• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,164 Excellent

About RoboRay

  • Rank
    Rocket Surgeon

Recent Profile Visitors

1,860 profile views
  1. Having all these improvements in a new KER release for KSP 1.3.1 would be fantastic. It's probably going to be a while before RSS/RO/RP0 users reach KSP 1.4.x. I generally prefer KER HUDs to MechJeb HUDs because they are easier to read, but the KER in-flight Δv readouts being broken with RealFuels has forced me back to MechJeb. Would this just be a recompile, or would it require actual code changes? I won't beg if it requires code changes.
  2. RoboRay

    What did you do in KSP today?

    The LR-89s have about 10% more thrust than the LR-79s and the Isp is about the same (the 79 is just a second or two higher). My understanding from reading various RO/RP0 posts was that the LR-79 got better over the time and the LR-89 didn't as much. I haven't quite gotten to point of buying one and starting to R&D it, but if I can get by with investing in just one of two such similar motors, my preference is for the one with more to offer in the long-term. We'll see how it goes.
  3. RoboRay

    What did you do in KSP today?

    Absolutely. Fewer engines is definitely safer when probability comes knocking. I just lost thrust on an another RD-103M going for polar orbit. The bad engine held together, though, and I was still able to hold it on course and crawl into low orbit (two contracts for the price of one... first polar orbit and first solar powered satellite! Also brought along a lot more science gear to gather as much LEO data as I can transmit back.) I'm also planning to go for the LR-79 and LR-105 for my next rocket, for lunar probes and manned orbitals.
  4. RoboRay

    What did you do in KSP today?

    After dabbling in the Real Solar System using SMURFF for a while, I finally went all-in with Realism Overhaul and am running my first RP0 campaign. And, after almost a decade of sounding rockets, manned suborbitals in rocket planes, and much R&D... it's time to put up my first satellite! The two first stage boosters are powered by single RD-103Ms and the first stage core sustainers are two more RD-103Ms. Second stage is equipped with a pair of AJ-10-37s. Third stage has a single AJ-10-37. Fourth stage uses a pair of XASR-1s. Fifth stage is a single XASR-1. Sixth stage is a solid-fuel Aerojet X103C10. Man, things get complicated when engines tend to fail or blow up if you exceed their maximum rated burn-time! This wasn't designed to be an orbital launch vehicle... it grew into it. The little Aerobee upper stages began life as sounding rockets. Then I put them atop a single RD-100 for more altitude. The lower stage grew into the twin RD-103, and the AJ-10s were inserted in the middle. Then I realized how close I was to being able orbit a tiny probe with what I had, and added the pair of RD-103 boosters. 1205x5715 km orbit! Not bad for a first attempt.* I didn't even need the SRB kicker on the probe... I was in about a 160x1175 km orbit after the final liquid stage was done. *Or, the first attempt without any engine failures. I lost an RD-103 on my first attempt, an AJ-10 on my next two attempts, and an XASR-1 on my last failed attempt... Damn you, TestFlight! All stages had sufficient avionics for positive control throughout the flight, except for the kicker. I had to make sure to save enough peroxide for the final liquid stage to orient itself on prograde via RCS after coasting to apogee, before spinning it up to spin-stabilize the kicker.
  6. RoboRay

    How do YOU launch?

    I kind of wish that, maybe once a year, the forum admin would run a script that automatically locked all threads that hadn't received a new post in over a year.
  7. RoboRay

    What gameplay rules do you impose on yourself?

    No deliberate space junk. I drop all spent stages on impact trajectories, or give them the means to set themselves onto an impact trajectory if it's not feasible to just drop them on one. No suicide missions. Every crew-member has a way to come home. No reloading to avert a disaster or screw-up. Problems happen and I deal with them. Every manned launch needs an in-flight abort capability to save the crew. See #2 and #3. New launchers get unmanned test flights before carrying crew and new manned spacecraft get low-orbit tests of all features before leaving the SOI. See #2 and #3. Probes go everywhere before people do. See #2 and #3.
  8. RoboRay

    What did you do in KSP today?

    I went to the moon, but I have yet to do the other things...
  9. RoboRay

    Retractable wings

    The launch vehicle's wings have to be larger than the ones on the spaceplane atop the stack, yes. That would have been the case for Dyna-Soar as well.
  10. * Updated map nodes to be visually different when behind a celestial body. Can we get a setting to turn this off? Dimming out the parameters text to make it hard to read is not a desirable feature to me.
  11. RoboRay

    Retractable wings

    Never say "never"... [Mission Album]
  12. RoboRay

    [1.4.3] Descent Mode 0.2.2

    Oh, now how did I miss this? Looks very handy!
  13. Perfect example! That attitude is exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not complaining. Yet, if you ask any question about future availability or (in my case) point out a flawed reason someone gives for why it's not yet available, you get accused of complaining. It's kind of ridiculous.
  14. And there are people who use SMURFF for a stockish experience in the real solar system. Since RSS has no dependencies on RO, I always raise an eyebrow when someone says the next RSS release is waiting on a RO update. But it's not my mod, and I don't want to sound like I'm complaining.
  15. RoboRay

    [1.4.4] KRE - Kerbal Reusability Expansion

    Usually, yes. Gemini MOL was an exception, though that was an off-center hatch that would be closed for reentry.