Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'bfr'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • General
    • Announcements
    • Welcome Aboard
  • Kerbal Space Program 2
    • KSP 2 Discussion
    • KSP 2 Suggestions & Development Discussion
    • KSP 2 Dev Diaries
    • Show and Tell
  • Kerbal Space Program
    • The Daily Kerbal
    • KSP Discussion
    • KSP Suggestions & Development Discussion
    • Challenges & Mission ideas
    • The Spacecraft Exchange
    • KSP Fan Works
  • Community
    • Player Spotlight
    • Science & Spaceflight
    • Kerbal Network
    • The Lounge
  • Gameplay and Technical Support
    • Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
    • Technical Support (PC, unmodded installs)
    • Technical Support (PC, modded installs)
    • Technical Support (Console)
  • Add-ons
    • Add-on Discussions
    • Add-on Releases
    • Add-on Development
  • Making History Expansion
    • Making History Missions
    • Making History Discussion
    • Making History Support
  • Breaking Ground Expansion
    • Breaking Ground Discussion
    • Breaking Ground Support
  • International
    • International
  • KerbalEDU Forums
    • KerbalEDU
    • KerbalEDU Website

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



Website URL



About me



Found 12 results

  1. I decided to post my work on BFR, it is not finalized and does not have a connection to RO, since I do not sit in the KSP at all, but maybe he'll need somebody. The package includes: 1. Simplified engines Raptor 2. Two versions of the BFS ship, cargo and manned 3. BFR rocket 4. fins and RCS for BFR 5. Solar panels for BFS 6. Docking port for BFS The manned version of BFS has 4 compartments for the exit the Kerbonauts, two in the payload compartment, one for the EVA (main), another with a built-in ladder, it also has built-in landing legs, a docking port for connecting two BFS ships, and animation glow of windows. The cargo version also has a built-in docking port. All the textures in the .png format, so that every newcomer to Photoshop can change them at will. V1.2 1. Added evelons for BFR 2. Added RO Patch Ship file in VAB works only with RSS/RO. DOWNLOAD: https://spacedock.info/mod/1813/BFR
  2. It's about time someone added this mediocre flying water tower into the game! This is just a real quick add-on that adds SpaceX's Starhopper into the game. Images:
  3. Привет обитателям этого форума! Есть вопрос к знатокам. Ksp 1.4.1. Стоит мод Tundra explotation и Tundra tehnogies ну и куча ещё других. Вывожу в океан платформу из мода для посадки ступеней. BFR/Its с помощью мехжабы пытаюсь посадить на эту платформу, но они промахиваются и садятся за ней, хотя в жабе целью посадки выбиралась платформа. Они всегда стремятся сесть в одну точку за платформой, причём Its разбивается при посадке на 140 м/с, хотя на середине спуска скорость почти не гасит двигателями. Подскажите, в чем может быть проблема? Всю голову себе сломал, от моих матерных криков жена икает)
  4. Pictures: https://imgur.com/a/YMrd28A I've built a Stainless steel SpaceX Starship by using the new silver panels from the Making History DLC. Works very well. It can to a Mun fly-by in a single launch and If refueled, it can land on Duna and the Mun. The link here allows you to download the Crew, Tanker and Cargo versions! It is recommended to circularize into LKO before re-enry since the two fins at the top have terrible thermal performance. NOTE: The file may be read as incompatible. This is because I use FRMS which is a mod to assist the re-usable functions of a rocket. (https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/157214-151-flight-manager-for-reusable-stages-fmrs-now-with-recoverycontroller-integration/) It doesn't add extra parts to the game so if you're a purist just ignore the warning the game gives you. Should still work. NOTE 2: It's still a work in progress. I will post when I add more features and update the link. Craft file: At my website https://sites.google.com/view/denshispaceprogram/rocket-downloads#h.p_ok59RHeaMUSF
  5. I decided to work on a new rocket with a huge custom stock tank at the center of it all. There isn't much more to it, this is juts gonna be a trial and error development for me. Anyways, I decided to start out with a 2.5m tank in the middle, and put mk3 tanks around that to create a dodecagon-style (12 sided) shape. I put them in with two sets of six for the total 12 mk3 long tanks with a 2.5m long tank and a smaller sized 2.5m tank below that. The 2.5m tanks hold together the tank, and allow for easy snapping to another of the same tank. In practice this worked really well. The whole assembly is 9.6m in diameter, dwarfing even the largest stock tanks. The next obvious step is to add a few of these tanks on top of each other and add some engines. 45 vector engines to be exact. The rocket is huge. The 45 vector engines provide a stupid amount of thrust, but every last drop of thrust is needed to power this, as it weighs 3,141 tons. I have to use autostrut because its such a massive rocket. I would like to do it without autostrut, but it's simply much easier and straightforward to use it. So, yeah. The first launch ended in a colossal failure. I decide the best thing to do at this point is tweak the autostrut a bit and add a nosecone for aerodynamic efficiency or whatever. The size of this still boggles my mind. And this is just the first stage, I still want to add a second stage to make this orbit capable with a large payload. A beauty shot. Once completed this will by far be the largest rocket I have ever made. A beautiful liftoff! ...And another colossal failure. However, I feel like it lasted a bit longer than before. I clearly still have a lot of work ahead. First step is making this stable. I need it to be able to expend all of it's fuel and survive ~3gs of force. So far it peaks at about 1.6gs, so a lot of work is still ahead of me. I believe the cause of this is the modularness of the 9.5m tank. If I made it one solid tank, it would probably function better. I will keep the development updated as I go along. If anyone has any suggestions, I am open to them!
