Jestersage

For testing purpose, I am making two otherwise identical spider walker that can be stowed. First operation is to get it stand up from stowage position to unfolded (extended) position. What is weird is that the 4 legged version can unfold no problem. However, the 6-leg version -- after the legs are unfolded -- collapse -- just splayed outward. And yes, I removed the middle legs for testign. Smooth sailing. Each leg is composed of 3 G-11 hinges, with M-650 I beam as legs. 2 G-11 formed the hips, and 1 G-11 act as knees. Not sure what caused the problem. Can someone provide an answer? EDIT: Pastebin for the 4L: https://hastebin.com/dezucaqoyi.nginx Pastebin for the 6L: https://hastebin.com/duruloviga.nginx Found an answer: out of battery.

Addition: For #2, you will either need a free rotate bearing so the torque forces does not transfer to the fuselage, or a rotor that spin in the opposite direction. For first method, you can go end to end; for second method (which generate greater total lift for propellers), you will need a base, with one motor mounted node-node on the base and one radially attached and then offset so it's inline.

So far I have this confirm: - Large hinges are more stable - Whether the G12 hinge is equivalent to M25 for stability is a different matter

In short, "damping" is basically the Plumbus of KSP? It suppose to do something but what it actually does no one really knows.

Okay, what does Damping actually do? On one of my recent experiment/build, I found having no damaping remove the flopiness?!

For some reason, the servos does not turn if they are attached at the ends to the base's nodes -- and that's just in VAB/SPH! EDIT: For the Smallest servo and the "Flat" servo Is it just my game, or a known bug?

The one I am looking at is CaptKordite's Lunokhod

Thanks. You and Raptor9's crafts are actually what inspired me. As noted, I have updated my Saturn-V Clone "Ananas YiX + MEM + Fogin SiCC" into one that use BG. Aside from use of motor to lower the Rover, I also add the BG experiments onto two containers. Due to the flopiness and instability of the transposition-docking, I also ended up mounting the CSM differently, and have a 5N Reaction wheel for stability. This have a side benefit of allowing the usage of 3rd stage for the impactor experiment. I kept it 5N for release, but if one want to, replace it with more powerful reaction wheels for better control before lithobraking the 3rd stage onto Munar surface.

He uploaded it here: https://kerbalx.com/jmark1213/Bipedal-Heavy-Mech-Sprinter

Yes, turned on rigid attachment on them. That being said, I still want to find out whether there's a difference between sevro and hinges. From "butt dynamos" (ie by visual), I feel the floppiness is about the same for heavy stuff? not sure. What pique my interest is that some people used servos at place where hinges is sufficicent.

So after getting some opinion from some people, I decide to just straight depreciate old craft, and update existing craft without an option for the old mechanism. As of now, both "Munfeelsor" and "Test Station" have the BG-mechanics installed and update pushed. My Saturn-V clone (Ananas + LEM) alreayd have BG modified, just had not updated due to posters. It is likely my Horizontal-type Altair (Herguer ErX) will be modified to have a true ATHLETE system, or at least enough so it can deploy the wheels. However, it will take a while, so for those that do not want to get Breaking Ground, you may want to download them before I update them.

Thank you. This has helped me a lot regarding my own crafts too. I would say it's a slight shame (since I am proud of my ability to mount the LRV within the descent stage pre-BG), but they are not as accurate regardless. As for the ATM deployable, I managed to start with a pseudo version with double hinge. Single hinge have a minor issue, in that when you mount the G-12 hinge on the side (as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Telescope_Mount#/media/File:Deployment_of_Apollo_Telescope_Mount.jpg), the supporting beams can stuck out of the payload shroud on 4 diagonals if I used absolute positioning. However, it should be doable for your build style. EDIT: I managed to update my own version with a single hinge at the expense of part count. Looks good enough for me, but this shows if you want to and have skill (which you do), you can make it very close in terms of looks.

Right now, I have tried both, and I notice the radial+on-node contra-motors is more powerful than the powered+freewheel motor. Is it due to one is actively spinning and another is not?

In terms of floppiness, is servo better than hinges for not flopping around?

Okay, let me be a bit more precise: using breaking ground, we can extend parts within the appearance of a shroud/payload bay. However, does that actually chaneg the drag or not?

Thanks.

Why I had asked about whether sweep wings affect drag (only if you flip it upward so it does not produce lift), what about the other way around -- say, hiding wheels or legs?

well yeah -- the actual Saturn V replica in KSP can go all the way to Eeloo apparently... Even in RL, there are 4 types of lunar landing: Direct ascent - require really large rocket Earth rendezvous - What is proposed with Initial Constellation, where the Orion Capsule would rendezvous with the Altair on Earth, and use the EUS to head to the Moon Mixed Lunar rendezvous - what is used in Saturn V. True Lunar rendezvous -- what is proposed for 2024 Lunar missions/Lunar Gateway And since Kerbal is so much smaller, you can do it all with just 2.5m mission EDIT: In theory, both method 2 and 4 can even be done with Falcon heavy/Delta Heavy

Uh... elaborate? Still have not figure out this setting.

Yours are definitely quite nicely build.

What he meant is that you So in "Kerbal Space program" folder, there is a folder. that contains the numerous "saves" you have started. Now while there are ways so that you can get the new features in the old save game, considering you are confused by the "savegame", and even saying "savegame is not saving a game", it means editing will likely mess up your the savefile, and instead recommend you to just start a new save. (You basically have to do some coding)

Isn't that what they were planning to use for lunar gateway?

How do I enable sets?

So how does that RW-prop works? Do you just mount the RW onto motor and then mount the fins?

So I am updating my Apollo-Saturn V clone, and after create a subassembly of the new MEM, I removed the MEM from the "Ananas YiX Munar + Fogin SiCC" and drop in the new MEM. Problem is that while the old stack doesn't flop around, the new stack does (specifically, the CSM flop around the top shroud that function as LM-adapter). As far as I recall, I did not change any auto struct settings for those unrelated to the MEM. I also ensure the top port and the terrier (the top and bottom attackment nodes of MEM) are autostrut to heavy, Would someone please give me pointer as to why the CSM seems to flop through the top shroud? EDIT: Okay, guess it's MEM itself -- something that cause it flopping around, but it was fine before I put the BG robotics for the rover deployment.... EDIT2: yes, temporary stop gap solution is to use interstag node for the shrouds and put a TS-decoupler. However, in the earlier version I can do it without such contraption.