EpicSpaceTroll139

1: Maybe some kind of compressor bleed air RCS would be the alternative control system? Anyways, when I get back from class, I can show you a way to set up boost flaps so you don't need action groups to control them. Even SAS can use them. 3: I would definitely appreciate faster spool times. Would probably be more likely to use Junos on my Helis if they spooled up realistically. 4. As much as I'd like realistic exhaust flow, I'd say to be careful what you ask for. I can't see much fun coming from spending a few hours optimizing a 300 part turbine with each blade care fully shaped from 12 thermometers. Would it actually get greater efficiency though? Would be interesting to do some experiments to try to determine exactly how much energy we get from the exhaust and compare it to the engine's expected output. 5. Might want to stick to the ALT, considering the other two mess with the throttle.

I usually put RCS on vehicles I plan to dock regularly, for the simple reason that it makes things easier. For craft that I do not plan to dock regularly, or which need to be absolutely as light as possible (eg grand tour ships), I'll leave RCS out. I can and have docked numerous times without it.

I tried to test the max payload capacity of my E-24C. Unfortunately if the load isn't perfectly centered, this happens.

I got my shuttle to glide reasonably well with a 50 ton payload in the cargo bay. Would have landed it if I hadn't somehow managed to forget to attach the main gear again after messing with the wings. So it went in the drink. No pics. Also I'm trying to send an offering to the dead Kraken on Bop. I brought its favorite snack! Fresh*, toasty, RTGs! Unfortunately I underestimated the delta v required to maneuver** around Bop (probably the first time anyone's managed to do that), and so I only just managed to crash-land at 27m/s nearish to the Kraken (funny note: the steel plate for the RTGs saved me). Now I'm slowly hopping my way across the hilly surface towards the Kraken using the reaction wheels. I hope the great one will overlook the damage to the squiddy lander's looks in light of the effort I'm taking to get there. *Well, as fresh as you can expect out at Jool. **If I had known from the get go exactly where the Kraken was, I probably could have pulled it off. Ended up doing two fairly expensive plane change maneuvers to get to the area due to an unclear map.

On most of my crewed craft that are active in docking maneuvers, the command pod is the only thing with monopropellant in it. I'm quite efficient at docking, so I almost never need more. Sometimes I even drain 1/2 of the tank before going on the mission, as I commonly use something like 2-3 units of monopropellant per docking maneuver (of course it depends on the size of the craft), and anything more than that + safety margin, is dead weight. Of course things like stations and motherships can have more, as they will top off the tanks of visiting craft.

Did a glide test for a prototype shuttle. Worked flawlessly first try. Now to do the test again with a 50 ton payload and see what happens. I think for this next test I won't risk a pilot. Also done some work on my Apollo replica: Debating with myself over whether to actually fill the tube with fuel tanks, or save people's computers and just hack extra fuel into a single fuel tank. Either way I plan to make the tank bulkheads using fairings, so no need to worry about the stages looking like giant hollow tubes. Edit: Shuttle has a minor problem. With payload it becomes a lawn dart. Which is a problem if I want to do the STS challenges.

Nice work. I like it! I wonder if you could disguise that upper Vernors bearing (that is what it is right?) inside a radome. Very cool!

Not arguing whether or not squad should add clouds, but really, that is a non-issue. KSP directory --> GameData --> Squad --> search "clouds" ---> *delete* (or cut and paste it somewhere outside the game if you don't like deleting things) If you think your average player couldn't figure it out, put instructions in-game. Again, not arguing whether Squad should add clouds, just pointing out that the game loading thing isn't really a problem.

This is amazing Gives me a bit of inspiration to get back into replicas myself.

Might have to set up a jet of mine with BD armory. It will probably take a while to get the autopilot playing nice, as a lot of my non-replica fighter jets sit at the knife edge between stable and unstable.

