• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Tydeth

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location Array
  1. I've liked the design of the NASA-accurate shuttle inigma made, though I never downloaded it for use since my .90 save was a mod-heavy career mode with no "stock" vehicles difficulty setting... and the fact that I hadn't needed a Space Shuttle for anything. Since 1.0 hit and would necessitate a new save anyway, I decided to give building one of my own a go. I used the screenshots in the OP and Google Image search results for "space shuttle" for the references. I'll need to get a screenshot or three of the thing pre-launch, but I was at the time too busy trying to get the launch to actually work. It kept wanting to nosedive shortly ater leaving the pad. Below is the first time I got mine to orbit: http://i.imgur.com/HCqqGJF.png I can see why, after having the thing constantly trying to torque forward every time it left the launch pad after a few seconds of flight. I don't think I put quite 20 in there, but there are a couple of the 3.5m SAS/battery units on the tank which slightly lengthen it (I was initially trying to go without hidden SAS). The first time I got it to finally fly stable enough to reach SRB separation, I went straight for the orbit. Re-entry... well, that didn't go as well as the launch. http://i.imgur.com/IHj8RTa.png The front-half parts of the wings went bye-bye, and it stalled and flipped like an acrobatic brick, but most of it survived to emergency land in the water (I overshot KSC by kilometers; I think that's actually the same exact spot of water as in the previous screenshot) with those parachutes I added for Kerbal safety. I'm uncertain if a payload would have made it since I flew empty for this test. In short, the new wings do work for this type of vehicle. They just might not make it out of re-entry intact, though they fared much better than the STS-4 in that video. If you want, I can upload my shuttle for your perusal, though I'm not sure how much help my wing setup might be in your refit for STS-5.
  2. There are two chips for KER: Kerbal Engineer, and a Flight variant. The basic KER chip only works in the editors, while the Flight Engineer chip also allows you to use it while controlling the active vessel. There is an animated model that IIRC also has the Flight capability installed. You might have placed the editor-only KER chip on your ship.
  3. This plugin does work in 0.25. If you are on Moderate or Hard difficulty, or Custom with the part research unlock costs setting active, researching them all via this mod will deduct the Funds to buy the parts.
  4. My guess is you can: 1. Retrograde RCS translate, by either pointing retrograde and using the H key, or by pointing pro-grade and hitting N, 2. Have the Kerbals get out and push the ship retrograde*, or 3. Cheat (Alt+F12) and infinite fuel just enough to restore an actual orbit around the sun so you can then turn it off and figure out a rescue operation. The actual rescue mission will likely require multiple launches to set up in LKO an interplanetary ship capable of reaching, refueling, and returning... assuming you have a docking port on the vessel. Otherwise, the rescue ship need only retrieve the Kerbal crew and return itself. * Kerbals have effectively infinite jet pack fuel currently, so long as you have them re-board the craft when they run low. This way, they can push the ship back to high solar orbit, but it will take a lot of perseverance and patience if you want to get them closer to make rescue easier. This is probably better attempted after #1.
  5. Ah, I see. Thanks for that correction; I see the Dipole now. I had looked in the science sections where the stock antennas were located before, hence my uncertainty stated in my original reply. Looks like manned missions might still be needed before really making a lot of use of the thing, so that the relays may be set up for communication/control once LOS to KSC is lost.
  6. Before you nuke the mod, if you like the antenna options it gives you could keep those parts and config-edit them so they don't call on the mod stuff and can act like extra options for stock antenna use.
  7. Ah, you are running the RemoteTech mod. You have to have an antenna attached, extended, and linked to mission control/Kerbin via its modded menu. There is just one issue: Deployed antennas will break in the air like deployed solar panels with that mod. Your ship will have to be manned during launch, then have an antenna on the probe deployed and linked to mission control or Kerbin prior to decoupling the probe once it's in space. I am unsure at this time if there is an antenna high on the tech tree that wont break.
