BioHaZarD.PT
-
Posts
86 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Everything posted by BioHaZarD.PT
-
Only found a minor bug so far. All the Agena craft files have 2 antennas now. Probably due to symmetry mode left on by mistake. Sure happens to me a lot.
-
[0.22.X] BobCat ind. Historical spacecraft thread
BioHaZarD.PT replied to BobCat's topic in KSP1 Mod Releases
I have a copy. I guess I could upload it somewhere. -
Interesting. Those Agena-Centaur were never made, were they? What was the purpose of it? Pushing a Gemini on a lunar fly-by?
-
All true, but I was under the impression frizzank strived to make more or less realistic parts... just scaled down for Kerbin. Other engines are much closer to real efficiency, so I thought maybe the Titan engines where an oversight and I pointed it out. If it was done on purpose, for balance with stock engines or to keep the Titan's deltaV down, then I understand.
-
I always though the efficiency of the Titan LR-87 in FASA was weird. Particularly because it's more efficient at sea level than vacuum (340 ASL vs 260 vac). But I thought maybe that's how it was.... Today I checked. The real values are 259 and 297. Very different. The LR-91 is also not realistic... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LR-87 http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/titan2.htm
-
Doesn't make much sense to me to have two F-1 stages. The F-1 is so heavy I doubt there would be any gains from adding 4 more in a 2nd stage. I rather consolidate the fuel in a single 8 F-1 first stage. Did any Nova proposals have two stages with F-1 engines?
-
There's already a "FASA Apollo SI-B (SA-204).craft" in the pack. And a "FASA Apollo SI-B Launcher.craft" in the subassemblies. That's the Saturn IB.
-
Nice! I like that Centaur. The current one seems very overpowered. It looks like the RL-10 engine will even be used in the new SLS upper stage, so it's a welcome addition. Love the Voyager too! I was going to say there's an Agena craft file already... but not in the latest versions. I still have one left over from FASA3.86. I like to make satellites and probes based on it. Interestingly I get better deltaV out of it by removing the fuel tank and rocket engine. Just probe core + flight pack.
-
That happens if an engine clips into the fuel tank of the stage below, in your case the M-1. It happened to me a few times before when tinkering with Saturn parts in various configurations. Try using 2 or 3 decouplers together instead of one. I used 2 once and it worked. I tried the design you described and I got in trouble right on the 1st stage separation. Lost an engine... twice. Here's how I did my "Nova". The M-1 was planned as a replacement for the 5 J-2 on the 2nd stage, so that's where I put it. Replaced 1st stage with the new 7.75m parts. Since the Nova tank has relatively little fuel, I used 3 tanks. Yes, three. Managed to get an Apollo capsule on an escape trajectory from the star system. @frizzank, that Nova tank needs more fuel. It has a lot less fuel than the Saturn V 1st stage tank, but it looks like it would have a larger volume.
-
Did it have jet engines? I believe they're required for runway recycling.
-
Place the Missionpack file in the folder GameData\MissionController\Plugins\PluginData\MissionController, under whatever is your KSP folder.
-
Yes. It doesn't interfere with KSP savegames. MCE has it's own save files.
-
It did cause a leak in the liquid hydrogen tank 64 seconds into the flight, but it only exploded a few seconds later. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster
-
Something interesting I found. Here's the big problem with an accident involving an exploding SRB: a massive cloud of slowly burning solid fuel chunks. If the escape tower doesn't pull the capsule away from that cloud (a very real possibility on the Ares I), there's a chance one of those chunks melts the parachutes. http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/07/death-knell-for-nasas-ares-roc.html Here's a video of the Titan IV explosion (self-destruct after loss of guidance) mentioned in the article:
-
NASA has a chance to change course in the Space Launch System. Block 1 will use SRBs, but for the Block 2 (the true heavy lifter) there's a booster competition closing in 2015. Candidates are an Advanced SRB and 2 liquid boosters, one with two F-1B's (cheaper more powerful F-1) and the other with a US made version of the Russian NK-33 (of N1 heritage). Will be interesting to see who wins. In the Challenger disaster the SRB didn't explode. It had a leak near the bottom that melted the aft attachment to the external tank. It got loose and penetrated the external tank, which exploded. The 2 SRBs continued to fly more or less intact.
