Raptor22
-
Posts
448 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Raptor22
-
-
16 hours ago, TruthfulGnome said:
Although it's cool, with limited funding and no options to buy flights from others until the mid 90s there is very very little chance of an ACRV happening at least for Skylab
If the Challenger disaster happens in your timeline (Judging by the fact that Challenger disaster happened on January 28, 1986, and the fact that you're up to June 1985, with flights every 3 months or so, then the 2nd flight after this would line up with Challenger), would that change their decision to have the ACRV? Or, if they don't want to invest in resurrecting the Apollo capsule for an ACRV, have Soyuz come and dock with the station? After all, if you have the Challenger disaster happen in your alternative timeline, there'd be a 21 month period (Jan 28, 1986 to October 3, 1988) where Skylab would be inaccessible.
Plus, if there was enough funding to re-activate Skylab, add three major modules to it, add a new sun shield, and who knows how much equipment inside of it... surely they'd earmark some funds to have a lifeboat, right?
Or, who knows. If you really want to cut corners, you could use the "KOOSE" mod's ELK system to replicate the use of the real-world proposed MOOSE (Man Out Of Space Easiest) system.
I've used it from time to time, and you have to be very precise about your attitude control to prevent the Kerbal from burning up, but it works if you want a life boat on a shoestring budget.
-
On 6/20/2023 at 6:08 PM, LucalisIndustries said:
talking about relatively bad ideas...
anyways, I loved this chapter, I can't wait for the next one
Perhaps they can have a stripped-down Apollo (Maybe a Block III?) carried up in the Shuttle's cargo bay and berthed to the zenith port of Skylab? IIRC, back in the early days of planning Space Station Freedom and later the ISS, there were proposals for reviving the Apollo capsule as an Assured Crew Return Vehicle to be kept at the station; its role was later replaced by Soyuz.
There was another ESA proposal for a scaled-up Apollo that held 8 crew and had a funky Soyuz-Alike system with no service module below it, but rather a small one above it that had the docking adapter and propulsion, and would be jettisoned before re-entry. It would have looked something like this:
Note the manipulator grapple nodes located on it. It seems that it would have used a CBM docking port, which Skylab here doesn't have.
The easiest option, IMO, would be having a Block III Apollo carried inside the Shuttle's cargo bay. It uses a roughly 1/3 to 1/2 sized Service Module, which is enough for short orbital jaunts (perhaps to another nearby station and back? IIRC, during the beginning of Mir, a Soyuz was used to carry crew from Mir to Salyut 7, grab some equipment, return back to Mir with it, and then return to Earth), or for returning back down to Earth / Kerbin.
Just attach some manipulator grapple nodes on there - or, optionally, fly it unmanned out of the orbiter's cargo bay - and dock it to Skylab. With the position that the shuttle docks at, it would be incredibly easy to move it from the bay to the zenith port, since the bay would be directly facing it. Using the 5-seat pod, it could be used such that a crew can remain on the station continuously; 7 astronauts can launch on the first shuttle up with it, and 5 stay behind while 2 return. Each launch after, five swap out with five new ones, and 7 return back. With the Apollo Crew Return Vehicle docked there, the 5 full-time crew can stay there until the next shuttle arrives, with the assurance that they can evacuate the station and return back home at any time using the ACRV.
Currently, that port is either empty or used for holding the TRS, but seeing as the Power Tower has four structural docking nodes (which currently aren't used for anything), and the TRS doesn't require a pressurized connection, any future stowage of one could probably be put up there, allowing the Crew Return Vehicle to occupy the remaining Apollo-Era cone-and-drogue port.
-
This thread has reached 1200 pages! Incredible!
-
3 hours ago, The Dressian Exploder said:
This is probably outside of the scope of BDB, but I think a set of parts for an LLRV could be pretty cool... I can see parts of it being pretty lego-able, too.
LLRV?
