a 3m core and 4 SRBs The 'RCS' module is actually a cfg modified 'CSM' fuel tank. It has the new big berthas under the outriggers. The outriggers and the 4 SRBs fire as the first stage, and the central engine fires when the SRBs drop off. I used the new cosmetic detachable nose cone to hide the command capsule and parachute.
  4. Playing around with it now. Looks good so far! ETA- Built a triple core out of 2m components with a upper stage for descent. Used the new Big Bertha in the center stack, and the dual nozzle engines in the boosters. The SRBs fired with the outrigger boosters, but were dropped off early. The Outriggers burned out at 43.5km, with full tanks in the center module. 4 strakes on the center and 2 on each booster kept the engines from overheating at full power. The RCS module was excessive so I replaced it with a bigger third stage tank.
  5. Sounds great Nova. Check out my 2m Satellite booster I used some modified cfgs for this to see how my numbers for various tanks and engines worked out. Also the top tank in the center stack fed the 6 booster engines first, then the boosters used their own tanks. Then the last tank in the center is used for the center engine after the boosters drop off.
  6. I like the cluster of 7, and the paired nozzles. I'm not sure about the ones that stick out the sides because it would be harder to add external parts. A 3m plate with 4 slots would also be welcome I think. ETA- I just noticed the size differences, a 2m 2x1m plate and a 2m 3x1m plate would be nice. PS- could you upsize the lateral triple coupler so it'll work on three 2m tanks side by side?
  7. BTW Nova, I just wanted to say I love the mini decoupler and use it under my command capsule when building a rocket. The low profile just about disappears in the stack.
  8. I've been thinking about the 2m and 3m tanks and engines also. These are the numbers I've been toying with: LFT- Wt-Fuel stock 2.5 500 HH77 Orange 3 600 Double 5 1000 2m short 6 1500 2m full sized 7 2000 3m large 8 3600 with the thrust and burn numbers on some of the engines adjusted so: LFE-wt-thrust-burn stock 2 200 8 GG-M4 2 300 14 M-50 2.5 400 18 TK-31 3 600 26 EX500 3 500 20 EX600 4 600 30 EX800 5 800 40 EX1000 5 1000 50 2mBertha 2 750 32 BigF2M 3 900 36 3m quad 2 1350 54 BigF3M 6 1200 45 (some of the weights haven't been adjusted yet) What about a 'scale' factor'? The realistic weight/fuel and thrust/burn are all divided by the same number Istead of having a 3m tank with a capacity of 11,000 and a weight of 55, you might divide those by three, and instead of having a 3m engine with a burn of 244 and a thrust of 6100, divide those by three also. For the 2m parts, divide by 2 instead of 3.
  9. Nova, you posted you don't like the GG-m4, could you upsize it to it's another 2m scale engine? Maybe with a thrust of 750 and a burn of 40?
  10. I've been trying a few designs with the angled LF Boosters and they do severe damage to tanks and LFEs nearby. They will easily knock a LFE off the rocket and break apart LFTs. I don't know if there is something that can be tweaked in the CFG to reduce collateral damage.
  11. I keep a separate archive folders for all stock parts and for all add-ons. the main parts folder has copies of them all so I can dump the parts folder at anytime and rebuild. Actually I have 3 KSP folders going, one with only stock parts, one with addons, and one with CFG edits I've made. Each has a separate archive for addons.
  12. No, that's a pic from before I noticed. They have been removed from service until the manufacturer's defect is fixed (IOW I'm too lazy to do it myself)
  13. The 5x1 interferes, but it is possible to fit the square 4x connector under it for 16 total nozzles but the M-50s won't fit on it. With 15 M50s, lifting off at 1/4 throttle, and increasing it to 1/3 mid flight, two 3m tanks lasted 37 seconds. One tank lasted 6 seconds at full power. It's easy to block fuel flow though, just slap a SAS in after the decoupler. I've also built one with 2 center fuel tanks, with the radials on the top tank, they won't feed from the lower tank so you can reserve it for a second stage. Stage 1 is 4 rockets burning from 5 tanks. Stage 2 is 1 rocket and 1 tank.
  14. Would you be open to revising the GG-M4 a bit? Right now it produces less thrust and burns more fuel then Sunday's M50. With a burn of 14, it'll have a useful slot, but if anyone has installed both packs, I don't see it getting much use despite the lighter weight. The 2m Bertha only burns 16 when throttled back to 300 thrust. Thanks for the parts packs though, I appreciate your hard work.
  15. I think it's because the force is applied at one end, so there's a large rotational effect. A stock radial decoupler applies it's force near the middle of the object so there's less rotation.
  16. It's a good part. Buyer's beware it has a strong ejection and I've had me nozzles knocked off due to SRBs rotating into them. Pull the LFRs down to the decoupler stage so they fire early or mount these low on the primary rocket.
  17. I'm having an issue in that the heatshield as decoupler doesn't form it's own stage, it becomes part of what is under it, so everything below it is ejected when the stage is activated. A work around is to use 2 heatsheilds and set them to their own stage.
  18. I think that doubling the thrust to 1300 is needed, but perhaps only increasing the fuel consumption to 54, so each 3m tank lasts about 30 seconds (slightly less efficient then the stock LFR). 1300 still leaves room for the 5x1 plate full of M50s. Also, I think the medium needs to be tweaked. It's more powerful then a stock LFR run at safe power. If it was reduced to 120 thrust then it would fall into place better IMO.
  19. Looks nice, is that for a 2m tank? If you get a chance, could you do an engine with 2 nozzles, like the Titan has in some configurations? or Russians
  20. Thanks for the tips, I redid it and it worked, probably was a comma in place of a decimal.
  21. A couple times tried to use the short 2m tanks and they have flipped sideways in the VAB. Has this happened to anyone else?
  22. I disagree actually, it only has 50kn more thrust then the side mount, but about half the burn time.
  • Create New...