@Azimech @qzgy Ok, so here's a couple pictures of what I've done with it. I made the changes I mentioned earlier, moving the top bearing so it is just above the plane of the rotor, and re-positioning the solar panels to hug the spindle of the antennas instead of the bulbs. The antenna you see just above the turbine is attached to one of those mk0 tanks, and acts as a low friction retention pin for the rotor. Like Azimech, I adjusted the blowers to blow near the outer edges of the turbine blades. Didn't do a perfect job, but that can be fixed later. After those adjustments it seemed to be flying ok, but the rotor seemed to have some kind of strange resonance mode where it the blades would flex onto a different plane, wobbling around like a top with the degree of the tilt increasing slowly until it hit the tailboom and then, well, you can imagine what happened then. I bent the blade tips down to try to help deal with another problem, that of dealing with asymmetric lift at speed, and that apparently had a side effect of dampening out that resonance mode. I still wasn't able to fix the control problems at speed though. At speeds above 25-30m/s, the asymmetric lift causes the thing to roll to the right and go into a downward spiral, and it is nearly impossible to get out of it. I'll have to check out Azimech's version.

@Azimech I also had problems with the bearing right out of the box. I did some adjustments of the bearing system, and it became much more reliable.I'll post a picture of the modifications I made to it when I get back from class. Your bearings probably are stronger, but the Mil out of the box does not currently represent what solar panel bearings can do. I was just thinking that I've been meaning to do scientific comparison between one of your engines and one of mine. Would be interesting to see what things each can do better than the other. Might be hard to find a frame equally compatible with both systems. Or it might not, who knows .

Ok I checked it out and I would suggest putting a couple Junos on the tail thrusting towards the right. While that vernor system can kind of deal with the torque from the main rotor, it isn't going to last too long given the their ISP, and leave it much easier to turn one way than the other. While I think having more than 3 rotor blades is perfectly reasonable, I would definitely not suggest having two rotors clipped inside eachother with each blade individually attached to the hub. That's a recipe for: I'll do some testing, but I think you can ditch one of the clipped rotors and let the rotor spin at much higher rpm. As Azimech said, rotors tend to be more efficient at high spin rates. Oh, and I'd also suggest resetting the cockpit as the root, otherwise you get an odd control point. Nice work though! Edit: @qzgy I would suggest changing your bearing a bit. The solar panel bearings tend to work best when one bearing is at or below the plane of the turbine (you're good for this one), and the other is at or above the plane of the rotor (this one I highly recommend changing).The bearings also probably work better if the solar panel disks are situated around the middle of the spindly bit of the antennas, instead of around the bulb, but more importantly, they should not rub against the turbine wheel, as that will cause friction losses, and possibly make it more likely to break. I'll get some pictures. I modified the rotor system by removing the extra clipped rotor, re-positioned the bearings (well actually just the top one, I only moved the solar panels a little on the lower one), and added an antenna as a low-friction rotor retention system. It works much more reliably and is easier to control. Not easy to control mind you, but easier.

Pictures might help to get a diagnosis faster around here, but I'll check out the craft in a few mins. How much reaction wheel torque do you have? I usually have something on the order of 4 large reaction wheels or more for even my E-18 medium single rotor line.

Actually, it's not directly due to Kerbin being small, but it is related. In stock KSP, plasma effects appear at a speed somewhat slower than in real life, as if they were implemented realistically, we wouldn't see them as much due to the relatively low orbital speeds around the small Kerbin. Ok looks like Jouni said most of what I was saying here. Also: "no drag losses" If you fly in an atmosphere, you will have drag losses, especially with pre 1.1(?) souposphere. Even with newer atmo though, that ascent seemed pretty shallow. The angle you're at at 6km is what I'm at at 10km. Note that I've been launching rockets since version 0.14, so I've gotten a good idea of what works and what doesn't. I do In fact get plasma on some of my launches, but usually I'm at 20+ km, and it is neither substantial, nor does it last very long.

Been working on long range helicopter designs to use in the KSP weekly challenge, as my regular helis only have a range of perhaps around 450km at most, much short of the something like 1900km required to get to the opposite side of Kerbin. First design was something I have currently named the "E-19 Longbow." The idea is that for liftoff, it has the rotor lift it, while a forward facing jet on the port side provides antitorque. Then, once a decent amount of altitude has been gained, the turboshaft motor is shutdown and a forward facing jet on the starboard side is powered up, resulting in forward thrust without torque. Then I switch to the rotor and toggle deflection on the rotor blades, giving symmetrical lift distribution over the rotor, so I can fly the thing like a plane. Currently I'm having control problems before a during the transition, so if I use this I'll need to work on that. Also trying a version of my E-24 with some wings added at about 5 degrees angle of attack. The lift provided allows rotor power to be reduced to about 30%, greatly reducing fuel consumption, however at the cost of some airspeed due to their drag. Trying to find a good balance. Will need a fair amount of extra fuel to make it to the other side of the planet tho. Might make a version with actual Mk3 cargo bays for lower drag. Anyways, that's all I've got for today. Gonna be working the rest of the day.