-
On 6/15/2023 at 4:18 PM, MashAndBangers said:
I'm not that dumb anymore... most of the time. But additionally:
I would also recommend using autostrut, and/or physical struts, and using a probe control point on the Shuttle C rather than the habtech panel - that way, if it starts swaying around inside the fairing, it won't mess up how MechJeb perceives the attitude of your rocket.
-
1 minute ago, andrewson563 said:
Yes
I think he meant you actually giving him details - what power systems? Which parts? How are they not working? What have you done to try to troubleshoot it? Do you have screenshots? Where is your KSP.log file?
-
On 6/2/2023 at 9:01 PM, PresidentCash said:
Any help with the KSC showing up when zooming out in space? It happens with mods and without(happens on the latest version). You can see it in like a black/grey color through clouds/atmosphere. You can also see it in the wireframe setting.
Here is a pic with only Mechjeb(for quick testing) and Scatterer. It's hard to see on the picture, but it's very obvious in-game and especially obvious with cloud mods as it will go through the clouds like it is layered.(Fresh install of both the game and the mods, nothing edited at all.)
I've been playing KSP since version 0.24.2, and the KSC has always been visible from space for as long as I can remember. I'm pretty sure that's a stock feature.
-
10 hours ago, RocketBoy1641 said:
And a Viking follow up with rovers!
I just suggested a Viking follow-up with rovers, lol. Whether or not it makes it in to the mod depends on the decision of @CobaltWolf and the rest of their team. I'm hoping it will, but it's their mod, so they make the rules.
-
Alternatively, there were plans for a Viking III mission, which were more scaled back than the rover I showed above. Essentially, they took the existing Viking system, and replaced the three landing legs with three tracked wheels, referred to as the ELMS - Elastic Loop Mobility System
I found some fairly specific stats for it that were apparently published in a Martin Marietta document, as well as some pictures of engineering mock-ups and prototypes. Attached in the spoiler below (to not make this post take up the entire page):
Spoiler
Not sure who that person is. If anyone is able to ID him, that would be great!
Apparently it also made its way onto a Paraguayan postal stamp? And it either has it shown on a very discolored moon, or Earth is impossibly close to Mars - with the high-gain dish pointed the wrong way. Oh well - I just found it entertaining to see it there.
Further documents for the workings of the Elastic Loop Mobility System can be found here:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19760021186
There was also a proposal for a Viking '79 mission that would have carried a small rover with conventional wheels on a Viking lander. It has some very detailed drawings of various sub-systems like the integrated science package on the rover:
Spoiler
Additional view of how an alternative, more wedge-shaped rover would be stowed:
The above image came from this document here: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19740009428 - Though, unfortunately, most of the document details technical information and system design trees, etc.; Beyond page 25, you won't find any more diagrams or drawings of the design of the system.
You can read through the full 113-page "Summary" report document (Volume 1) on NTRS here: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19740011775
There is also a more detailed 404-page-long technical document (Volume 2)) for it here: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19740011776
Just for fun (I wouldn't recommend attempting to model these, lol), there were some even wackier designs that were considered in a 1987 Mars Rover Technology Workshop, which you can read about here: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19910005287 - but, beware! The document is 840 pages long; download it before reading, or else your page will seriously lag trying to load it. Though, frankly, I don't think that any besides the Viking-derived system would have worked all that well; I mean, for crying out loud, they had a mechanized spider as one of the designs, and one of the weirdest asymmetrical entry capsules I've ever seen.
Spoiler
One of my favorite descriptions in a NASA document: "The Uranus Mobile Robot - A bouncing baby, full of promise."
-
3 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:
Streaming again today! Viking Orbiter dev stream starting ~2 hrs from this post (1:30ish Eastern).
Going to be a chill stream, just blocking in/modeling. This probe is still in a pretty early state so you'll also probably see me refering to reference a good bit.
Are there any plans for the Mars 1984 Viking Rover Mission? From what I can tell, it would have had two orbiters, two landers, and six penetrators.
