XrayLima

Members
  • Content count

    58
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

27 Excellent

About XrayLima

  • Rank
    Bottle Rocketeer
  1. Many versions ago, before contracts, I wrote out a series of missions that I would have expected a space program to complete, each leading to the next. This roughly mirrored the US / USSR development timeline (suborbital leads to orbital, orbital leads to Mun /Minmus, probe before manned etc) up to the development of the ISS, except for a Station on Minmus following the Minmus landing. Following the lessons learned from the Minmus station and the ISS, a Duna mission was constructed and sent, followed by a Duna Station. All in all, writing out the logical missions one following the other took about an hour, about two pages, about 50 missons or so, so that you couldn't take shortcuts but was actually quite a fun interesting project on it's own.
  2. @RatchetinSpace In that case I, for one, welcome our new Kerbal Overlords.
  3. Ah, that's a shame! But thanks for letting me know, I was thinking of trying something similar.
  4. No idea if this might work, but (here it comes) there is a mod that might help! This has chutes which apparently don't collapse on touching the ground. I have no idea if these would help you, not something I've tried, but I am aware of the type of thing you are trying to do and the forces when the rocket stack topples at sea are pretty hefty. Worth a try? XrayLima
  5. Question seems to get asked relatively often after each update but has anyone tried and tested any greenhouse mod for TAC which is compatible with 1.3. Old posts in the TACLS mod forum suggests a couple, but they seem to still be for 1.2.x. Do any if these still work in anyone's experience? Asked in this forum as TACLS forum page is, well, for TACLS not these other mods. Cheers XrayLima
  6. @Nightside I was beginning to think the same thing. I've been looking at the Skylab re-entry and it started to degrade from an almost circular orbit, which in a perfect world would mean that both Ap and Pe would degrade similarly. (This is an assumption I've made, no idea if it's true) This would lead to the lowest velocity entry possible (I think?). It broke up at about 10 miles (16km) which suggests that unless high altitude braking, either by retrofiring or some form of supersonic parachute was used, the hulk would be ripped apart by high forces before the typical parachutes modelled in KSP would be useful. But I do like your way of thinking, the Kerbal universe is different, it has different parameters and that will mean that not only are real world possible events easier (this I have no issues with), but events impossible in real life are now possible. This is the mental leap I need to make to enjoy recovery missions.
  7. That makes sense, but I was rather asking the question "If I tried my recovery parachute tug design in real life, what would happen?" Large space junk can survive re-entry but usually cooked to a crisp, and flattened by hitting the ground at terminal velocity. But if cost was no object, in real life, could an unprotected unmanned capsule, be de-orbited and landed in such a way as for it not to be a steaming slag pile? Part of the reason for asking, apart from curiosity, is that most other missions seem viable and feasable. The recover junk missions tend to push my limits of belief, hence my usually not taking them. But if it might be viable, even remotely, then...... more contracts!
  8. So, after something like 2000 play hours (yes I know, I could have learnt to fly a real spaceship in that time....) I finally tried out a hulk recovery mission. No real bother, Tug Probe with claw and plenty of parachutes, very shallow Pe and Bob's your uncle. Nearly perfect, just a shame I landed just short, on the plane West of the Westward Mountains. This got me thinking, apart from the prohibitive cost of launching a rocket to attempt to recover junk worth 1/1000 the value of the recovery craft, what would actually happen if you were to attempt an 'open' recovery of a man rated capsule with a Tug rather than in a cargo bay of another ship? Assuming it's unmanned, would the heat soak likely raise the internal temperature of the hulk to equipment damaging levels? Is a burn up inevitable? Could a shallow enough descent work? Would it likely spin so fast it would rip itself to pieces? Has any research been done into this? Why does my brain ask annoying questions at 3am? etc etc. Just something I'm thinking about and wonder what others think? XrayLima
  9. All of the above! And in my case.... "Went and landed perfectly on Duna, forgot to include ladders...." "Forgot to switch on symmetry when adding landing legs. Only noticed during decent towards Mun" "Launching with control probe core upside-down" The prior one is particularly interesting if using Mechjeb for ascent... Doh.
  10. The LEM looks awesome! Got to admit, I'm not a great fan of the "must have" RCS but hey, it is what it is. If I don't like it, maybe I should go make my own rather than throw rocks....(EDIT: This is aimed at myself, not any particular comment or member here, just a nudge for me to get modding!) Thought though, using a 0.625 connection at the top means either a Clamp-O-Tron Docking Port Jr is used on the LEM and the CM nose or a 0.625 -1.25 adapter is needed to adapt to the Clamp-O-Tron Docking Port . Neither is going to look too good I wouldn't think? I might be being old fashioned but I'm not a fan of the 0.625 Clamp-O-Tron Jr for crew transfers, even if they do now allow it. Thoughts? Bloody good surprise though!
  11. This was talked about a wee bit ago - I asked the same thing. And they already sort of exist as an extension of a docking port part.
  12. I started writing this question below, but then managed to work it out myself. Thing is it annoyed me for about an hour until I had a lightbulb moment. So I thought I'd post it, and if others search for it it is already answered. "Ok, I think I'm going mad. About a month ago, I build a happy little lander to shuttle folks to and from my munbase. Nothing special there, seemed normal. Mechjeb happily put it where I wanted it, so much so I lost my second lander when I forgot to add an offset and mechjeb landed the lander ON TOP of the base, then it fell off. The I go away for a month to work, come back and now mechjeb can't put it any closer than 1500m from target. Annoyingly I can't remember if I added a bit of extra fuel prior to this save, but I still have a TWR of 1.70 before Mechjeb starts the de-orbit burn, but when it starts it the predicted target difference climbs away to over 3.5km before slowly coming back a small amount to land me 1500m downrange. Is there a minimum TWR for de-orbit burns with Mechjeb? It's almost as through it's waiting too long before starting the de-orbit burn. Thoughts?" The answer is starting orbital altitude. I increased my Ap and Pe and it worked. It is a more Dv costly, but it gave Mechjeb the time it needs to complete both the de-orbit and braking burns. When I started lower, my TWR was to low for the Mechjeb logic to complete both tasks correctly and it wasn't able to sufficiently correct for this. It seems to assume that the de-orbit burn and braking burn do not overlap and if they do it doesn't try and start the de-orbit sooner or burn the braking turn harder. either way, it misses. I'm going to test but I think the other solution is to increase TWR, but that increases mass and therefore lowers Dv across the board. Anyway, just something to add to the forum pile of knowledge.
  13. @Val You are a steely eyed missile sentient being!
  14. Is there a way of keeping the borderless window (created with the -popupwindow command line arguement) open if I select another program (in my case on a second monitor?). I'd like to keep KSP visable, but browse the web whilst I wait for transfer windows etc, but at the moment it minimises the KSP window whenever it isn't the actively selected program. I'm guessing this will be a Windows setting (10 in my case) so not a Squad issue per se, but if you know where the setting is hiding? Any Ideas? Ta in advance! XL
  15. Oh well, thanks @sal_vager I'll keep looking! Anyone else got any ideas? Cheers XL