Jump to content

GeorgeG

Members
  • Content Count

    76
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

48 Excellent

About GeorgeG

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. John, great to see you're around somewhere. That 3D Little Joe modle was great. Can that be convieted into .stl parts? I've been doing KSP for over 5 years. Lost a lot of posts in a forum crash. I've not been as active latel,y but you can look pu my post history and laos check out some of my KSP stuff in Imgur labums linked at the bottom of this. On to some new news about the model. I gave the model a partial Facelift. Temporarily added an incomplete forward cabin section, and also an incomplete aft assembly, to the dummy Ascent stage. Now, the dummy Ascent stage is about the
  2. Man I wrote up a long message about it but the forum software hated the imgur and youtube links so I'm adding them in bit by bit. In the meantime, 011narwhalz figured out it was a quadcopter (the alignment of the blades was totally coincidental). Now onto the original message I was trying to post: ---------------- OK, I’ve “Droned” on long enough. I thought it would be fun to introduce this model project in this way as that photo surprised me in not showing the telltale clues as to what was holding it up. Although once you read the rest of this and go back to the first photo, you c
  3. Forum software hated my pre-written post I tried to post in this message, then 0001narwhalz replied before I could complete it. So for continuity's sake I'm posting the info after his message rather than here.
  4. It's something else. Real photos (I did say it was shot in twilight, but the flash and exposure makes the sky look totally dark. This may be why that forensics image looks funky). Video will show it was not totally dark. No mirrors, no glass. Nothing attached to the model. I will post the answer later tonight, with pics and video that show what's really going on. But it'd be interesting if someone does figure it out first. I think you folks are gonna love the answer.
  5. Yes, it's a Lunar Module model. Descent stage mostly balsa/basswood. Ascent stage a crude 2-D paper mockup for now, until I make up a good looking Ascent stage using patterns from a cardboard model. Later it will be all prettied up, "gold foil" (kapton, mylar), and all that to look more realistic. But that's still not the really neat thing about this.... How did I get that photo? I do not mean the camera. I mean model location so I could take such a photo. BTW - here's another photo: Then this indoors showing the lighted engine mock-up.
  6. It is a real photograph that I took early last night. No photoshop. Hey, if the image was something that was not real, I'd have gotten the moon in good focus rather than blurry. Actually, I took the photo after sunset (twilight), the sky was not black but the use of the camera's flash and general darkness made it look black. I'll post a video showing the sky was not black yet, and more info later.
  7. Maybe I should have asked if anyone wanted to guess at what it is or how it was shot. Besides a not yet complete model of a Lunar Module.
  8. Update - Changed the thread name on December 11th "An interesting photo of something with the moon" to indicate what this really is. December 11th is also the 44th anniversary of the landing of Apollo-17, Lunar Module Challenger, by astronauts Eugene Cernan and Harrison Schmitt. Actual info about the model begins on post #12: http://tinyurl.com/z76hop6 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- For fun, I'm posting this pic "cold" with no explanation, yet. It is a work in progress.....
  9. I read the book twice (first time March 2014 in 2 nights), and also listened to the audiobook 2 months ago. HUGE fan of the book and have looked very forward to the movie. I loved it! Andy Weir himself said that he would have made the same cuts for the sake of a movie that even at 2:15 is pretty darn long. An example of something changed that I agree was a practical necessity as well as something that would have taken up a lot of time otherwise: Pathfinder not dying works fine for the movie, indeed pretty much a storytelling necessity. Keep in mind that SO MUCH of the information in the
  10. +1 I appreciate the hard work, but wish it was more in the direction of gear like Adjustable Landing Gear. - GeorgeG
  11. A big issue with the old/current landing gear is the need to get them mounted dead-perfectly at 90 degrees, or else the plane will veer itself off the runway. When attaching gear onto non-flat surfaces, that is a big issue. Adjustable Landing Gear has solved that, plus much much more. It can automatically set the wheels at 90 degrees. But I often take part in challenges, so can't use it when the challenge requires "stock" parts. If the new stock gear has the same old problem being so finicky, then it's not trying to fix the biggest problem with the old gear. Otherwise, except for challenges,
  12. Nice to see more gear. For those who are not aware, also check out "Adjustable Landing Gear". http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/99660-0-25-Adjustable-Landing-Gear-v1-0-4%28doors-fixed%29-Nov-14 With that, plus the use of "Tweakscale" to get almost any desired size, it's darned good. - GeorgeG
  13. The old DEMV-5 rovers worked BEAUTIFULLY! Like Dune Buggies! Driving on Gilly was fun! Wish the rovers using stock game parts would behave the same way. Or that the old DEMV-5's could be brought back to life. BTW - it is not just any little obstacle that flips rovers. Sometimes, no obstacle at all. I was driving around on Duna with a rover made of stock parts, specifically custom made with a very low CG, HARD to flip, driving along at maybe 8 m/s on a very slight slope, going uphill. But it kept running into some invisible something that flipped it. Not a single invisible object, more like
  14. Hmm, well, I wasn't thinking about that. And you would be right to declare it invalid if the Cargo SSTO had landed without the 2.9 meter SSTO that it took up. But….. the Cargo SSTO space plane landed in the same aerodynamic configuration it took off in, with all the same parts. It did not jettison anything…. it undocked a part (the 2.9 meter SSTO) that then re-docked with it and landed with all the parts it had when it took off. So, I file an appeal to the Gate-Crasher verdict! But for the sake of proving the Cargo SSTO can fly without the 2.9 meter SSTO, and more, I flew it agai
  15. I have uploaded four craft files of some of my SSTO's to DropBox: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/yphqjhgppprpzk5/AAAlbYSIA1BR5sWjlK5WK5xba?dl=0 Corvette R6 Payload Microjet RCS dock Cargo SSTO (with secret payload). 2.9 meter SSTO Included is a text file with a list of what the Action Groups do. All of them use the Mechjeb 2 AR202 part. For those who do not use Mechjeb, you can load them anyway by adding the AR202 part and simply not using Mechjeb, just include the part.so it can load. Of the four, the Corvette R6 is the most fun to fly. Handles nicely. Plenty of DV to do rendezvous with, an
×
×
  • Create New...