Diagram Legend:
SpoilerA = antenna for signal relay through orbiter #2 (it seems that the mission would send two orbiters, one carrying several penetrators, the other carrying the lander and rover - read the link below);
B = antenna for direct transmission to and from Deep Space Network antennas on Earth;
C = optics port cluster and strobe light (1 of 2);
D = imaging/laser rangefinder mast (1 of 2);
E = selenide radioisotope thermal generator (cover removed to display cooling vanes);
F = rover chassis;
G = manipulator arm with sampling drill (folded in travel position);
H = sample-analysis inlet port;
I = hazard detectors;
J = loopwheel mobility system (1 of 4).
Diagram Legend:
SpoilerA = folded landing leg (1 of 3);
B = Viking-type landing footpad (1 of 3);
C = lander body;
D = Viking-type terminal descent engine (1 of 3);
E = Viking-type parachute canister with deployment mortar;
F = terminal site selection system sensors;
G = folded rover ramp (1 of 2);
H = folded loop-wheel mobility system (2 of 4);
I = stowed imaging/laser rangefinder mast (1 of 2);
J = folded antenna for direct communication with Earth;
K = rover chassis;
L = radioisotope thermal generator
M = outer surface of aeroshell (tanks and thrusters not shown);
N = outer surface of bioshield (heat shield not shown);
O = attachment point linking bioshield to Mars 1984 orbiter.Additional view of Aeroshell and Lander without the rover:
According to the article:
1= top bioshield for protecting the sterilized lander and rover from contamination;
2 = top aeroshell for protecting the lander from reentry heating;
3 = folded lander (rover not displayed);
4 = bottom aeroshell with attitude control/deorbit thrusters and propellant tanks;
5 = bottom bioshield/heat shield.Landing would occur as follows: the top bioshield would be left behind on the Mars 1984 orbiter as the rest of the lander moved away; motors on the bottom aeroshell would ignite to deorbit the lander; following reentry, the top aeroshell would deploy a single large parachute; the bottom aeroshell/heat shield would fall away; and, finally, the lander would fall free of the top aeroshell and ignite its landing motors for terminal descent.
Diagram Legend:
SpoilerThe Bendix Mars penetrator was designed to enter the martian atmosphere directly from an interplanetary trajectory and embed itself in solid rock.
A = radio antenna;
B = meteorology package and magnetometer;
C = isotope heater;
D = aft body electronics;
E = Aft body/fore body separation plane;
F = cable linking aft body and fore body;
G = accelerometer and neutron detector;
H = fore body electronics;
I = drill assembly;
J = sampling drill bit;
K = geochemical analysis package;
L = seismometer;
M = batteries;
N = radioisotope thermal generator.Exactly how the penetrator would stay intact from impacting at interplanetary speeds, as there's no drag chute and Mars has a minimal atmospheric deceleration, I have no clue. It must be made of some seriously tough stuff to survive that - but, then again, we have penetrator bombs that are designed to go through several meters of dirt and concrete to destroy bunkers. Though, those are going probably 5% as fast on impact.
I'm willing to bet that several parts, like the lander body, aeroshell, descent engines, heat shield, landing legs, etc. could be reused from the baseline Viking. Not to mention that the entire orbiter would be pretty much the same.
Since the penetrators would be difficult to implement in-game without additional plugins, they could just act as atmospheric or rough landing probes, or you could omit them entirely. But, I think that the Viking Rover is something that you should give some consideration to, as you wouldn't have to completely design it from scratch - after all, the whole point of the plan was to re-use as much of the existing Viking design as possible.
More info here: https://spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com/2017/08/prelude-to-mars-sample-return-mars-1984.html
34 minutes ago, Richmountain112 said:Also, does the landing contract require the Kerbals to be in the LM at Launch!?
That's absurd because if there's an abort, there would be no way to get them out.
You could have then in the LM just until the moment of lift-off, then transfer them over to the CM. Unless you have Connected Living Space installed - then you're out of luck.