-
I share the sentiment about wings. Unless you need them for crossrange or to recover expensive launch engines (Space Shuttle style), wings are nothing but dead weight that you need to carry back and forth. Plus they increase the surface area requiring heatshielding which adds even more weight and caused a lot of problems in the Space Shuttle. Capsules seem to be the way to go for now, and they can also be reusable even if they land on water. Strangely NASA seems to trust SRBs a lot. In the canceled Ares I the whole first stage was a large SRB (which produced too much vibrations for crew... hence the cancellation). Now, I never heard of a SRB exploding, but they can't be throttled or shut down in case of trouble either. So why does NASA love SRBs so much? Is it perhaps because it's cheaper to make very powerful boosters with solid fuel? Kerolox is cheap but engines like the F-1 are very expensive. Or is it because of Space Shuttle legacy?
-
The F-1 engine was also initially developed under a US Air Force contract. They later dropped it realizing they didn't need anything that powerful. NASA then picked it up.
-
From what I can tell from reading Wikipedia, NASA initially used the name NOVA for a series of designs with up to 5 F-1's. That became the Saturn V after Werner Von Braun and his team joined NASA. Then the name NOVA was used for more powerful designs aiming at Mars, for the post-Saturn/Apollo era. That's where the M-1 came in as a second stage engine, replacing the 5 J-2's. NathanKell.NonRandomCaps: I did something similar with the Soyuz rocket from Bobcat's Soviet Pack. Makes a nice heavy lifter on Kerbin. Easily replaces frizzank's Saturn V in launching the Apollo CSM and LM to the Mun. Heretical, I know...
-
frizzank! I love this mod! The latest additions are awesome. Love the detail on the Apollo CM and SM and the F1 sound is gorgeous. Now, a couple of issues I have encountered. Apollo should have a Fuel Cell (in the service module, I believe). Gemini has it and so does the LM, but I can't find it in Apollo. Mechjeb has some trouble docking with Apollo. Turning on "show the bounding box" indicates Mechjeb thinks it's a much longer spacecraft. Manually reducing safe distance seems to help... Are you planing a version of FASA for Real Solar System (with real mass, thrust, etc)? I haven't tried RSS yet, but this kind of mod seems ideal for it.
-
I spotted a problem in the Propulsive Landing algorithm. When there are several engines present it fails to take them all into account when calculating TWR. It seems to only be considering one engine, which alone might not have enough power for 1.5 TWR. Example below (using Saturn 1B from FASA).
-
I'm going to ask. One minute you were considering giving up and then a few hours later it was fixed! What was the problem? Can you find any explanation for why it worked with a few tanks from FASA pack? I just tested the new version and it seems to be working. ModuleFX engines are still not included, right? It didn't work with the KR-1x2...
-
Yeah... Kerbolo II only requires a probe with 3 antennas and about 10000 deltaV to escape the sun. Keep it simple and lite and it's easy. I just did one costing $26000, including all the small sensors that don't add much weight. If you take the mystery goo and Science Jr. it gets more complicated. But I will tell you some mission packs do have problems. For example, Kerbal SOI mission pack requires a docking port by the 7th mission. If you're playing in career mode you wont unlock them until much later. The good thing is, you can skip ahead to another mission. And there are other mission packs, and contracts, and custom contracts that allow you to do what you want and get payed for it (too much even).
-
You're right. It doesn't seem to work with the new "Kerbodyne" engines introduced in 0.23.5. Only with older engines.
-
Even funnier is the fact that it works with some very specific fuel tanks from the FASA pack, and nothing else (that I tried). And so far I haven't figured out why. I did some experiments with the small silver and white tanks. The silver works, the white doesn't. So I made the small white tank exactly the same as the silver one in every non-cosmetic parameter and... it still didn't work. Then I added the code for the "Reflection shader plugin" and it works! But that can't be it. There's the Centaur tank that also works and has no reflection. The only thing I see the silver and Centaur tanks having in common, and differing from the stock tanks, is their part.cfg files are more complex and larger. If that's the case, it's probably a very very weird bug in KSP.
-
Yes, it appears to have been Nathan back in version .32. It's described in the change log. The mentioned conditions are at the start of MCSettings.cfg. I never understood the fuel conditions for jet landings (and I never tried to do anything with it).