Jump to content

Frozen_Heart

Members
  • Posts

    1,939
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Frozen_Heart

  1. The reason people have lost interest in NASA is nothing to do with them being 'realistic'. It is because that every new government that comes in kills off the old programs and starts their own meaning they are back at square one. In 2024 the ISS will come down and with the capability to build shuttle engines lost the SLS has a few flights max before no more can be built either. There is a massive chance that the government after Trump will axe it completely looking at past governments and then everything will be moved back another 20 years in their schedule. "NASA going to moon in 2040, Mars in 2055" This isn't realism. It's bureaucracy and the inability to control its own funding and missions.
  2. Well here is my method but may be outdated now. Central spine of girders with crew cabins and fuel tanks attached to that. Then attached to the same spine but separate from the fuel is the Armour. Means that any shock from the hits goes through the spine rather than directly onto the fuel. However weapons these days will punch through even 3 layers of this so nothing is fool proof. Try to make weapons from parts with 80m/s tolerance.
  3. It will already be scrapped after 2 or 3 missions. They only have the engines for 4 flights and the place that makes them was closed down so no more are coming.
  4. I'm a big fan of them and everything they have achieved, though Elon does get carried away... Also as a rule of thumb multiply any timescales by 1.88 as they work in Mars years.
  5. So apparently the offset tool is easier to abuse than i thought...
  6. You can still make a 'company' on the spacecraft exchange technically. The language used just needs tweaking: Company - Craft Showcase Employees - Craft Contributers
  7. @DarkOwl57, @MiffedStarfish The last section of the forum that started talking about wars, alliances, and planet ownership was called the rocket builders section. Go look for it and tell me where it is now...
  8. Are we allowed to use mods like editor tools to construct ships for this? Aka things that can't be done in the stock editor...
  9. Hmm i last tried when fuel drained in a very odd order through fuel lines, which meant that even if they lined up the front would drain before the back. Might be worth having another go now with the reworked fuel logic. And i agree the aerospikes are best due to their short profile.
  10. Been trying to build something like that for years and just couldn't. Fuel balance always shifted too much. The Co-21C could hover at a certain fuel load but not through its entire range. Edit: Huh a pic survives:
  11. Pretty much a tube of multi layered armour with srb rockets
  12. Oh god this is why i stopped building military! What have i created! It's hideous!
  13. @Spartwo, @panzer1b Any modern shipbuilding tips? I keep asking then never build anything, then another year goes by. Last true combat ship i built was the Co-21 in 0.19 i think.
  14. Just putting this out there again. No claiming planets! It comes under the rp rules and will result in the mods closing the thread faster than you can imagine.
  15. Might try working on some dedicated combat ships as this thread is picking up again. Will be a completely new series as my old Co-XX series are now civilian motherships.
  16. Downloaded this for the first time today and i'm really impressed. The parts look so much better now. Only downside is my VTOLs now all have huge turbines coming out the top...
  17. Good to see you back Zekes. It's been a very long time since you have been around.
  18. The Venture Star was an interesting concept. Essentially a SSTO unmanned shuttle.
  19. Shouldn't this be in the spacecraft exchange? Also pics are good!
  20. Hence the 'basic' part. I assume central spines and stuff comes later. But the military ship building here start off with putting plates directly onto rocket fuel tanks and it worked. (As the weapons were crap in those days as well)
  21. Took the advice and doubled the size. Can land more than just the meteor now.
  22. Next test will be double length and width as having problems with take off and turning round on the current one. Not sure how to fit it in the SPH though as pushed for space at 70m long. Tried once a long time ago with the metal plates and just gave in due to the part count. Has that little plane got flaps btw? Found they are very useful for carrier landings already. And yep that is a meteor i built a couple of days ago. Just getting back into KSP so started simple.
  23. For most things multiplying by 1.88 seems to work. He still hasn't adjusted to earth years yet.
  24. The craft themselves are unimpressive but testing if carriers are feasible in KSP or not. Might try to build a proper one if this goes well. First attempt nailed it.
×
×
  • Create New...