But, that's only a band-aid fix. Hopefully it can be patched in a future update.
-
Could you please upload some screenshots so that people can have an idea of what the mod looks like?
-
11 hours ago, Rodger said:
Not really, all I can suggest is what I already posted above. I can't reproduce it at all, and the only clue is it's happened to someone else who also had very low fps. That person @Blufor878 also posted about how apparently they had some luck with assigning those engines to an action group for manual activation, so I'd say it's worth a try.
I get a good framerate, but still have the issue with the J2X activation. I haven't ever had this issue with any other engine in recent memory, and other deployable engines like the near future atomic rocket motors works just fine. It did, however, ruin my recent attempt at the Venus / Eve flyby mission, due to the J2X engine needed for TVI/TEI suffering the same issue as seen in the video there. Though, I have not problems with the ullage motor plumes. I have tried manually deploying the engine bell and then manually igniting the engine, but gotten the same result. I've tried shutting down the engine, but it is impossible to do so as the "shut down" button doesn't stay in the PAW long enough to click; I have not yet tried using the action groups, though. Eventually, I had to resort to blowing up the engine with the Kaboom mod (I couldn't stand the noise) and then using the two RL-10 engines that I had mounted (Used the LASS config for the S-IVB engine adapter) to do a much slower TEI burn. I managed to achieve the mission, but had to use a considerable amount of fuel on the Apollo CSM to do correction burns as I did not get as much performance out of just the two RL-10s as I would with the J2X firing.
-
On 5/30/2023 at 12:24 PM, ballisticfox0 said:
It really comes down to if you want it to function like a rover that looks like a motorcycle or a motorcycle.
I was thinking more of a motorcycle that has limits to how far it can lean over. Like, you can still turn like one, but without clever robotics work or a plugin, it'd be very difficult to coordinate SAS with steering for it. Though, I've put a total of about 5 minutes into the thought of it; if I put more time into brainstorming, there'd probably be a good solution to be found.
-
On 5/28/2023 at 2:19 PM, biohazard15 said:
IIRC there was some discussion about it several years ago. Highly unlikely, since such vehicle would need a ton of hacks and probably a plugin to function.
I mean, I've seen people be able to get motorcycles to work using stock parts, reaction wheels, etc. I don't think it's too out of the question.
If push comes to shove, the bike could be equipped with invisible "training wheels" that collide with the surface if it leans too far to one side or the other in order to prevent it from toppling over.
-
Are we ever going to get the Lunar Motorbike planned for an LRV alterative or in addition to it for Apollo 20? It's just ridiculous enough to fit right at home in KSP, IMO.
-
1 hour ago, TruthfulGnome said:
Thanks I have already seen these but I will give them a read again! still have only seen the ET used as a tech demo on Skylab and not a hangar
There is a VERY rough diagram of the ET attaching to Skylab (literally just shown as a rectangle) on page 67 / III-23 of the SSI external tank applications paper (the first one I linked). From what I'm seeing, the pressurized attachment would be made from a module in the aft cargo container on the bottom of the ET, and looking at the shuttle attachment hardware, it seems that it would be attached shuttle side away from the station - my guess is that the shuttle docks it in position there before detaching and then docking to the normal docking port on the front of the station.
There's not a whole lot of detail, so you'll likely have to improvise a lot. Though, it at least gives a good idea of how ENORMOUS the ET would be and how much it could add to the station.
Here's a few other images for reference:
Spoiler
It looks like they had some plans to re-use Centaurs as OTVs. Some of the hangar concepts are able to pressurize, while others don't.
The Near Future Launch Vehicles cargo nose cone would be a good option for having the front of it open up as a hangar, or you could rotate it 180 degrees and have it come out the aft. I'd like to see what your creativity can do!
-
19 hours ago, TruthfulGnome said:
From all of the studies I've seen I have not seen a mention of the ET being used as a hangar and as of currently I don't have plans for it being used as an hangar but I do have some fun things in mind.
