GeorgeG

Members
  • Content Count

    76
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

47 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 correct thickness for the middle section, so with these parts stuck together they are close to representing the fore-aft locations of the parts. I learned a lot in assembling the forward cabin. The fit is not quite right, I need to tweak the original cardboard model file and also be sure I get a couple of folds done better. But as I said earlier, I figured the first one would not be the final one since there would be things to learn. When I do make the central section, I will make some of it using foam board, such as used for the dummy Ascent stage. But the structure will be a bit different, and it will be “skinned” with the cardboard print. Today was the 44th anniversary of Apollo-17. Well, Apollo-17 launched on December 7th, 1972. But today was the 44th anniversary of the LANDING, at 2:55 PM EST. I made it a point to be flying the model today at 2:55 PM EST, made the first landing a bit before , last landing some time after. So, here is how the model looked in the air with the partial facelift: And…… Here is how it looked landing…. kicking up “dust” Here’s a video. Good thing that the moon’s dust was not as deep as some feared….. Also, a video from some flying on Saturday. I got it higher up than I’ve shown in previous videos. The engine nozzle light really stood out.
  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 can just barely see them [edit - OK, 0001narwalz did see them without this hint]. Sort of ironic that a fancy photo forensic analysis highlighted “noise”, without actually indicating what was holding the model in the air 50 feet or more above the ground. Here is the same photo with added brightness and increased contrast (so this photo is modified, but not the original). The model was holding itself up…. Those gray things….. propeller blades. It is a flying R/C Quadcopter! Video of the takeoff before I shot the photos, you can see it was not totally dark, but close to it (and looking a bit darker than in the video). After takeoff and climb, I put it into a hover in “Loiter” mode, which means that it used GPS to stay in place (not drift), and the altimeter onboard held the hover altitude, while I shot the photos. Yes, essentially at that point the MultiCopter Flight Controller equivalent of “MechJeb” was flying it. Here is another photo where the model was closer, so the flash lit it up better, and the props are visible. But the moon looks smaller due to the model being closer. When this model is completed and looking good, I'll try for some better "Moon shots". So, here it is earlier in the day, again in Loiter while I shot some pics. I’ve been documenting this project on The Rocketry Forum, linked here: http://www.rocketryforum.com/showthread.php?137174 Almost any questions someone might have about building and flying it, are probably covered in that thread. So I’m not going to cover much detail here, please look there. While it is not model rocket powered, that is a my main forum to post in since model rockets are my main thing and I post a lot there. The model is 100% electric motor / prop powered, a Quadcopter. It will not have a model rocket engine in it (someone else can do that with their R/C Lunar Module) Scale is 1/16, about 2 feet across the landing footpads. Totally scratch built. Here’s the early structure of the Descent Stage next to a DJI Phantom. And here it is the the Descent Stage more complete, motors added, and a temporary crude Ascent stage for visualization. A photo of it’s third flight, before it got better legs. A selfie, also indicating the size. A view on the ground, after adding improved lower leg struts: As I said earlier, it is a Work In Progress. I wanted to test fly it in basic form first to make sure it would work, in case it was not going to work. Also, if it had some problems to make it crash, better to do that early than later after making it look more accurate. And indeed it had a couple of dumb crashes, which I learned from. So, anyway, this will be looking a lot better soon. The Ascent stage will mostly be made up by using 300% scale-up of patterns from a 1/48 Cardboard model (images of one below are not mine). Here is a video of a lot of flying, taken Dec 2nd. Most of the first 6.5 minutes are with a fixed camera, which I edited to mostly show takeoffs and landings. At about 6.5 minutes, footage from a GoPro I had mounted on a helmet, so it follows the model in flight. BTW - I’ve been flying Model Rockets since 1970. And R/C since about 1977. When I was a kid during the Apollo Lunar Landings… I thought up the “crazy dream” of building an R/C model of a Lunar Module, that would use rocket power. But aside from the lack of a rocket engine that could burn for a very very very VERY long time (with enough thrust) and be throttle-able, were the facts that it would need a guidance