TiktaalikDreaming

Some progress. I'm mostly just getting short patches of time between things to mod at the moment. Anyway, the EEM is slowly becoming useable. I'm trying to get a gif of reentry, to show it *works* and has some active directional stability, but not a lot of stability, and your kerbals should probably take some paper bags or bucks with them. So, the (texturing is at an early stage, what's there in several places will change, and it's missing several passes) bits currently look like the following (in blender, not in game, I'll do the in game later when the textures are done).

Yep. There's some very non optimised code I need to look at once I figure out c# a bit more. It didn't use to be this bad, so I strongly suspect it's something I added in. But I also still need to rewrite some modules as currently, they can't adjust mass as nukes are used. And not dropping 0.1 tonnes of the craft mass for each pulse does mess with the Delta V. I was going to look at optimising code after the switch to a part module, but it is probably more annoying than the lack of mass change.

I shifted the CoM towards the longer side and down a bit, both of which make sense, and there's now directional stability. Not a lot though. If you do any maneuvering, things get spinny very fast and takes a while to settle down again. I have to say I'm impressed with how fast it slows down for a shape that looks like it should have less drag than the big rounded bases of the Apollo types. Now to work on some attachment thingy for it.

Well, as I'm about to embark on a size3 four story IVA, that is relieving to hear. Yeah, the sorting is weird. The button being off to the side by the widest named prop is frustrating. Especially when you get a screen full of props with shorter names and you can't quite work out which button goes with which prop. The idea of having the prop name as the button is an awesome UI idea.

I'm loving those IVAs. Even a small IVA is a lot of work, those large things... I think it's take me years. And of course, after those years it still wouldn't look as good. And the prop pack. It makes it clear the ksp Unity add-on's interface for adding props needs work. Scroll scroll scroll.... Awesome stuff.

It's pretty hard to be sure of anything regarding it. In the cut away diagrams I have for it the rear of the craft has ablative heat shielding drawn in though, which suggests that end points forward during reentry. And the pointy bit at the back has "crushable structure". Considering the rear of the craft doesn't shadow the remainder very well, they seemed very optimistic on directional stability. I'm thinking I'll be adding a small amount of ablator to the main capsule as well. I did find a point to put the CoM where it seems to at least point the right way. I wouldn't call it super stable though.

I've been messing with the weird Earth Entry Module. I'll need to mess with where the CoM sits. The shape seems remarkably unstable, which leads to overheating , and subsequent explosions. The shape is described in Boeing's docs as "Biconic" but is an asymmetric truncated biconic, and a shape used by Northrop for "unmanned reentry vehicles" (aka ICBMs). There's lots of implied testing, but there's zero data. Apparently it's good for higher entry velocities than the Apollo capsule shape. My testing is suggesting that either there's some trick of aerodynamics that isn't modeled by KSP (aero, esp at hypervelocity is not easy to model) or that I've placed the CoM wrong. Or I suppose the third option being that Northrop were lying. It is from a 1960's report after all, in the middle of the cold war.

300m/s is just shy of Mach 1. There's a stack of reasons you shouldn't expect rover wheels to deal with that.

I've seen state run websites take longer to recover from the old expired cert issue. People will get over it.

I'm working on some flight control sticks (joysticks) for IVA work. The plan is the two sizes of Orion Capsule style stick, the Apollo capsules main stick and RCS translation stick, plus at least one aircraft style stick. Going to start with a facsimile of the A380 airbus stick, possibly a left and right handed version, and then possibly a jet fighter style stick after those. As you can see from the Orion style, it should be apparent why I chose to start with those. They're super simple.

Yep. I'm not too sure what exactly causes that, but it is very prone to explosions. I've messed with colliders, used a tiny decouple force and a huge decouple force, adjusted staging, and probably a few things I forgot to list. I just can't seem to get that separation to run smoothly, reliably.

For half height, do you mean 2.5 to 3.75 but at half the distance? Or do you mean say, 3.75 to 3.125 and half height? EG: half height with the same angle, or half height with double the (tan of the) angle? How are these parts not compatible with inline ballutes?

