Jump to content

passinglurker

Members
  • Posts

    2,134
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by passinglurker

  1. I've made my own parts before. Since I started I've racked up about two that I'll admit to and one stupid single use idea that will probably never know life beyond my hard drive(so yeah I'm a total green horn). I didn't enter the last one because the challange at the time seemed out of my league and a bit time consuming to unwrap, but I still followed the thread and used kip's texturing guide a bit. If the part from the previous change looked simpler to unwrap the "learn to texture" challange probably would have had a larger non-lurking turnout.

    If someone wants to go all out and invest the time to unwrap a complex high poly model chances are they would want it to be a part they made themselves.

  2. The solar panels look good, but they're underpowered compared to their weight and lack of tracking. Essentially, they weigh twice as much as the shielded 1x6 and 2x3 stock panels, output the same amount of energy (2.0/s), and can't track. They seem to have about twice the surface area so having them yield at least 4.0/s seems reasonable. I guess that the look of cool and the utility of the antenna somewhat compensates the lack of tracking, but if you would want to further advance their use, having them yield 4.5-5.0/s could be an idea.
    I'm going to have to agree that the panels seem underpowered. even with the ability to retract and extend the lack of magic 360degree turning tracking hardware should mean a greater EC/s to weight ratio not a worse one. Its E/kg ratio should fall some where between single fixed panels and tracking panels
  3. Well in terms of IRL flavortext this would essentially be a device designed well after the fact that is purpose built to affix itself to the top end of a spent upper stage by taking advantage of the shape of the decoupler. its not meant as an early tech docking solution, but as a late tech salvage and repurposing solution for debris that was generated earlier in the tech tree.

    in practice in kerbal space program a typical operation involving this would go something like this...

    1. Craft A is a spent upper stage that circularized the first mun lander's orbit around kerbin and gave it a kick in the muns direction before being exhausted and abandoned in an elliptical orbit.
    2. Craft B is a salvage tug based out of a fuel depot in LKO it is carrying with it a small amount of excess fuel and is docked with a pod that is fitted out to with everything to complete a science mission besides main propulsion instead the docked science pod is equipped with a decoupler grabber. the intention is to capture Craft A and use it as Craft B's science pod's main propulsion
    3. Craft B performs and orbital intercept maneuver matching Craft A's orbit and closes within 200 meters before targeting its spent decoupler and lining up the science pod's decoupler grabber with it as if the two were docking ports.
    4. Craft A and B dock the two parts together and Craft B transfers a small amount of fuel into Craft A so that it can return to the fuel depot under its own power before it undocks leaving behind the science pod as Craft A's new command pod, rcs system, and power source.
    5. Craft A then travels to the depot where it is fully fueled either with fuel that was bussed up from kerbin by a low debris "reusable" tanker shuttle, or with fuel that was generated by one of many resource processing mods(biofuels, asteroid cities, kethane, etc...)
    6. fully fueled and equipped Craft A sets off on a deep space adventure.

  4. is it possible to use this to make "male and female" style adapters? for example a later techtree part that can dock to an earlier techtree decoupler without allowing the decouplers to dock with each other? It'd be great for salvaging and repurposing spent stages that were launched before you had docking ports(and better than the claw cause I can never get that thing to attach in a way that doesn't throw off the center of mass)

  5. I think its possible to have it both ways. By 2017 we could conceivably have manned launch capability via either spaceX, boeing, or SNC so what could be done is they launch a minimal crew via a proven means and then launch the SLS unmanned(possibly with some of its unused seats filled with proven backup life support solutions). With the riskiest part out of the way you then have the two craft rendezvous in orbit, transfer the crew over and kick off for lunar shenanigans. After that the question then becomes do you use the orion for reentry or do you rendezvous with a proven craft again to bring the crew home?

  6. In zero gravity, limiting the size of the ship makes no sense to me. In "high" (1g) gravity, odds are, gravity will do the limiting for you :)

    On top of that, the build cost is currently 5 kerbal-hours/ton of hull. Getting even 1 kerbal-hour/hour from a kerbal is a challenge :). Kerbals that suck down the kerbal-hours (rather than producing them) are not uncommon (I might tweak this: it's possible they're too common).

    Displaying a schematic of the craft in the build menu is something I want to implement.

    Sounds like kerbal courage, stupidity, and badassery is finally going to be a factor beyond what face they make when the rocket starts shaking am I right? in the name of saving kerbal hours will there ever be a way to repurpose existing debris beyond melting it down and rebuilding the same part over again from scratch?

  7. Small possible bug: Mechjeb's auto pilot fails and wobbles in circles on ships I launched from the orbital launchpad unless I enable stock sas. I haven't tested this with the other lunchpads, but ships I launch from the KSC work just fine without stock sas.(not that this is a big deal just using stock sas is an easy workaround)

    Small idea: Would it be possible to be able to burn rocketparts to modify parts of a ship mid flight? for example converting a fuel tank into an ore can after landing.

×
×
  • Create New...