system onboard to keep it steady, and R/C gear was so big and heavy and expensive. It is incredible the technology we have access to today, the Flight Controller for this is effectively a guidance system smaller than a Saltine Cracker, for under $40. And nobody envisioned anything like a “Multicopter” at the time. So I never REALLY thought I could ever build an R/C Lunar Module that flies, ever. But I learned a lot as a hobbyist (have done a 1/72 R/C Space Shuttle that drops the SRB’s then the ET and glides back). I started flying multicopters about 2 years ago, a few months later built a 250 sized quad on my own (no kit, bought the parts and learned online how to assemble it and set up the Flight Controller) . With the access today to such advanced, small, and lightweight technology at a relatively affordable price, I realized I COULD actually build a flying R/C Lunar Module, as a Quadcopter. So, OK, its not technically rocket powered. But that’s OK, it would take a lot of $ to develop a suitable extremely accurately throttleable hybrid rocket engine to fly a model like this (precise throttle so it could land slowly), even if it could be done safely and reliably, and it would weigh a lot, including the Nitrous tank (Engine could be gimbaled, but still the model would need something for roll control, like a tank of a liquified gas to power some valve-operated roll thrusters). So, theoretically possible, but not practical for a hobbyist (well, not practical for me anyway). I can fly THIS model on a few cents of electricity to charge the battery packs. The packs wear out after a couple of hundred charge cycles or so, but even then that’s pennies per flight. Also the battery is good for at least 7 minutes with a nice safety margin, I've had it flying for 10 minutes when not maneuvering much and keep it close to the ground the last 2 minutes if the battery got too low to maintain hover. “Building” a lander, launching it, and landing it on the Mun in KSP is fun. Having built THIS, is WAY more fun in Real Life, to fly and land a Lunar Module on Earth. - George Gassaway My website: http://georgesrockets.com/GRP/GRP-home.htm
  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 book was with Watney by himself, cut off from communications for so long, that the movie needed to be able to have the communications opened up for better storytelling. I mean, if you'd not read the book it would make perfect sense that what I described above went the way it did in the movie. No point in obsessing that it's different from the book, for the sake of obsessing about things different from the book. Stuff had to be cut, condensed, or modified for the movie. I like the ending better than either of the two endings the books had (yes, the original ending in the book was changed for later editions. Perhaps when it went from self-published to being "real published"). So, I understand why various things got cut or changed. Though I wish the moment of Mindy Park's emotional reaction as she showed Kapoor the images on Mars, as he slowly realized what she was trying to show him, had not been cut. That was a great OMG emotional moment that was lost, not nearly as powerful as the later reveal to others as the movie showed. But again, the movie needed to have a lot of things shortened/cut. But I hope they shot that scene anyway (and a few others), in which case it might show up as a a DVD extra or even a Director's Cut as with "The Abyss". Anyone who can't get over the movie being different from the book, try this: READ the book "The Right Stuff" by Tom Wolfe. Which was said at the time to be impossible to turn into a movie. Then watch the movie. BOTH are great, but also many differences (massive parts of the book left out of the movie, and other things cut or condensed or changed). And even at THAT the movie was well over 3 hours long, contributing to its box office failure. But it was a great movie, regardless. The Crew "mutiny", of course was in the book (I'm not going to spoiler this since it was included in several of the trailers and commercials). The movie emphasized more that aspect of aspect of the crew decision, while my take on it from the book was the clash in on the ground about keeping the crew in the dark, first about Watney not being dead, then not letting the crew know about how they could save him. Until the Flight Director secretly sent them the information, so the crew could decide for themselves. Which when the Flight director secretly sent the crew that info, he knew it was pretty much 99% sure thing they would do exactly what they did. Literally an unspoken question if they wanted to try to save Watney themselves or not.....they did NOT think of this on their own. What human being worthy of being a trusted crew member on a mission to Mars and back would NOT choose to do what they did? In the military, there are situations where a mission is so dangerous, that rather than order them to do it, they