  6. I'm a fan of KSP, I'm also a fan of SpaceX. I like challenges. So I challenged myself to create a SpaceX BFR mission in Realism Overhaul with publicly available information. 4,400 tons at launch and ends with only 5 tons of fuel. Other spacex related videos are on my channel.
  7. Can someone make a big falcon rocket design... I'm looking at you thrimm
  8. Can we talk about how amazing this is, and how Elon is single handedly going to push humanity into a new era?
  9. Shocked no one has done this yet...but glad, because I wanted to be the one to do it. I'm sure most of us have seen Elon Musk's 2017 IAC presentation, which raises the bar (even though that "bar" is somewhat smaller) tremendously over the 2016 version of BFR/ITS/MCT. If anyone hasn't had a chance to see it, I highly recommend checking it out: What's the challenge? Build the 2017 version of the BFR, of course. Specifically: Build a large two-stage fully-reusable launch system capable of propulsive landings on Duna, Kerbin, and the Mun. It must be capable of in-orbit propellant transfer and needs to be able to deliver substantial payload (at least 20 kerbals, or a fully-functioning autonomous ISRU unit) to Duna. No nukes, ions, jets, rolling landings, or parachutes. Tweakscale is the only allowed part mod for engines and tanks. Once you've demonstrated proof of concept with a single launch, subsequent launches (for refueling, etc.) may use the debug menu to get into orbit. You can also use Unbreakable Joints and No Crash Damage as long as your landings are under 5 m/s. The scoring system is designed so that the closer you make your version to the one revealed by Musk, the more points you get. I may add additional ways of earning points as the challenge progresses, but I'll try to keep it balanced. Scoring: Basic challenge (two-stage, reusable, propulsive landings on Duna, Kerbin, and the Mun): 5,000 points Booster executes RTLS: 200 points Dedicated propellant transfer ports in tail: 50 points Single-stage to Mun and back to Kerbin after Kerbin orbit refueling: 600 points Demonstrate single-stage return from Duna to Kerbin after Duna ISRU: 800 points Six engines on second stage: 60 points Thirty-one engines on first stage: 31 points No reaction wheels: 200 points No monoprop (Vernor engine RCS only): 175 points Booster lands in launch cradle: 650 points Delta wings on second stage: 85 points Dedicated crew vehicle, cargo vehicle, tanker: 400 points Ties are broken by total upper stage dry mass, the lighter, the better.
  10. I'll be making a challenge out of this in the near future all being well, but with imgur hating me at the moment, (can view images hosted there, but actually using it myself is beign a bit temperamental atm), i want to get the writeup done ASAP. My problem was i'd totally overestimated the antenna capabilities of a probe i sent out, it had allready done a quick pass over minimum before going out for an even flyby, missed gilly on that run but then setup for a Duna intercept, as MJ was doing the the hohman burn i noticed my come line was red, a quick glance at the signal indicator, a lot of swearing, and some furious looking at the orbits of everything. Followed by more swearing. The problem was that the probe was inside eve's orbit, in front of Kerbin in it's orbit whilst Duna was behind kerbin and falling backwards, it would be almost on the opposite side of kerbal by the time of intercept. That created a real conundrum. There was no way a probe launched the normal way could beat my existing probe to duna, it would be there in a little under 200 days and the best solution i could come up with still looked like a 100 days more. But there was an answer. I could launch on a retrograde intercept trajectory so i went around Kerbol the opposite way to all the planets, and my probe. Eventually, (as in when i got attempts that got that far) i determined that would take some 166 days. Doable. I won't detail my failures here except to say that roughly a dozen configurations boiled down into 5 successive designs, (most intermediate configurations where getting to orbit problems), the first attempt fell so far short of the dv requirements it wasn't even funny. To be fair i had never tried this before, (if anyone else ever has please pipe up now, or have i got a KSP first?), save with mun/minmus missions back when MJ wasnt available just after releases, and the dv comparisons aren't even close. The second attempt was more serious, i'd done some proper looking into the numbers, but between a few mess ups still fell short of the amount needed for a duna intercept. Back to the drawing board, (these were all sim flights, i.e. revert to VAB). This led to DER-3#, my first true BFR, at 4.6 kilotons in mass and a little under 700 parts. it finally had what it took to get me onto a duna intercept. In case your wondering, whilst i had an imperfect transfer window adding a bit to the dv it totaled up to about 19 kilometers per second. No you didn't misread that, kilometers per second. Let that sink in for a moment, thats how seriously dv hungry retrograde trajectories are. I knew as soon as i finished the intercept burn i wasn't going to have enough dv to decelerate at the other end, but i went out there with the simulation to find out how accurate my now well researched prediction of the dv required was going to be. Turned out spot on. This resulted in DER-4#. 