A hangar would mostly protect said spacecrafts inside
I've seen it mentioned in a document about general repurposing of the shuttle's tank, among other things like using it for the body of a space telescope or as an orbital fuel depot, along with the aft cargo carrier concept. I have seen some mentions in the BDB documentation about a shuttle external tank with Skylab.
For general tank reuse stuff, I recommend reading through the Space Studies Institute's report on it: https://ssi.org/reading/ssi-report-on-tank-applications/
If that page is awkward to read it on, here's just a normal PDF version: https://ssi.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/ssi_externaltanks_gimarc.pdfThere's also plenty of things on the No Shortage Of Dreams blog (IIRC earlier you said this had no relation with it) that talk about ET utilization: https://spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com/2023/03/space-shuttle-external-tank-et.html
And via Astronautix: http://www.astronautix.com/s/stsexternaltankstation.html
Judging by the graphics you used in the post above with the new solar shield, I'm betting you've read this document, but if you haven't: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19790011998/downloads/19790011998.pdf It's worth reading!
-
On 5/15/2023 at 12:22 AM, LucalisIndustries said:
This is going hard, I can't wait to see what happens with the ET
If I recall correctly, they planned to use it as a hangar of sorts. So, I'm guessing they'd probably have some cutting done in orbit to remove one of the ends. Maybe they'd use the LH2 tank for the hangar and then the smaller LOX tank for a pressurized module for crews to work in. It could probably be done with Near Future Launch Vehicles' cargo bays - I was able to replicate a "close enough" sized structure with it. Though, the real problem is figuring out just how on earth it's supposed to attach to SkyLab; I haven't been able to find any drawings or anything anywhere that could give me a clue, so it will probably involve a fair amount of creativity from @TruthfulGnome- but, seeing how well the rest of their work has turned out so far, I have no doubt they can pull it off.
-
How did you get the new thermal shield on there? Was it made with flags, or is it a development thing for BDB, or a custom part, or what?
-
How did you get the new docking adapter module to look like that? The one included in BDB is far, far skinnier. I'm guessing that you kitbashed it together, but I can't find parts in BDB that would fit that size.
-
On 4/23/2023 at 8:23 AM, Aperson3546 said:
hi i have a really weird issue when i installed this all the default solid rocket booster effects are always on even when i uninstall the config it still happens
I've had the same issue. I'm going to try to fiddle around with it some more - but, if I can't get it working, I'll upload my log here.
To clarify - at least from what I'm observing - the stock SRB effects will play constantly, regardless of whether the booster is ignited or not. When the booster is ignited, the waterfall effects will kick on for the duration of the booster burn, and then flame out, but the whole time the stock effects will continuously play. This also effects several Bluedog Design Bureau SRB effects for interstages, separation motors, and abort motors, in addition to the stock ones. I'm still trying to isolate the issue before making a full report here.
-
On 9/5/2022 at 5:14 PM, NotSoWiseAndy said:
will this have the elevator or is that not really possible in ksp?
It should be possible. I've seen plenty of other mods that have elevators; it's no different than having any other animated part. There's a few mods for the MADV that have its elevator work fine.
-
2 hours ago, OrbitalManeuvers said:
Make absolutely sure that you're on the latest release. This used to be an issue many moons ago, but isn't any more.
I have updated it, and it seems that the issue has gone away. Thank you.
