• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

69 Excellent

1 Follower

About ndiver

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer

Profile Information

  • Location Germany / France

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. ndiver

    Nose Cone A v B

    Funny, the Type B looks like the top of Ariane 6 final design boosters: Even if Type A boosters were considered.
  2. In my 1.4.5 career, i'm currently using a design inspired by the SLS-derived dry-hab for both my Mun and Minmus stations. https://www.spaceflightinsider.com/organizations/nasa/marshall-space-flight-center-martian-media-tour/ https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140012883.pdf https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20150016185.pdf Basically, the station core is simply using the large command module and large deep-space laboratory of Stockalike Station Part Expansion Redux, with solar panels, a cupola, 3 docking ports and a bit of monoprop. Are fixed on this core the landers and the transfer stages that are standardized and bring fuel for Mün / Minmus surface operations (one transfer stage brings enough fuel for several missions to the surface). When nearly empty the transfer stage are sent back to Kerbin where they are recovered. The transfer stage are themselves equipped with 3 docking ports allowing them to dock and receive other vessels. I'm currently looking to expand, possibly with a node, the number of landers (manned and unmanned) that can be fixed on it, because I now have mobile laboratory at the surface and I developed a 5-crew lander (see below), but i don't know where to put such node to make it easy of access for the landers. Large view with 3 additional transfer stages and a monoprop tug docked: Core view with the large science lander: View from the other side with the submarine lander (2 seat lander with late unlocked experiments): Future 5-crew lander (mk2 cabin and SSPE cupola were best compromise in weight for a 5 crew lander, because the cupola is overly light) :
  3. Does the part implies that close-by energy sources (solar panels) will be able to provide energy? Does it means shared resources between close objects? Including vessels, bases?
  4. By curiosity, do you plan an inline chute on the top of the SRB? I noticed it on the diagram of the real SS SRB: Your SRB became my first stage for all my interplanetary ships in my 1.4.5 save
  5. I can also say that it still works fine for 1.4.5 (i'm still playing with this older version cause of mods). I downloaded it yesterday evening to try, and it works as it should. I just react because I see the reply of Skalou few hours after i tried it for the first time. I really like that it does not create a new part but just give the possibility to put or not a hatch on the existing one depending of your need vessel by vessel.
  6. ndiver

    What did you do in KSP today?

    Did my first SSTO in my 1.4.5 career. Now i wonder why and for what use ... :-x
  7. Keep the file in the folder, that's now part of the legend
  8. New observation: the link between missions of a same program can be a bit weird. I noticed that I made Friendship 7 (John Glenn) before Freedom 7 (Alan Shepard) and even Vostock-1 because of conditions to unlock the missions ! I'm curious to know how long duration missions (like Mariner-2 that implies to flyby Eve, meaning 200 days mission) block or unlock new contracts.
  9. I'm considering to update to 1.6 just for this mod. How Nertea did you found the time to do the modelization and texturing of all these parts?
  10. Evrn if i find it nice, I would like to see from Squad on engine overhaul: 1) coherence: one color scheme per manufacturer, explanations concerning the changes 2) a roadmap
  11. New post, possible bug. I'm playing with the version for KSP 1.4.x. 1) When I decline a contract (like one with negative reward, see post above), the contract is coming back few seconds later. I simply can't skip any of these contracts. Any idea why? 2) contract Explorer-10: Apoapsis: Above 180,000,000m Problem: it's over the sphere-of-influence of Kerbin (84 000km), is it normal? I suggest either 18,000,000m (a bit further than the Mun) or 80,000,000m (just below the limits of Kerbin SOI) 3) Tiros 9: PARAMETER { name = Orbit type = Orbit targetBody = HomeWorld() minApA = 250000 minPeA = 700000 minInclination = 87.5 maxInclination = 57.5 Apoapsis and periapsis are strange (apoapsis below periapsis), but inclinations make the contract impossible to complete as contradictory.
  12. If there was something that I really would like to see in a future update, it's a planet overhaul. Duna was initially having its canyon, which made it visually pleasant, and for the players, interesting to explore. Now, all the surface of planet looks globally the same. Once you landed on a planet, trying to get somewhere else on it makes little sense in term of exploration. https://spacedock.info/mod/1041/Duna Restoration Project Our own Solar system, and the probes we sent there has proven us that planets are diverse, beautiful, and each new feature discovered was a call to exploration.
  13. Thanks for these 2 explanations, I did not realized that the Twin-Boar was inspired by the F-1B engine, and is thus even more realistic with this revamp
  14. On my side, I remain less convinced by this revamped Twin-Boar than by other revamped parts. My two issues would be the smooth engine bell and the overly-sized lateral exhauts. But this thread became one of my new favorites, I'm regularly coming to see if there are new updates