All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Hi, welcome to the forums. No. ... O.K. O.K. I'll (try to?) explain that a bit: the way that crafts are modeled internally means that every part can have only exactly one upstream (in the direction of the root part) connection / part. I.e. from every part there can be only one path to the root part. Connecting an SRB via two decouplers (or pylons or whatever) to the same central core would mean that that there are two paths from the SRB to the root part, so that is not possible. The struts are more a variation on that rule than a violation of it: they are attached to one part, and then they point in a certain direction and transfer forces to the first part that they find. If you don't like the looks of the normal struts, then you can try using autostruts. (You need to activate "Advanced Tweakables" in the settings if you haven't done so already.) If you do so then I suggest to use "autostrut to grantparent", the other settings can be dangerous under certain conditions. But in general, there is a reason why "more struts" is the got-to solution to many KSP design problems. I usually first try to place the decoupler in a way so that it tilts the top of the SRBs outwards so that the airflow will push the SRBs away from the core. Often I also attach small airfoils (typically the "Basic Fin") to give the air some more area to push against. A "simpler", more reliable but also more expensive method is to attach sepratrons to the SRBs that will push them away from the core when staged.
  3. Ahh you never mentioned that you are using stage recovery mod. Anyway I think you will hardly get below 40k launch costs for this big payload.
  4. Well, I was able to fix problem by removing all mods, deleting all Gamedata folders and files (except Squad and SquadExpansion) and reinstall mods from my .ckan file
  5. Dude....I hate to say this but @Starwaster was right you are definitely not ready for RO/RSS, but I'd go even further than that and say based on what I'm seeing in your gamedata folder(parent mod folders, multiples of the same thing, github master folders and many many other issues), that you aren't even ready to be using mods yet at all. This mod isn't the right place for beginners who don't have down the basics of a modded install to be asking for help, let alone trying to use one of the most complex for installation and difficult to learn mods for this game. I think you need to take a step back, don't even look at RSS/RO and go to some tutorials for basic mod installation first. Once you have that down, slowly add some small mods and get used to them before trying to jump headfirst into something like this.
  6. NASA's budget is not changing. No inspirational launch changes that. 2024 is only a mark that matters with funding. We should know soon if they get their 1.6B extra. No, then they are aiming for 2028. Then why does Boeing require literally billions to develop it? It's odd that it can simultaneously be easy, no problem to accomplish quickly, yet other things just as easy---a tank with 4 engines---that's all SLS Core is, after all, and like EUS, the engines already existed, and it has taken how many years and billions? It will go over schedule, and over budget, regardless (it's Boeing, they even managed to do both on a "firm, fixed price" contract. By magic.). Blue Moon will launch on NG, I'd imagine. Also, I'm all for those alternate landers---my point is that if the lander does not sit on top of SLS, then any claim that "SLS sent humans back to the Moon" is nonsense. SLS will send Orion closer to the Moon than LEO, and "Not-SLS" will send people to the lunar surface (all anyone actually cares about). It's like me saying an Uber took me to London, when in fact the Uber took me to the airport, and a 777 took me to London. Nothing SLS has flown yet. At all. It's a tube with engines that can't even get off the pad by itself (with nothing else bolted on). Hopefully soon it will do a series of static fires. BTW, SLS Block 1, which flies soonest probably the end of next year, is ~95t to LEO (ref orbits for these numbers vary), and ~26t to TLI. Falcon Heavy, which is already fully operational is just shy of 64t to LEO and probably in the low 20t range to TLI. The number I usually see is ~23t to TLI. So for 150M$ we can send 88% of what SLS can send to TLI. 88% of the mass to TLI for 7.5% of the cost (and I'm being VERY kind to SLS for the cost there). I'd say that 88% of the cargo to TLI totally compares. SLS wins, no question. But what do we have that;s 26t that needs to go to the Moon? Orion? Why---what can Orion do in a distant orbit around the Moon that a robot can't do? (just being there and getting hit by GCRs to increase cancer risk isn't really useful). The Boeing idea skips Gateway I think, it's not really clear based on their press. In addition, Boeing would ask for huge piles of money to increase production