ask for volunteers. I take this more as the crew "volunteering" to do something that nobody on the ground was going to (or allowed to) officially ask them to consider doing. Now if this was a real world incident, one could get wrapped up in arguing legal technicalities. But also NASA and the military would look like idiots to press charges against crew members who did such a heroic thing for the sake of another crew member as opposed to non-heroic personal reasons as in the two real-world examples below. Read up on history about Apollo-7 and Skylab 4. I mean real NASA history, not movies. Apollo-7 had in a way, a crew mutiny against mission control, and Skylab-4's crew went "on strike", both sparked over mission control loading them up with too much to do and reaching critical points (plus some general crankiness before even launching in the case of Apollo-7. Not wanting to do any TV broadcasts at all, which was a new thing greatly appreciated by the public). None of them ever flew again, though Schirra was already retiring after the mission anyway (which freed him up even more to be extra cranky, without any effect on his future as an astronaut. But his two other crew members paid for it). Anyway, back to the movie…. I give it 10 out of 10. Perfect? No. The last perfect movie I ever saw? Still waiting to see the first perfect movie. Top Ten movies I have ever seen..... yes this one makes my list. Only disappointment is that I no longer am waiting to see it (Saw it at 10:15 PM Oct 1st in 3D). Well, not waiting to see it for the first time. I'm now waiting to see the local $5 Tuesday showing, and will see it at least a third time while it's still in theaters. Eventually, will get the Blueray DVD (likely out in January). - GeorgeG Yep, this is me..... the more handsome guy on the right....
  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, I'll stick to ALG and "tweakscale" for the best, most fun, and most logical/realistic way to use landing gear in the game. - GeorgeG
  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 an invisible wall. Probably where one bock of terrain ended and the next block began, since I tried going some different ways but always flipped over when I finally turned and started going back in the original direction I wanted to go, far away horizontally from the earlier flips. Did a small Hyperedit jump to get past that zone, then it happened AGAIN somewhere else. Out of total frustration I used HyperEdit to "land" it at the object I was trying to drive to 2 kilometers away. Maybe not 100% fair, but then flipping 6 times in a row due to the same terrain BUG in the game felt fair for the frustration of the situation (this is supposed be FUN...). - GeorgeG
  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 again. And I added a different payload that had no wings. I was tempted to just keep the 2.9 meter SSTO but remove all the flying surfaces. But, instead, I gave it a very useful payload that could go fly off pretty far to somewhere, dock with something else for a big mission, or whatever one can do with that much fuel and and aerospike (originally it had an LV-N but there were problems as noted in the album). Takeofff mass of 148.66 tons, carrying a 39 ton payload. I added more pics to the Cargo SSTO album. But rather than click thru the album, you can go directly to the first image (#35) of this flight by using this link to the full album: http://imgur.com/a/yDGR3#35 So, the heavier payload meant it was a good thing that the Cargo SSTO has a lot of TWR. It had a slower climb and took longer to make orbit, using more fuel, but it made it easily, with 1369 m/s dV left. The payload left the payload bay, then docked with the front of the SSTO for a brief while. Then undocked to go do its own thing. The SSTO cargo ship reentered fine and landed safely (see album for proof). - GeorgeG
  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, and can carry small payloads. The Microjet is scary fast to try to fly the right profile to be able to make orbit (A lighter version of it used to have the minimalist record). Biggest issue is leveling off at 23-26 km to make a good speed run before climbing higher. It wants to go so fast in the initial climb towards 20 km that it can easily blow past right on an apoapsis of 30 km or higher, even above 70 km, before achieving enough horizontal velocity to make orbit on rocket power alone. The glide handling is great too. For more Dv, it could have an extra tank pair or two adde, but watch out for the CG change if you do. The Cargo SSTO is a reasonable workhorse. Not the most efficient, but no agonizingly long tedious climbs "on the wing" like the Buh Hee Moth was. Take note that it needs to use TAC fuel balancer, set to balance fuel and oxidizer. If not, some of the jets will run out of fuel during the speed run. The 2.9 meter SSTO is… unique! And also flies into orbit pretty nicely as the Corvette does. - GeorgeG