7.1 kilotons in mass and just over 900 parts. It made the intercept, it even had enough dv to decelerate, but then i found i didn't have enough solar power to run the ions at full, so i flew through duna SOI before i could make the 14 kilometer per second decel burn required. Yes 14kps dv to decelerate. These retrograde trajectories are a killer on the dv requirements. So DER-5# was born. 7.35 kilotons in mass and a mind boggling 1007 parts. Early test flights ran into problems with unplanned disassemblies of the ion stage, (i thought i'd built it with the biggest round tanks then clipped radials to boost capacity per stage,but clipping issues created stresses which had predictable results when enough mass was above them and a decoupler was fired below them). Thats when i discovered what i'd mistaken for an ore container was actually a 1.25m xenon canister. Rebuilt with that with no clipping and joy it worked. Sort of. The rebuild of the ion stage meant that whilst peak TWR values where similar to the old form, with more mass in each stage it stepped up at less frequent intervals. (Initial duan decel attempt resulted in leaving duna SOI with 3.1kps still to kill). However DER-5#, unlike 4 didn't have to have the rotation angle babied every couple of minutes to retain decent thrust so i was willing to do somthing that would have just been too much hassle, (and created other issues too), with that form. Namely start the decel burn outside duna SOI. Doing so would allow me to shed enough velocity to increase my transit time of Duna enough to complete the burn. Worked like a charm, and despite expending somthing like 35kps i even had 6 and a bit kps of dv left over for duna maneuvering. For anyone at squad who's remotely interested in things that made this a problem build in some way, (mostly what inflated the part count the worst), here's a breakdown of worst parts. Sepetrons, with such large boosters i find you need sepetrons top and bottom to stop the engine on the bottom hitting things or getting shoved into the exhaust but you need more on the top so it yaws at the desired rate and in the desired fashion so aero then keeps carrying it away. Thats 6 sepetrons per booster. on smaller designs thats not an issue, but this has 5 radial mammoth stages followed by an in line mammoth stage (2 each and i'd have preferred more because 2 where too anemic but hand placing that many was too much of a pain), followed by an in line core rhino stage (8 sepetrons here), followed by another 6 on each radial rhino stage. The LV-N fuel stages i found got away without sepetrons but the switchover from LV- to Ions needed 8 more because they tended to be sticky. Thats a total of 200 sepetrons. Most on radial stages. A better solution is needed for BFR's. Also sepetrons really need to autostage position properly in the VAB, repositioning that many sepetrons was a huge pain. 2.5 and 3.75m LF only tanks and 2.5m LV-N engines. As it was each engine "pod" for the LV-N's was 5 parts, (girder, LF tanke, Nosecone, Engine, Fuel line), but to get enough TWR i needed 12 of the buggers. Being able to use a smaller number of 2.5m parts here would have saved 10's or parts, and if i'd had 3.75m LF only tanks i could probably of ditched all the radial mounted LF tanks and still got more LF fuel carriage. That would have ditched me another 168 parts. meaning in combination with 2.5m LV-N's i could have saved a potential 200 parts there too with the use of certain things i didn't have. The ion stage is a bit more awkward to critique. Mostly because whilst i can think of several ways it could be improved, i'm not sure i would have had the tech for them. More girder lengths at the tiny cubic strut scale would have helped as each ion engine mounting arm has somthing like 8 tiny cubics thrown together. Ultimately 1.25m Ions with the significant reductions in the number of engines needed would have provided the most benefit. The tankage was part heavy, but for an odd reason. After discovering the 1.25m xenon tank i found that the higher weight of the 1.25m as opposed to 0.625m decoupler necessitated a total xenon carriage increase. I could have used 2 1.25m tanks at each step for this, but the ion stage was allready rather too long, doing that would have created serious issues. So i felt forced to use radial tanks. I don't think 2.5m xenon tanks would have helped, (though they'd be nice overall if we got 1.25m ion engines), as they would probably have carried too much fuel and especially the decoupler penalty would be even greater. IMO the issue is that xenon fuel is insufficiently dense. It makes carrying large amounts of it really volume intensive and to keep single axis craft dimensions under control on the launchpad your thus forced to adopt part count inefficient solutions. After that you've only got the niggles, (see below), and the potentially major savings that could have come with 5m stock parts, but again i doubt i'd have had those unlocked even if they'd existed. Beyond that only a few minor niggles. Not having the longest girder locked behind an endgame tech would be you know, cool. and 3.75m nosecones sop i could drop the part count from 2 to 1 there would be nice. Now for those pictures detailing the stages of the successful run, some will have comment underneath, some won't. Be warned there's a lot though so i am spoiler tagging this for obvious reasons.
  11. I'm doing some replica build, and hit a stud, that is, Kickback is no longer powerful enough. I really hope Modular SRBs are a thing....... What you guys think?
  12. Mother of god. Leak/rumor from the NSF L2 forum.
  • Create New...