capability for SLS. They'd also need some way to launch both SLS within a week or two of each other. Why do you need to see it on a "small scale?" You will literally see it full scale in a few weeks probably (there are tank pressure test road closures this Sunday. They are likely to try the skydiver in December at this pace. They have 3 more to play with if there are any issues. What does Orion have to do with Starship? I've never even suggested SS as a crew vehicle. I'm utterly agnostic on SS with people on it, I have no idea. I do know that SS can likely carry an entire lander, along with an upper stage for TLI that can push that lander AND Orion to TLI from LEO. The large Grasshopper already flew. Mk1 is more capable than Grasshopper. Mk2+ will be even more capable (they all look nicer, certainly). Regardless, it has actually flown, unlike literally any part of SLS. Orion has had parts fly as similar boilerplate to Mk1. Artemis-1 is in fact only a test of SLS parts (first flight), and Orion's new heatshield. So it's not even an "all up" test. For some reason the first all-up test will have people on it. A huge complaint I have is that Artemis-1 should be all-up. Orion should be an actual crew flight article or the mission is wasted IMO. They're in such a rush to show some progress, they are wasting an important test, then flying actual humans as Guinea Pigs on Artemis-2. Dumb. Nope. Stop conflating crew with Starship operations. Starship changes literally everything even as an uncrewed cargo lifter. SS flying as a robot, without every having people on it means that we can loft whole Moon missions to LEO, then supply crew however you like. If launch is concerning, send crew via commercial crew. EDL from the Moon? Easy, don't do EDL from the Moon. SS could put a huge ACES (or similar) stage in LEO that could take a lander to LLO, wait for the Ascent stage to return to LLO, then take the Ascent stage back to LEO. Ascent stage docks with the CCV that never left LEO, and they go home from LEO. Seriously, if SS works it obviates SLS utterly. Boeing Lander masses 37t, and likely fits in an SLS fairing. No Commercial LV can carry it (except Starship, if it's flying). If they make it small enough to fit in 7m, then NG could take it.
  7. I'm currently running a save but I might plug the new Cernunnos into my current version if that would work. Haven't been at all yet, excited to see what's new!
  8. why are you asking here then.....this thread is completely unrelated to my stuff...
  9. just remember 1995 buggy < 2019 buggy. i dont think ive ever encountered a game-killing bug with ffe. buy a game today and your lucky if the damn thing even works.
  10. Banned because Jebediah can't be killed, he can be only recycled. Banned for not reading signatures.
  11. Very agreed, it's sad that aside from planting flags and sitting in labs theyre relatively unused when probes are much easier to send. Maybe adding a stock remote tech like system where there's signal delay could be helpful in making their usefulness to the forefront added your suggestion
  12. One option I would like to see is more in game uses for the Kerbals. They are good for backups for some features, planting flags, and the occasional sense of dread (or laughter) when you screw up. Outside of that, what else do they do? KSP1 has KAS, it expands their role, but what else could they do?
  13. You mean like a symmetrical version of the Mk3 liading ramp? Yes, good idea.
  14. raidernick i just want the craft file of the N1 form your mod not to add to this mods beale can you also make a ur-700 craft file with no restock because restock deletes the orginal stock parts
  15. The link to the latest version is for AdvancedTextures. I think the correct link should be https://github.com/GER-Space/CustomPreLaunchChecks/releases/tag/1.8.1
  16. Looking at the Mk2.5 SPP files, it looks like the Beluga nose cargo bay didn't make it in?
  17. Are you asking for you name to be changed to this?
  18. @jimmymcgoochie please don’t paste whole log files into your post - it causes issues, especially for mobile users. Link them from somewhere like google drive or dropbox.
  19. That makes sense. I haven't even had a chance to look at my log for this issue yet. I don't even have a definitive list of what textures are missing. I was actually looking at the short tail cone for another reason & noticed the placeholder thing.
  20. I think you've been very busy. Welcome to the forum.
  21. always willing to accept assistance. Especially in legs/wheels/animations/models/textures/just about anything. do you have a link?
  22. aight, thanks that's about what i figured. in other news, i managed to botch a rendezvous in high Kerbin orbit twice by fat fingering the staging. it wasn't even the rendezvous. it was the return craft supposed to bring Val home. At that point i realized i should probably stop playing KSP and just go to bed.
  1. Load more activity