DerekL1963

Members
  • Content Count

    2,782
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,668 Excellent

2 Followers

About DerekL1963

  • Rank
    Rocket Scientist

Recent Profile Visitors

3,331 profile views
  1. DerekL1963

    What did you do in KSP today?

    Converted the skycrane I posted yesterday into a fully fledged atmospheric EDL system. Used it to land rovers on Duna and in Kerbin's desert's and drove them about for a bit. Then I finally remembered to download the Persistent Trails mod so I could make cool shots showing the paths the rover took.
  2. DerekL1963

    Solid Fuel Tanks plz

    While solid boosters can't be shut down, they can be made to produce zero net thrust - which amounts to the same thing in the vast majority of cases.
  3. Yuck. Making things all greebly is not an improvement. The "new" design of the FL-A5 in particular is a huge step backwards.
  4. DerekL1963

    What did you do in KSP today?

    Why do you only "dare" to barely turn it up at all? (Seriously, that statement makes no sense. Turning it up has no significant effect unless you have a potato computer.)
  5. DerekL1963

    NASA SLS/Orion/Payloads

    Since public interest is currently barely a skosh above absolute zero... I seriously doubt any failure that doesn't involve the death of an astronaut or passenger will have much impact on public interest or any other significant lasting effect. The folks you want to avoid annoying overmuch are the folks that pay the bills (private customers and governmental funding bodies). The former doesn't really give a rat about whatever speculative technologies fail to pan out so long as they can still buy rides. (Especially since they aren't footing the bill.) The latter doesn't give a rat either, unless it's hardware or speculative technology they paid for. There's a lot of talk here about hype trains and hating particular vehicles... But that's nothing but a tempest in the closed bubble universe that is space fandom. In the real world, there's not a term strong enough to express how utterly and completely irrelevant space fandom is.
  6. DerekL1963

    What did you do in KSP today?

    To fix this, you can open your settings and turn up the ambient light boost.
  7. o.0 I didn't say anything about a Terrier and a nuke... As far as waiting out long burns, I have a computer that multitasks. I'm currently on the forums while MJ drives a rover across Duna. That's what the "fore by throttle" setting on your RCS blocks are for. Turn that setting on, firewall the throttle, turn your RCS on, and you're set.
  8. Honestly... I'm not even sure I understand what you're asking. It makes no sense to combine Poodles and nukes, and how much oxidizer you have at the Mun is... not at all relevant if you're launching a rescue mission from Kerbin. (I think that's what you're asking.) Not to mention, there's no single "most efficient" combination... It's going to vary with the weight of your vehicle, how long a burn you can tolerate, etc... etc... All solutions ultimately start in the hangar. In this scenario, it's particularly important because you need to substantially increase the ratio of fuel:oxidizer tankage to avoid lugging around oxidizer that you won't be using.
  9. DerekL1963

    NASA SLS/Orion/Payloads

    Sure - after you spend huge heaps of cash developing a spacecraft/service module that will supply all the services that a Shuttle does and Delta doesn't.... And a huge heap of cash per mission for said module. No, we don't. We have rockets with different payload capacities, but that's not the same thing. (And guys, please don't feed the BFR troll. This is not the SpaceX thread.)
  10. DerekL1963

    NASA SLS/Orion/Payloads

    Cost is one metric of comparison, capability is another. Nobody with any sense would compare $.99 hamburger to $9.90 sirloin and claim the former is equivalent and can universally replace the latter. In the same way, none of the other launchers you list have even a fraction of the capabilities of the Shuttle. It's not all about cost - it's about what you get for what you spend.
  11. DerekL1963

    What did you do in KSP today?

    Designed and tested a skycrane, and fiddled a bit with video editing: The experimented with MechJeb's rover autopilot/autonavigation system:
  12. DerekL1963

    NASA SLS/Orion/Payloads

    Setting aside the fact that this isn't the SpaceX thread, their valuation is utterly and completely irrelevant in this comparison - because that's the market's guess as to the value of the company, not it's cash flow/income/revenue.
  13. DerekL1963

    [1.5.x] Mark One Laboratory Extensions (M.O.L.E.)

    I encountered that too... and stumbled into finding the "next engine" solution. And found a bug in the process, when you save and reload the craft the setting is not preserved (you have to go through "next engine" again), ditto when you revert to the VAB. Also noted that the mode names don't match the table that Jade of MAAR posted... in the sandbox there's KeroLox and Raptalox - shouldn't KeroLox be LFO?
  14. DerekL1963

    What did you do in KSP today?

    Finalized the preps for my next campaign game (science mode).... Still missing a couple of mods, but those won't be needed for a while, so no biggie. Just need to find time to write it up and actually get rolling. Flying a Minmus landing mission, caught the probe, the Mun, and Kerbin all in one shot...
  15. DerekL1963

    When will updates stop breaking mods?

    The Shuttle's software was essentially bug free... And the software that drove the missile fire control system I worked on in the Navy absolutely was bug free. But, in both cases, huge heaps o' cash and man-hours were invested to accomplish that. Absolutely, there's plenty of code that's bug free. There's just very little commercial or open-source/free software that's bug free because the cost doesn't merit the returns.