@Majorjim! Hmmm... Well for the inside of the nozzel it's either this: Or this: If it weren't for the black struts on the radiators, it would be a clear-cut choice, but... ugh... I'll try covering over the orange line, and see what I think.

Built the LES tower for my Apollo replica. Shortly afterwards I realized I had screwed myself over in doing this. Like the LM, it has a lot of careful strut-work that will blow up if the assembly is moved or the undo button is hit. I can deal with not hitting the undo button, as I already have to avoid it due to the LM being there. The problem comes in that I can't move it. As the CSM is sandwiched between the LES tower and the LM, I can't modify the stacking in that part of the craft without destroying the strut-work on one of them. Oops. Chadlong Kerman flew an Eagle through a hanger with a blindfold on. After blowing up a large bit of a flying wing at high altitude, I managed to softland in a manner similar to those spinny seeds from some trees. I imagine everyone was quite dizzy afterwards.

That actually works nicely. Might have to adopt it on the J-2 and F-1 engines. Even if it does add to the part count and has some strutty things on the inside, it looks a lot better than having a terrier visibly sitting in the middle of the engine bell. On a side note, I discovered that the mainsail's model is a little bit crooked. (Note, I have not offset it. It just starts like that.)

That would be even smaller than the mainsail... If you're referring to the big 3.75m engine, it has a giant tankbutt that sticks out the sides of the service module. hmmm

Currently trying to decide between a wrong looking SPS and a bad looking SPS. (Wrong looking one) (Accurately shaped but bad looking one which has a terrier sitting in the middle of the bell) Any suggestions? I'm remembering that this kind of thing is why I kept putting off working on this thing.

Currently it's at 365 parts. 80% of that is in the LM. I'm working on reducing its part count.

Been working on my Apollo moon mission replica again. The CSM now has crew capacity, the umbilical, and the antenna. Thinking I might do a custom service module engine. It doesn't look right with all the mainsail turbomachinery components sticking out at the base. I need to do some meddling in the craft file to set up the fairing around the LM. The in-game tool is kind of finicky with this kind of thing. After that I'll do tests flying this thing to the Mun and back from LKO, then I've got to do the S-IC and S-II stages, and the the launch escape system. Then more testing, and then it will finally be done. Might try to do some part count reduction on the LM again. If I can get it low enough I might add ALSEPs and a LRV.

Happy Birthday mate! Not exactly sure how I didn't come across this earlier. This is awesome! I love how you were able to fit an ALSEP and a rover into that little descent stage. Gives me more confidence that I could do something similar on my own LM, though I probably shouldn't given that the part count of the LM is probably akin to that of the upper half of your Saturn V.

I'd have to look wayyyy back to try and find some screenshots of one of my really big interplanetary vessels. I remember a massive one I made on a KMP server only for it to be attacked by the Kraken during its Vall insertion burn, disintegrating into hundreds of pieces. Recently I've been working on some modifications to a vehicle originally designed for going between Kerbin's moons, the Knewton IMV. This is it in the Knewton IPV form. It has reasonable room for 2 Kerbals and associated life support in the forward crew section, placed a reasonable distance away from the fuel storage, so if there is a leak they won't be in immediate danger. Another reason for the large beam of the vessel is so that, once on the interplanetary trajectory, it can be set rotating at about 8.6rpm with the drive section acting as the counterweight, generating 1g of artificial gravity to help the intrepid voyagers keep those strong bones. The fuel tanks surrounding the reactor provide shielding to allow Kerbalnauts to go on EVA and pilot landers nearby without worry. In the event of a solar flare, the drive section can be pointed sun-wards and the Kerbals can take shelter in the hub closest to the drive section, and take advantage of the fuel around them as shielding. There are radiators and backup power solar panels which can also dump a little bit of heat from the back face. Finally there are 3 standard androgynous docking ports available.