But no bologna.

There's an updated PBR pack that uses the principled shader. But to be honest I just use the shader direct now and just tie in the bits I need to.

Nice materials. Cycles with principled?

They'll also be great for snazzy shopping carts. .

When using mechjeb is important you don't shift launch pads without telling it. unless using the Dev build. But yeah, knowingwhich way to point the rocket is fairly important too.

https://github.com/TiktaalikDreaming/NAR_MEM/blob/master/ExampleCraft/NKR DEM.craft I haven't packed it up yet. Feel free to do pull requests against https://github.com/TiktaalikDreaming/NAR_MEM/blob/master/Config/texturesU.cfg or send me the patch and I can update. There's just me mucking about with the crew ascent cabin in the patch so far, and I'm not happy with how I'm going with it.

Yeah, I noticed that. It took me a while to think what might have caused that, but pretty sure it's the antenna piece that fits in the chute frame. I switched dashes for underscores in the part name while trying to diagnose why the RO mm configurationwant applying (was actually solved by splitting RO and RT configuration into two patches). I'll update next chance I get. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Looks good. I think it needs one of them metallicness maps though. It looks like it's going to be entered into a street machine detailing competition.

Yeah, I've generally been looking for an excuse to model a NERVA. So, likely there'll eventually be a nuke engine.

I'm interested in opinions of planning for the bits to move the MEM out to Mars. I'm working (at least for non-RO) on making the bits to match up with BDB Sarnus/Saturn parts. My current thinking out loud in Blender looks as follows; Now, I intend to make some docking adapters for orbital combining of sections, and I'll make them all share a common node type/size, even though they'll all be for different diameters, and that will be able to be used for basically bolting craft together. I decided I'd stick to my 64% scale for the mission module, as it really never matches any other parts. The intended launch for that would have a return module (Apollo capsule) stuck on top, but apart from that, the final craft it's a 22 foot part just bracketed to a 33 foot part. The top of it is also basically just a big bucket of general things, including the Earth Reentry Vehicle, so that top section is basically a fairing, so I'm thinking - procedural. That way, it can match whatever you want, and can be discarded anyway. Ditto for the section of the MEM covering. Although the plan was to discard the fairing in two pieces, one to expose the probes etc (possibly during a Venus flyby, so quite some time before the other) and the other covering just the MEM. Still, it'll need a framework of some sort to suspend the top sections above the launching vehicle. So I can build a couple of frame pieces with minimalist diameters, and have them also include a procedural fairing of some sort. The idea behind all this is to maintain the one scale, so it makes it easier converting the parts for RO, while also making it compatible with stock craft as much as possible. So, so long as the end parts that need to match have a hint of procedural in them, or just happen to match up, then it should be good I'm thinking.

So, I'm looking at doing up the Mission Module, which will kill off the existing outer shell pieces and frame for putting the MEM in. Mostly because until I read up on that, I had guessed really really wrong. NASA's archive has this; https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19680009779 Already hitting snags with sanity though. If you find the diagram on page 37, have a look at the RCS for section A (the Logistics vehicle tunnel and docking section). I've modelled the RCS part as separate, so people can choose to put in sane RCS instead. I'll do on up without the next to useless twin outward facing nozzles, but here's the quick mockup of how it looks so far; I can forgive the large block, as a lot of the plumbing and valves may be hidden in there so as to keep the inside clear. But the twin nozzles facing out is plain old daft. Makes you think someone told the draftsman "put two RCS blocks there, no I don't care what they look like". Which, when there's stuff like wiring diagrams in that doc, is a bit lame.

Cool. Somehow I have it activated on my single unit chutes I did for the NAR MEM. I probably copied the wrong code bits. Never really sure if it did anything, which now makes sense.

Strangely, they're only interested in the fuel, not the oxidizer.

Well, it is just a pod machine. And it's better than providing a mini brewery.