-
I'm not certain if this is an issue resulting from Artemis Construction kit, however, I've found my log getting spammed with literally millions of lines simply saying "Bones do mot match bindpose". The reason why I'm first investigating Artemis Construction Kit is that it does not appear in the log until it tries to load the Orion drogue chute, after which I start to see this:
Quote[LOG 10:13:11.170] Load(Model): Benjee10_Orion/Orion/Parts/orion_drogueChute [ERR 10:13:11.182] File error: Value cannot be null. Parameter name: shader at (wrapper managed-to-native) UnityEngine.Material.CreateWithShader(UnityEngine.Material,UnityEngine.Shader) at UnityEngine.Material..ctor (UnityEngine.Shader shader) [0x00008] in <12e76cd50cc64cf19e759e981cb725af>:0 at (wrapper dynamic-method) PartReader.PartReader.ReadMaterial4_Patch0(System.IO.BinaryReader) at PartReader.ReadChild (System.IO.BinaryReader br, UnityEngine.Transform parent) [0x005ca] in <4b449f2841f84227adfaad3149c8fdba>:0 at (wrapper dynamic-method) PartReader.PartReader.Read_Patch0(UrlDir/UrlFile) [WRN 10:13:11.186] Model load error in 'C:\KSP_win64 JNSQ\GameData\Benjee10_Orion\Orion\Parts\orion_drogueChute.mu' [ERR 10:13:11.186] Bones do not match bindpose. [LOG 10:13:11.170] Load(Model): Benjee10_Orion/Orion/Parts/orion_drogueChute [ERR 10:13:11.182] File error: Value cannot be null. Parameter name: shader at (wrapper managed-to-native) UnityEngine.Material.CreateWithShader(UnityEngine.Material,UnityEngine.Shader) at UnityEngine.Material..ctor (UnityEngine.Shader shader) [0x00008] in <12e76cd50cc64cf19e759e981cb725af>:0 at (wrapper dynamic-method) PartReader.PartReader.ReadMaterial4_Patch0(System.IO.BinaryReader) at PartReader.ReadChild (System.IO.BinaryReader br, UnityEngine.Transform parent) [0x005ca] in <4b449f2841f84227adfaad3149c8fdba>:0 at (wrapper dynamic-method) PartReader.PartReader.Read_Patch0(UrlDir/UrlFile) [WRN 10:13:11.186] Model load error in 'C:\KSP_win64 JNSQ\GameData\Benjee10_Orion\Orion\Parts\orion_drogueChute.mu' [ERR 10:13:11.186] Bones do not match bindpose.After a dozen or so lines of "Bones do not match bindpose", it loads the Orion double drogue chute;
Quote... [ERR 10:13:11.187] Bones do not match bindpose. [LOG 10:13:11.189] Load(Model): Benjee10_Orion/Orion/Parts/orion_drogueChuteDouble [ERR 10:13:11.205] File error: Value cannot be null. Parameter name: shader at (wrapper managed-to-native) UnityEngine.Material.CreateWithShader(UnityEngine.Material,UnityEngine.Shader) at UnityEngine.Material..ctor (UnityEngine.Shader shader) [0x00008] in <12e76cd50cc64cf19e759e981cb725af>:0 at (wrapper dynamic-method) PartReader.PartReader.ReadMaterial4_Patch0(System.IO.BinaryReader) at PartReader.ReadChild (System.IO.BinaryReader br, UnityEngine.Transform parent) [0x005ca] in <4b449f2841f84227adfaad3149c8fdba>:0 at (wrapper dynamic-method) PartReader.PartReader.Read_Patch0(UrlDir/UrlFile) [WRN 10:13:11.208] Model load error in 'C:\KSP_win64 JNSQ\GameData\Benjee10_Orion\Orion\Parts\orion_drogueChuteDouble.mu' [ERR 10:13:11.209] Bones do not match bindpose. ...I'll continue to try to investigate this matter to see if it is a result of Artemis Construction Kit, but I thought I might as well post it here for posterity. I would try to upload my log, but unfortunately the no kidding millions of instances of "Bones do not match bindpose" showing up dozens of times every millisecond end up ballooning the file up to half a gigabyte, making it difficult to attach here.
No Shortage of Dreams | A KSP Skylab Alternative History
in KSP1 Mission Reports
Posted
Where were you able to get the Martin Marietta Shuttle Derived Vehicle Space Station proposal drawings from? I tried looking it up on Google, but a cursory search hasn't yielded any results. I'm guessing it's on some obscure database somewhere?