minepagan Posted October 1, 2016 Share Posted October 1, 2016 2 hours ago, CobaltWolf said: Yeah it's just there for reentry / emergency attitude control. Just like the RCS on the Gemini nose. EDIT: Also, I was worried about being able to do the ETS Apollo variants with the higher crew capacity, specifically, how do I visually distinguish them? One idea I had, was I could make a version of the capsule with the white Skylab paint job, where there was an extra matte white coating added over the metallic shell of the capsule. Thoughts? Can you also possibly add parts to make an Apollo block 1 that appears earlier in the tech tree? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CobaltWolf Posted October 1, 2016 Author Share Posted October 1, 2016 1 minute ago, minepagan said: Can you also possibly add parts to make an Apollo block 1 that appears earlier in the tech tree? Negative. Not worth it, and not enough space in the tech tree progression. The most I'd probably do is just a nosecone to go in place of the docking port. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abrecan Posted October 1, 2016 Share Posted October 1, 2016 @CobaltWolf I do not believe it was that way for descent - During the landing are 3 phases for Powered Decent Initiation (PDI) after Deorbit Insertion Burn (DOI)[LM lowers Periselene to 50,000 ft (15 km) at a point of about 15 degrees up range of the landing site] Braking Phase: Starts at Periselene; 50,000 ft to be exact. LM attitude ranges from windows down until about 45,000 ft. altitude to the start of PDI. Braking Phase ends at about 7,000 ft. altitude and High Gate begins. Approach Phase (High Gate [aviation term]): LM is rotated to windows up, so the Landing Radar data can be integrated into the LM guidance computer (guidance starts around 260 nautical miles from touchdown). Approach Phase ends at 500 ft. altitude, and Low Gate begins Landing Phase (Low Gate [aviation; you guessed it!]): Begins at 500 ft. and typically ends with a 3 fps touchdown. NOTE: Manual control can be taken over in either Approach and Landing Phases to allow the pilot to visually evaluate the landscape and landing site. This is from an Apollo 11 Press Release July 6th, 1969 - Most Apollo Mission went this way also. ...Few people know the Apollo crews had autopilot, just very limited, primitive autopilot B) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jso Posted October 1, 2016 Share Posted October 1, 2016 @CobaltWolf notice the fins: The one closest has the white/black sides opposite from the others. No matter how I put them on, with or without symmetry, they appear this way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minepagan Posted October 1, 2016 Share Posted October 1, 2016 13 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said: Negative. Not worth it, and not enough space in the tech tree progression. The most I'd probably do is just a nosecone to go in place of the docking port. Ok, that sounds smart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abrecan Posted October 1, 2016 Share Posted October 1, 2016 Also found these interesting videos NASA recreates the Apollo 11 landing profile on Google Earth, and the actual landing Hope this is useful! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronCretin Posted October 1, 2016 Share Posted October 1, 2016 I'm running through a science mode playtest right now, and I've put some issues up on your github. Mostly to do with early part balance and placement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drakenex Posted October 1, 2016 Share Posted October 1, 2016 3 hours ago, CobaltWolf said: Negative. Not worth it, and not enough space in the tech tree progression. The most I'd probably do is just a nosecone to go in place of the docking port. yup! I was going to suggest that, all that's missing is a nose cone and voila! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Z3R0_0NL1N3 Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 (edited) I attempted the Saturn Shuttle. It's surprisingly stable. The F1s have a lot of gimbal, and just S-I was able to bring me into a suborbital 80km trajectory. The ET is mostly empty for that reason, and for balance. I would love to do this with the Cormorant and DIRECT shuttle parts, but the former has dependencies that aren't updated yet. Edited October 2, 2016 by Z3R0_0NL1N3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidy12 Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 Well it still kind of works for me in 1.1.3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legoclone09 Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 6 hours ago, VenomousRequiem said: Sleep well... sweet prince... Finally, the ugly Centaur is dead, REJOICE, REJOICE! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pTrevTrevs Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 (edited) Mariner 2 at Venus. This is the only image because the rest of the mission was basically a longer version of my Ranger lunar flyby I posted previously. This was my first interplanetary mission with RSS/SSRSS, and very nearly didn't happen, with a delayed launch, incorrect orbit, and autopilot deficiencies (I guess if you schedule a burn during a transfer window MechJeb automatically moves it up the next window, which was about 150 days away for me). Also, it looks to me like Scatterer isn't working for Venus for unknown reasons. Oh well, I probably won't be back here soon anyway (Bah, who even cares about Mariner 5?) Edited October 2, 2016 by pTrevTrevs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abrecan Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 Hullcam - Casevid Camera view of the Lunar Module landing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronCretin Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 (edited) I built a Saturn A-1! More obscure Saturn variants to come! http://imgur.com/a/8JEG7 (That's a Gemini on a centaur on top of a Titan I first stage, all on an S-I) http://www.astronautix.com/s/saturna-1.html Juno V (a whole Titan I on a S-1): Spoiler Saturn A-2: Spoiler Do you guys want craft files? No idea if these'll actually fly, but they look nice. Edited October 2, 2016 by IronCretin Juno V Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidy12 Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 (edited) 7 hours ago, Araym said: Both quoted as they will combine in my mind: as I felt, during the descent, with my "back in position tweaks" (like it was, with the esternal model alligned with the IVA, rather than the contrary), it looked more naturally to look the Mun's ground, going down, and only in the latest moment, eventually, turn around to look the landing site. This, as stated by Cobalt, is like it used to be for the real thing. I know that, visually, as took by the part list in the VAB, look strange to see the back of the cabin, but basically that happens with ANY stock lander can (you see the doors in front of you, but the "forward window" is always on the other side). In a LEM it is only more evident as both egress door AND windows are on the other side. The only, pratical, concern (mostly nothing, to me, if I can tell) is that to dock like the real thing (with both the Apollo windows and LEM windows on the same side) you have to dock the CSM with a 180° roll attitude to the LEM (mostly notable if anyone try it with a docking alignment mod). "Lunar" IVA issue (stated by JSO): as I'm trying the new parts ALSO in 1.1.3 (where I have ASET prop installed as they should be needed), I do not see basically any prop too... gladly was not only an issue with 1.1.3 ---------------- By the way: ... I jump the bandwagon of Munar photo too!! Jeb (red striped suit) and Bill (blue striped suit) at the Neil Armstrong memorial monument on the Mun (... meanwhile Valentina is on a travel toward Minmus: both crews took off one after another, but the Kerbin-Minmus trip is a bit longer...) (Picture took in 1.1.3, where I use my designed suits for Texture Replacer... *** Add some shameful advice here LOL ***) @Araym: Does the new CM model/decoupler work? Would like to have a version for 1.1.3 Edited October 2, 2016 by davidy12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Araym Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 1 hour ago, davidy12 said: @Araym: Does the new CM model/decoupler work? Would like to have a version for 1.1.3 I make my own change to "update" my 1.1.3 version as more as possible (mostly to keep playing it waiting 1.2) with latest release by hand, parts by parts... ... but just mostly for testing purpose, to help Cobalt and the others to iron out bugs (it is time consuming doing it and also check almost daily the newest 1.2 pre-release popped out qite often by Squad). For example I do not upgraded it to have liquid hydrogen tanks and engines (like the latest BDB beta release for KSP 1.2), but just only model and textures. It has some parts "semplified" (for example: the SLA petal adapter does not open using the staging sequence, as the latest 1.1.3 BDB plug-in was not mentioned to handle it, and I made it a simple "animation" to be opened manually and then staged as decoupler). It filled with "issue" that personally I can handle but are surelly "rough" for generic use. So... yes: I have the Sarnus V available also for 1.1.3, but still with stock resources. It is overloaded in fuel (I generally run it with almost half the fuel it has before the latest beta release), to be more a "stock-alike" tankage than a "replica" like the latest Beta release. I just waiting for KSP 1.2 to play with it properly (even if... uhm... actually I do not see a "so near full release" of it) as it has still a lot of bugs to be found. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Shutesie Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 X-20 Update Excuse my horrible animation and rendering skills, but here is the landing gear animation, basically completing the basic model, and I can fully focus on finishing the texture. The drop in quality was worse than I expected, never the less, you get the idea. This is the gif, http://imgur.com/4uiz32o Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avalon304 Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 Well that was the most interesting bug Ive seen in a while... (and I know it solely down to how KSP handles saved craft files...). Went to launch my S-IC/S-II test vehicle... and found it couldnt even get off the pad until some fuel drained out... and then discovered that even though the S-II was changed to have LH2 it still retained its liquid fuel supply. Meaning my craft was super heavy... for no reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CobaltWolf Posted October 2, 2016 Author Share Posted October 2, 2016 6 minutes ago, Avalon304 said: Well that was the most interesting bug Ive seen in a while... (and I know it solely down to how KSP handles saved craft files...). Went to launch my S-IC/S-II test vehicle... and found it couldnt even get off the pad until some fuel drained out... and then discovered that even though the S-II was changed to have LH2 it still retained its liquid fuel supply. Meaning my craft was super heavy... for no reason. Most of the changes Jso and I have been making do not properly update when you keep using an existing craft. We recommend you build it completely from scratch each time you redownload the Github. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avalon304 Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 (edited) 12 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said: Most of the changes Jso and I have been making do not properly update when you keep using an existing craft. We recommend you build it completely from scratch each time you redownload the Github. That is... entirely too much work... (In reality... it was not. I swapped tanks and things worked properly). EDIT: And then I made sure to swap out the S-IVB tank as well, because it uses the same engine as the S-II. Edited October 2, 2016 by Avalon304 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Z3R0_0NL1N3 Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 3 hours ago, legoclone09 said: Finally, the ugly Centaur is dead, REJOICE, REJOICE! Killed by Nobody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CobaltWolf Posted October 2, 2016 Author Share Posted October 2, 2016 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Z3R0_0NL1N3 said: Killed by Nobody. ? They are dead. I ordered the hit, venom pulled the trigger. That means we unfortunately don't have a Centaur G right now but it is one of the next things on my to-doodles. edit: Also, lot of awesome stuff posted since this morning! I have not been able to look hard at all of it but I hope to find time tomorrow. I want to thank y'all keeping the thread interesting and full of good content and discussion. Edited October 2, 2016 by CobaltWolf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Z3R0_0NL1N3 Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 1 minute ago, CobaltWolf said: ? They are dead. I ordered the hit, venom pulled the trigger. That means we unfortunately don't have a Centaur G right now but it is one of the next things on my to-doodles I thought I was being clever with my Greek mythology references, but I mixed up centaurs and cyclopes. My b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Araym Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 (edited) 30 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said: ? They are dead. I ordered the hit, venom pulled the trigger. That means we unfortunately don't have a Centaur G right now but it is one of the next things on my to-doodles. edit: Also, lot of awesome stuff posted since this morning! I have not been able to look hard at all of it but I hope to find time tomorrow. I want to thank y'all keeping the thread interesting and full of good content and discussion. Do you know that I'll probably going to open, in my future KSPs, an "Old_BDB" folder as I did for Tantares (I still have the old Soyuz launcher and the old 2.5m Spica-Gemini version from long ago, plus all the oldest IVAs), to keep even the deads alive for me: I'm some sort of "Evil Prince of (Space) Darkness" that likes to play with undeads... MUAHAHAHAHAHAH Go forth forever, evil dead Old Centaur!!! 8 hours ago, Jso said: @CobaltWolf notice the fins: The one closest has the white/black sides opposite from the others. No matter how I put them on, with or without symmetry, they appear this way. Noticed it too: once attached, they swapt the texture sides, like they do not like to face each other black to white, but only with the same color (you can see there: both white to white, or black to black) Edited October 2, 2016 by Araym Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drakenex Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 (edited) Historical descriptions coming soon, also handling and MechJeb issues report. Apollo 11 Edited October 2, 2016 by Drakenex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.