Jump to content

tater

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    27,551

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by tater

  1. tater
    All I did was add CAP { name = Adapter-1-1-VA useForBottom = false } to the bottom of the list of CAPs for 2 MFT (A and B) tanks in their cfgs as a test.
  2. tater
    So have I, I just hadn't really thought about what I was doing WRT making my own SMs much before. Honestly, many times in the past I explicitly added a decoupler under the capsule out of KSP habit. My SSTU craft workflow was only different in that I used the nice SSTU decoupler in every, single instance instead of the awful stock choices . I recently started forcing myself to use the "decouple SM" feature all the time so that it would become "the new normal" for me (to break the stock habit) and realized quickly what I needed to do it after my first test failed. That test failed because it was, as I said, somewhat counterintuitive given the way the tank tops look (and the fact I'm not one who likes to clip parts). Adding the 1-1-VA cap allows me to do what I have been doing anyway, but with a little more polish.
  3. tater
    I am home waiting on another repair guy, and I just checked the Apollo and Orion. Looks close enough to me.
  4. tater
    I have shown it in the image above attached to the lower node (so you can see it). As a SM, it must be the upper node, and it works fine, and looks like a proper SM part .
  5. tater
    The answer to my own question is "yes."
  6. tater
    Ah, makes sense it is an artifact of working around the stock code. Question: could a "service module" be added as a "nose" adapter to the MFT and MUS tanks? Ie: an adapter that has a concave top---like the 1-1-VA adapter on the DOS-TKS?
  7. tater
    You do not want/need radiators for reentry.
  8. tater
    Service Module decoupling... The Soyuz DM works as expected. The 2 US capsules, OTOH, are very counterintuitive. Each capsule has two places where a part can be attached on the bottom. So take a capsule, and attach an upper stage to tank to it. If you attach at the lower node with a MFT tank, a fairing is generated to cover the heat shield. If you attach at the upper node, the tank actually clips into the bottom of the capsule. You would think that the lower node that always generates a fairing would be the "service module" that can be decoupled---but this is not the case, that node attaches the 2 parts permanently. The upper node, where the tank actually intrudes into the capsule is the one that decouples. Seems exactly wrong/backwards to me.
  9. tater
    On the tanks (and some other parts) there is a button on the right click in the VAB for "configure containers." This lets you set the tank parameters (lightweight tank, zero boil off, etc), as well as the specific ratio of internal contents for each possible content item.
  10. tater
    I suppose the "full" version should have ~5100kg of hypergolic propellants for the 2 OMS engines.
  11. tater
    @Shadowmage, what I posted above I did with the empty orbiter (wings, v-stab, elevons, and all engines added). With a tank ~300kg total it's 300 m/s for both AJ10s together. With closer to 5100 (which would be the scale mass of 5184kg), it's about 400.
  12. tater
    OK, I have not used the Shuttle in actual play before, and perhaps we need a "configure containers" to balance OMS propellant vs EC... I threw a tank in the cargo bay (I used the no engines Shuttle, and added the AJ10s and main engines) with ~3000 kg of hypergolics. It gives 280 m/s of dv. The real OMS mains could do 300 with cargo in the bay, but carried some 8100 kg of propellants (which is over 5100 to scale). Scale propellants gives 409 m/s or so, empty. Fill the payload bay, and it gets near 300.
  13. tater
    Yikes. OK, that makes sense, then. The actual fairing parts only allow the solid textures, I think. That's what I end up using on the tank/capsule fairings, anyway.
  14. tater
    Then the spaceplane parts need to be made "kerbal." The "kerbal" argument stopped making sense as soon as spaceplane parts looked sleek and awesome.
  15. tater
    I'd not include suborbital craft at all, it muddies the waters since suborbital is pretty much useless.
  16. tater
    File for future reference (not to sidetrack things, but it reminded me of some of the station parts with a docking port and adapter): This is sort of a "Base" use (it looked like station parts, hence it peaked my interest (bloody autocorrect)), but as it looks like the SSTU US station parts, and depending on how the IVA is envisioned (even if not made), it could be a way to add such parts with less overhead by refusing existing parts. I just happened across the image, and figured if I didn't post it I'd forget about it, so here it is for your enjoyment. Radial engines like that could perhaps have the gear built in. As they would be designed to fit your parts of 1 diameter, they could in fact be a single part (with those 4 engines, plus that sort of gear system). Actually, assuming the gear does;t stick out more radially than the rockets, it need not even retract.
  17. tater
    Define "wings." Did X-15 have wings, or fins? HL-10? X-24? What about lifting body designs? What % of lift must be generated by the cantilevered bits for them to stop being fins?
  18. tater
    And strictly speaking, "lift" cannot be part of the definition if the only part of the flight where it is used is EDL, as Apollo capsules (and current capsules) use lift. It need not be SSTO to be a spaceplane. Some of the original Shuttle concepts were legit spaceplanes, but they were TSTO designs.
  19. tater
    In which case Gemini with a parasail was a spaceplane? I honestly do not consider Shuttle/Buran/X-37/Dreamchaser, etc to be spaceplanes. I'm not sure if a "real" spaceplane should have to take off horizontally, or if it merely have to generate some % of its altitude gain in the atmosphere via lift. Its certainly hard to nail down.
  20. tater
    Since we can have no possible idea (short of a post here by one of the principals) if adding RoverDude's already built LS is substantial work, and if so, if that would take away from some other project we could also argue about (though bug fixing, etc, as a project is unlikely to find anyone here in disagreement with), I'd say it's an argument that by definition we cannot assign any reasonable value to. Given that RoverDude doesn't seem to be the bug fix guy (looks like NathanKell and Arsonide are more in that area), any work in adding LS would take away from what other things that he's working on? Note that he's working on his LS (and all the other USI stuff) in addition to what he's doing officially, anyway. So I'd argue that it's a win as a toggle, with no demonstrable downside.
  21. tater
    So the entirety of the argument is that RoverDude could instead work on something else... like what? You need to also consider that he, himself thought LS was important enough to do already, when a few other mods also addressed it. Seems like a non-argument.
  22. tater
    Except the most likely candidate was already done by RoverDude, and won't take any dev time to speak of. I could just as well say, "The game comes with an aerodynamics implementation that a small fraction of players want, if it isn't what you want turn it of and download a mod." So you want the soup back, since we all DL FAR, anyway?
  23. tater
    Whatever entertains you is fine, but myself? I pretty much only build rockets. If anyone ever builds a real spaceplane, I might become interested in them.
  24. tater
    I see it this way, we could have a game where someone can legitimately post, "If you want life support, download a mod!" Alternately, we could have a game where someone could post, "If you DON'T want LS, download a mod to turn it off!" Or, we could have "The game comes with LS, turn it on or off as you prefer." It's kind of stunning that anyone would vote for any option but the last one, as it's the only option not telling people that their way of playing is wrong.
  25. tater
    It's already developed. RoverDude is talking about it, and he already wrote it, you can play with it now, just like you could play with his ISRU stuff before that became stock (a more complex version).
×
×
  • Create New...