  8. Space stations and planetary bases sans mods are primarily aesthetic. The fuel depot and garage uses for stations help add useful purposes, as a fuel depot loaded with lots of fuel can be quite useful in refilling multiple smaller craft, and a garage keeps your orbits tidier. Another possible use for stations, if you prefer to keep your Kerbals alive, is as a space colony. Launch and build a station with the Hitchhiker cans, use a reliable launch shuttle to bring crew aboard, then you need only a reliable space bus with 1 or 2 LV-Ns to ferry crew from the space colony to any ship in space that needs to be manned. With a launcher that includes an unmanned probe brain, this allows you to launch new manned ships empty, so that if you didn't strut enough or pack enough thrust or what have you, you don't risk any Kerbal lives during the launching procedure. Just get it into stable orbit, ferry the guys from colony to ship, refuel the thing if necessary, and you're good to go. Granted, even that can forego the station colony(and its space bus) if you have a reliable shuttle to ferry crew into space with. Anyway, without mods, the point of a space station is along the lines of, "Why not?" They do provide a common purpose in the form of docking practice, as you have a structure that requires orbital construction via docking multiple things together.
  9. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/35383-0-21-1-AIES-Aerospace-v1-4-2
  10. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/47650-Dune-Bike-Dune-Chaser Levelord's Duna Chaser craft file has the full mission vehicle: launcher, transfer vehicle, lander w/ascent module, and the bike with its decoupler-based suspension easily able to handle 45 m/s. All stock.
  11. For the carrier, you will want LV-N Atomic Rocket Motors, for they are the most fuel-efficient space rockets ever. Their drawback is the low thrust that limits them to space/moon use. An alternative is Ion Engines, if you don't mind taking forever and a year to get anywhere. If you're not using the refinery itself to refuel ships launched from Kerbin directly, the refining station doesn't have to be in Low Kerbin Orbit, so that can help with the fuel costs of transfering the Kethane and returning to Minmus. While moving the station out on a higher km orbit can make Minmus-Refinery travels easier, it will make Kerbin-Refinery travels need a bit more fuel to reach, so there's a balancing act to consider. Of course, using the refinery to convert Kethane to fuel for transfer to a separate Low-Kerbin Orbit gas station would also require a Low Kerbin Orbit fuel depot and a tanker to make those trips. Up to you whether the refinery will be the fuel depot or will fill fuel depots via tankers. One extra step to consider, between the lander and the carrier, is a Kethane Storage Outpost over Minmus. The lander docks with it to offload the mined goods, the carrier docks and sucks all the Kethane up for a trip to the refinery, and the lander can continue to mine while the carrier is in transit. Currently, your lander would have to wait for the carrier to arrive in Minmus orbit to continue operations. This would make your mining more time-efficient, rendering fuel your only limiting factor.
  12. One option is to build an Orbital Kethane Storage/Refinery Station over whatever body you are mining. This way, in the case of the Mun, you wouldn't have to haul the stuff back to Kerbin all the time. For your refinery, you'll want to make sure your converter has direct access to a fuel/oxidizer tank, as Kethane, Xenon, and Monoprop can go anywhere but LF/Ox must have a proper connection, be it by placing the converter on a stack with a fuel tank, or by running lines. This way, you guarantee your fuel conversion will work; I am not sure how the converter treats docking ports on stations with fuel tanks elsewhere.
  13. Yeah, the Enterprise has NO right to fly whatsoever in any realistic physics setting. The only way you might get COM/COT lined up would be to have extra engines on the fuselage to counteract the thrust application from the nacelles. The only Enterprise that actually has a chance at maybe working in real physics propulsion-wise is the NCC-1701D, as its Nacelles are lined up below the saucer hull, and may thus be closer to the COM.
  14. Levelord, your decoupler-iBeam-RuggedWheels suspension system is very impressive. I examined your bike then built my own 4-wheeled(oriented outwards like a standard configuration) rover to take the decoupler suspension on a test spin on Kerbin. It went down a mountain at 45 m/s and survived, easily. Twice, in fact. I may end up utilizing the decoupler-iBeam setup for future rovers given the sheer durability of such a setup, since my own previous rovers tended to flip and explode at 24 m/s. Of course, strapping the little rockomax probe stack engine on the back and firing the vehicle up to 60+ m/s was not healthy for the thing. The main body survived mostly, but 3 out of 4 wheels were shot. I see why you used an ant engine instead of the little orange one for your bike, given the results on my car.