Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MBobrik

  1. Why to use kerbals ? Because they want to fly. It's their space program after all . And also, who would repair all the broken rover wheels and repack parachutes ?
  2. I've used it on the upper stage of one of my crazier designs where I had no room to place separatrons w/o them frying my central core or cargo. Worked perfectly because it was a ship designed to be extremely maneuverable so I had no problem to spin it up and then kill the rotation one second later.
  3. A little trick that helps me. kill all your velocity at 1-2 km above the surface. You will then come down almost exactly vertically.
  4. Sshot of my brand new Mun rover. ... Long rides with it, however, tend to cause motion sickness
  5. I tried once to get rid of a big chunk of space debris by shooting separatrons at it. My idea was to blast it into smaller pieces that could be handled by my janitor class ships. The only result was, however, that I found a bug in game physics that caused the big piece of junk to survive virtually anything I threw at it. Separatrons at 2 km/s relative velocity just made it spinning like crazy w/o doing any kind of damage. So I had to give up, build a specialized rig to attach itself to it and deorbit it. And then to spent hours catching ricocheted separatrons on all sorts of wild orbits. So much for my try with weapons in KSP .
  6. I think that most of interplanetary rockets use LV-N, and thus just don't have the required T/W to go straight out of Kerbin's SOI efficiently.
  7. It's a known bug that has been there, like, from the very beginning.
  8. center of mass = center of gravity
  9. TR-18D and TR-2C - pro - they don't stay stuck to one part so if you want to separate for example the rover and the return ascent vehicle, you use the stack separator. - pro - TR-18D is also smaller - con - they weight more than the corresponding decoupler - con - and tend to pollute the orbit when not used carefully. TR-XL - pro - it doesn't stay stuck to one part so if you want to separate for example the rover and the return ascent vehicle, you use the stack separator. - pro - it weights less than the corresponding decoupler - pro - it is also smaller - pro - its force is 140 % bigger than its corresponding decoupler, so when you need a powerful kick in your ship's ... ehm... nozzle ... - con - it tends to pollute the orbit when not used carefully.
  10. is there a problem with it ? my smaller plane lands at 75-80 m/s without any difficulties.
  11. Actually, no. only the first few dozen of those would be expensive. Then the economies of scale would kick in, and it would be perhaps even cheaper than current oil prices.
  12. Oil crisis ? Build liquid core thorium breeders, use them to drive H2 synthesis through a thermochemical cycle ( electricity can be co-generated), add some CO2 scrubbers to get CO2 from the atmosphere, then gas shift reaction + fischer tropsch and you have a synthetic oil source that is CO2 negative and can go on for countless millenia.
  13. I think it is OK, the big pod is simply just too bulky to escape using a LES. For the small Mk1 pod, one would be enough.
  14. So one would need four of them strapped to the same 3 kerbal pod to exceed the performance of the 48 Separatron all-stock (and extremely ugly ) solution. And it would still not be not capable to escape from a frenzied RT-10 SRB But it looks good anyway, gotta find some use for it
  15. I don't think that ripped off near-empty high-T/W SRBs are the major failure mode of manned spacecraft. And even in KSP where it is much more common, I've just demonstrated that it is possible to outrun the big SRB with stock parts only. So just avoid the small RT-10 ( who uses them on rockets big enough to carry the 3 seat pod anyway? ) and your kerbals will be safe.
  16. And, I just tried it in KSP by myself ( my first post with images, let's see how it works out ): 48 Separatrons, 3 655 Kg extra mass, initial T/W ratio 11, and successfully outrunning near empty SRBs (the large ones). ... Just before disintegration: ... barely outrunning the speeding SRBs: ... and still having enough velocity to get 10 Km higher
  17. They can and would save you because they and the super-high T/W ratio boosters aren't used together on the same craft.
  18. If it it were heading your way, you won't have the time to dodge it. And because you can't know beforehand where a ripped off booster will be heading, it is just a matter of pure luck whether it hits you or not.
  19. . There is no way to escape a near-empty SRB that went crazy. T/W = 51. good luck escaping from that with anything bigger than a separatron-wrapped bare probe core. A real-life escape tower would not make it either - the best system had T/W 17, while for example a near-empty Ariane 44P booster has T/W nearly 23 and AtlasV SRB over 32.
  20. What about simply adding a lot of separatrons ? AFAIK they have the best T/W ratio in the entire game. 3 sec running time should be enough to distance the pod from the wreckage and land on parachutes. Never tried it actually, gonna to try it myself.
  21. The space kraken tore the landing legs off my first mun lander mid flight. I decided to go anyway and smeared the lander all across the surface of the Mun. Don't know whether it counts as "landing on your engines", "lithobraking with your engines" or "crashing engines-first"
  22. My best clean-up ship could deorbit up to 4 pieces of small to medium size debris per refueling. No clue whether that counts as efficient.
  23. I did, until my map view became so cluttered that it was impossible to select anything but a random piece of debris. Then I designed ships that could grab and deorbit stuff and I cleaned the entire Kerbin neighborhood a few pieces per flight. Some pieces of debris stayed laying on the surface but I don't care about them so much because they don't clutter the map view and also, reliably destroying stuff on the surface is far more tricky than destroying orbital debris. Side note : Anyone got any idea how to grab and carry pieces that ended up under water ?
  • Create New...