Jestersage

Is there an option to not have "remove from symmetry" button during flight, even assuming someone have enabled advanced tweakables? The reason i am asking is because of BG design, where I use two servos for rotation, and plan to share the craft. As they are connected with struts to a center point, I want to do as much as I can do to prevent others from summoning the kraken. I actually ran a test where the lack of symmetry only prevent it from rotating to the full degree, but had not tried to attempt it with mismatch target angle, shift PoV to somewhere else, and then either shift back to the in-orbit craft or load it from that savepoint.

1) So basically the top node corresponde to another 1.8m tank? or just a 1.2m? 2) I resent the "useless" aspect, in that the KV-3 is a very compact way to stuff 3 kerbalnauts in tight space, which is helpful when one (ie. me) put a constrain as to what the maximum size a craft should be (I really dislike using the 3.75m for the dragon capsule, since 3.75m is used to represent 6 to 8m IRL tanks -- way bigger than Falcon/Dragon's diameter)

How about updating the rest of Vanilla engines?

Oh come on, the Soyuz is beautiful. Especially its inside -- very roomy!

For both builders and downloaders: When do you say there are too much Aesthetic parts (eg "Rockomax Adaptor 02"), and when do you consider more work need to be done to make it look good? One of the reason I even start to build my own stuff is that many of the replicas require more CPU processing power due to the high part counts, but I noticed that as time goes on, I started to add more and more parts that exist solely for looks. Furthermore, many aesthetic parts does affect the Delta-V/TRW/Cost of a craft (eg Structural panels)

https://kerbalx.com/Raptor9/ER-4-Mustang

Thanks for the info. It is always better to grab info from the native language. Thanks for the translation. And this make sense, seeing that it is a follow up on the L3M lander, which itself is a 3 man version of LK-1 The only reason why I am wondering if it's actually airlock (instead of automatically assuming the side circle thing is one) is due to knowing the Vulkan version is have at least 2 compartment (just like L3M): The ascent cockpit, which in the case of Vulkan LEK is heatshielded; and the descent use cockpit, which is why it have 2 window niche, so the descent pilot can look down. Due to the paper-project nature and dual compartment layout, it is possible for the descent cockpit to act as an airlock while the inner sphere stay pressurized, but it just as well as a shirt-sleeve habitat - especially for the Energia version, which does not have a base component and thus require to carry its own habitat The "window niche being indication of descent cockpit" can also be seen in the Lockheed Martin 2024 lander (both proposal), except it has one square niche. EDiT: Yes, it's possible - one of kerbiloid 's example actually compared LK lander's "instrument compartment" with the circular thing, and some consider them identical. All in all, it's speculation.

That I believe is unlikely. It's designed to use with the Vulkan launched LEK Habitat complex. It may be adapt to one when they repurposed it for the Energia LEK lander.

Yeah, number 4. According to http://nickd.freehostia.com/OrbiterVault/img/lek26.jpg (which is a render), they are the only one then label it "lunokhod" Not sure whether that's true or not. But if that is an antenna, it is HUGE.

So I am researching for Energia LEK lander, and noticeed that big round circular thing on the side. Problem is there are no description about what that thing is, and according to http://nickd.freehostia.com/OrbiterVault/lek.html, it's a container for rover. So based on what everyone know and guess, what do you believe it is? Is it really a cargo pod/rover container, or is it airlock? Or somethign else?

So after some tinkering and testing, I have released my first Munar/Minmus base module, the "M-Exploration Komplex" Seeing that I do not have a Munar base or ISRU module, I hope this will make my munar exploration a bit more useful. So for those looking at this, you may say it's not really based in a real-life project. Well, it sort of does -- it was actually based on the Soviet's LEK (Lunar Expedition complex), with input of an evolution from a LESA design that I have. The "oxygen collection" sold me well for such purpose.

Nice. Still, as stated in KerbalX, I have a feeling that this comes about because N1 chew up CPU and RAM too much.

uh.... On the other hand, the situation also apply to servos. You know what, I will just assume they are field motors held in place by electromagnetic force for fast movement and ease of adjustability in specs, with the caviet that when battery ran out the EM field is gone, thus causing them to just freely rotate. The "solution" that the Kerbals ended up applying is a manual controlled "lock" on their robotic parts.

