Budgie
-
Posts
463 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Everything posted by Budgie
-
Im a fan! Will there be expansion modules?
-
Even the guys at the Nasa Spaceflight forums don't seem to know yet, from the cursory peek I took into their site. We'll find out soon enough why, I suspect Just to confirm again, the Launch Vehicle Stage Adapter (LVSA) is going to be insulated with foam as well, for whatever reason, as per the NASA.gov website
-
Just because it hasn't been mentioned on this thread yet, orange tank confirmed in a NASA SLS rendering. Very pretty striped boosters too. To confirm, Maccollo, you're not doing the Block I, are you?
-
KerikBalm is right. It's not that each organisation thinks the other is a waste of money, as stated earlier. Each organisation just deals with completely different things. the USAF, as a military organisation, might pay for exploration stuff, but only if a real tactical advantage could be produced from the results. Until we're fighting a war with Mars, the AF will not spend a penny to research it. Best to keep them separate, though I do understand the appeal of having air force funding behind NASA's goals.
-
A real shame There are indeed Altairs out there, but I don't think I've seen one in an aesthetic that matches yours. Not too into the MEV, kinda looks silly to me. Just my opinion though! Im sure, should you release it, I could find use for the parts -
Anything can be rocket fuel, if you try hard enough?
Budgie replied to Dman979's topic in Science & Spaceflight
The joke at my university rocket group, when anyone asks about fuel, is that you can indeed make a rocket out of anything (sausages and snakes are always cited), but you won't necessarily get the required thrust levels, as stated above me, to fly anything worth flying -
Thanks, NK! This is exactly what I was looking for. Makes sense it'd come from a proponent of RO
-
Thanks all! This is all valuable knowledge. Marked as "Answered". I've played a bit of RO and saw that the upper stage engines are efficient, but have a TWR < 1 sometimes. Perhaps this would explain my assumption. I'd argue, for the point of arguing, that the Space Shuttle was a very unique rocket and shouldn't be pointed at to show what's normal.
-
No testers yet! But I'll certainly keep you in mind if we do need it down the line. I know I can't do it all myself. Thanks, Spock. Thats fine, whenever you have time!
-
As I understand it, real-world rockets do not burn until the Ap is at the desired altitude, then circularise the orbit, as we do in KSP. This would require multiple restarts of complex engines that may not be built to be ignited more than once. They continually burn from the ground into orbit, and once in orbit, they use engines capable of multiple restarts to put themselves into the required orbit for their payload. How is this done in KSP, ensuring that the orbit I inject myself into is clean and circular?
-
See my first reply to this OP. Also this link http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/sts115/launch/qa-leinbach.html
-
I believe those sparks are to ignite any hydrogen that builds up inside the nozzle of the engine. If the Shuttle were to start with that extra hydrogen gas inside the bell of the nozzle, the result would be rather more explosive than expected. Other rockets sometimes use a small piece of solid rocket fuel that is ignited with an electric match or other electricity-powered means
-
I'm glad the great Chaka himself opined on my question. I'm going to stick with the NOS, like I said, for commonality in all lander stages, and those excellent snack storage boxes! More pictures! Please note on the last picture, the weird error with the suit-rack prop floating a distance away from the craft is still around. This was a recently-downloaded instance of CMES I'm particularly proud of that light post for the landing site, made out of parts brought in containers with KAS/KIS. Makes the Landing site look used and busy!
-
I think so. I think the scope of ours is bigger anyway. As I understand it, DECQ is doing only Apollo things?
-
What's the current difference between the NOS and Altair lander bodies? Personally I like the NOS model much better, and I think in this current CMES save, I'll be using it exclusively unless there's a real drawback to its use.
-
What museum is this? It seems so full of aerospace history that I want to plan a trip there!
-
Somewhere there's a procedural fairings add-on that lets you retexture them with Tantares-based textures. Look on the OP of this thread for it, maybe?
-
-
-
My personal preference is a shorter docking hab area just behind the main white hab. It currently looks really long. But other than that, it looks great!
-
I'll give it a go! Yea, for sure. But KSP physics and towing don't play nice. At faster speeds and any kind of turning, the towed object begins to flip or not turn. And when braking, all sorts of crashes and bad things happen
-
That's ideally the plan, I hope. Next time Mike sends me an update on his modelling, I'll play with it and FASA and give him some feedback on how to integrate the two. Modelling comes when Mike has time, so I apologise if images have been few and far between!
-
That looks like AIES to me. Its on CKAN, and somewhere on the release forum
-
In my opinion, I don't use IVA. I might be missing something, but is there a version without the IVA included? But that's just me...
-
Mike, please empty your inbox if you have a chance. Thanks! Also, to be on topic, I think any removal of bloat is a good thing. If you have a chance, of course, I'd be someone who would appreciate making the SSP more space-efficient.