Really? no Reaction wheel = 3 ton? No, that is just poor advice. "Reaction wheel only" is, quite frankly, the worst answer one can give, considering one of the master craft builder, Raptor9, did it entirely with a similar setup (also 20 something ton with only 4 RCS quads) And I had made an Apollo LEM with asymaterical CoM and it works fine, and that was a 5 ton lander. And you can always add RCS thrusters, 1 set on top, and 1 set on bottom; Reaction wheel is benefical for low-part count build, but it is not the only solution. I figure it out afterward by comparing the values in the torque. The answer is, for the amount of altitude adjustment, you want more torque in RCS BuildAid.

For secrecy purpose I will not show the picture yet until it is good. However, it will be the typical Altair/Apollo type, with a descent stafe at the bottom. Unlike Apollo/Altair type, there is no ascent stage (it is more of a base) Due to Mun use, parachute solution is not applicable regarding RCS and Reaction wheel: I am trying to minimize the usage of Reaction wheel if possible. Hence, "Short of ... reaction wheel" in the original post. It has more than enough delta-V, as I typically do. So what I need to know is: What does the RCS build aid means in terms of thrust and torque? Is it better to have higher torque? Lower torque? Higher Thrust? lower thrust? Assume a spherical/cubical lander, with RCS as a ring around the CoM. Does shifting the RCS outward help or not? Instead of RW, what is the rule of thumb for no/minimal RW builds? As stated, currently it only have a set of 4 quads around the equator/CoM of the entire lander. [snip]

Please delete

Thanks. Also, how do you decide to which two craft to pack at the same time, eg LV-1U + LV-1H combo?

You and CoyoteFoxtrox... Did you guys got some Xeon Server? Anyway, good job for Vanilla builds

One thing I learn about the BG is that, if somehow your craft suddenly collapse on the leg, do not assume it's because you are using weak motor or weak structures. Instead, check to see if your craft run out of electricity. However, shouldn't it make more sense that, if a craft run out of electricity, the joints just doesn't move and get locked up, as what happens in real-life?

Hey Raptor, I noticed you removed the 6x Sr Port node. Instead of asking you to repost, would you confirm if that node would have allowed Kerbals to be placed within?

So I am looking at making an RTG enerator, and notice that it does generate heat So the best info I found is https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/126334-rtg-heat-management/ Now at 1.7, assuming I am using 9 RTG (for reasons, okay?), do I need thermal management?

Aside from drag (and maybe related), I do find that if your motor cannot overcome either the drag or torque, it falls. I was experimenting a motor that originally have the midsize propeller. switch it to the largest prop and suddenly it didn't work on the same standard-size motor, and thus require me to switch to the larger motor.

Second question: Based on everyone's observation, when should one use a G-32W hinge, and when should one use G-11 hinge?

Nice! Related to this is the Shuttle-C, which is suppose to use End-of-life space Shuttle hardware, with one proposal even involved converting the Columbia or Enterprise into a single-use cargo launcher. They would have gutted or even remove the front cockpit, leaving only a fairing. In fact, my version is called Orbiter Station-C because it is my imagining of the concept using Shuttle-C. If you actually trace the history of US Space Station design, most of them actually started out a Wet Workshop concept, such as Skylab, this Shuttle derived station, the Shuttle External Tank Station, and even LOP-G started out as "Skylab-II", a proposal by marshal Space Center to use a spent upper stage of SLS for moon. In comparison, Soviet concept for Almaz and then Salyut is "from scratch" (the core modules) or conversion of TKS, both of which had life support from the get-go. ADDITIONAL. I think the reason is because USA grasped the LH2 rocket earlier than soviets - the N-1 have no LH2 stages, and it's only during Vulkan/Energia do they have LH2 rocket stage.

If you do not midn modded solution, add Kerbal engineer Redux: https://github.com/jrbudda/KerbalEngineer/releases