low.png.f84f5709cda8b4a895cd48a8676a6bd0.png)
lemon cup
-
Posts
488 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Posts posted by lemon cup
-
-
I’ve been doing some musings on the Orion MPCV lately and thought this might be the best place to get some feedback from the experts. I’m looking for any sort of discussion be it support or counter-points.
At this point in time it seems Orion is being portrayed as a vehicle meant solely for the specific mission architecture of the Artemis program, however for various reasons that have been discussed it is generally understood that Orion is not well optimized for that mission and could be considered underpowered for the task at hand. We know Orion started life as a multi-purpose vehicle (and even carries that as part of it’s name) but unlike the early Ares 1 concept Orion is not currently planned for any LEO missions, when in fact it seems like the vehicle would be highly optimized for this environment, with room to grow.
What is obvious is that SLS would NOT be the launcher to accompany it in this mission. To put it briefly (since it’s been discussed a lot already) SLS has a “weird” distribution of dV, with most of it being in the booster that delivers an upper stage plus payload into a high-energy eccentric parking orbit, where the upper stage is intended to push to TLI. Orion’s mission from there is dictated entirely by what upper stage it flies with, and ranges from “pretty much nothing” to a basic lunar manned mission, as long as the lander and other assets are already in place through other means...
But for LEO Orion could be a winner. With the right launcher it could deliver a crew of six to the ISS or similar future station, and possibly more. Why not the ULA Vulcan, which is already coming out the gates with the intention of being man-rated for the Starliner? The first upside being that a bridge exists between Orion’s manufacturer and ULA (Lockheed) and that this should entail similar suppliers and contractors, as well as possibly hardware and avionics.
Secondly, the bulkhead diameters are nearly identical, and taking the existing SLS Block 1 stage adapter and fitting it atop a Centaur V would be a relatively light bit of engineering. Third, though I slacked on the calculations since neither vehicles have flown yet, a Vulcan/Centaur V should be plenty of dV to put an Orion into LEO where it’s service module could put it into a number of useful orbits.
Another hidden benefit I’ve taken note of is the unique design of the Orion. It’s “stepped-up” profile from the service module to the capsule creates an empty void between the vehicle and the aero shroud. Couldn’t a specially shaped payload be comanifested here? This could also provide a space for external instruments, like a light robotic arm that tucks up to the service module, useful maybe for satellite servicing missions or other stations besides the ISS that aren’t equipped with something like the CanadArm. You’ve also got the stage adapter that could comanifest a small pressurized payload container, whereby Orion could detach, transposition, and dock in the same manner as Apollo.
All I’m saying is, from a drawing board standpoint, Orion seems like a great vehicle to grow and build on for future LEO missions. But, I suspect the reason that isn’t really on the table is political reasons. And the manufacturer/NASA probably doesn’t feel like the cost would be competitive with other commercial options nearing maturity. But on that point I think the capability would justify the added cost.
Thoughts?
-
5 hours ago, ssd21345 said:
ksp 2 delay again, to late 2022 to early 2023, you have plenty of time to dev fft lol
By the time KSP 2 comes out, KSP 1 will already be on nearly the same level with mods like FFT and Parallax right around the corner, and all of the other awesome mods and planet packs available!
-
5 hours ago, dangros said:
I have a question but first, I want to say WOW to this mod. Probably my favorite.
Now, sorry if this was answered, but I didnt see it. Has anyone been able to add a rover to the Kane/Saturn V fairing? Want to do it the most realistic way possible.
Got Kerbal Attachment System? The most realistic approach would involve using the LEM descent stage’s built-in container slots to bring the parts needed to assemble a rover on the surface. This is also the most frustrating approach!
Otherwise I wouldn’t say there’s quite enough room to bring an externally attached rover in the Saturn’s adapter fairing. Perhaps others have succeeded here?
-
Hmm, my truss structure doesn’t disappear, nor have I ever expected it to or seen anything to suggest that it is supposed to.
In all actuality, why should it?
Can you say what video it was that you saw it disappearing like that?
-
Yup. If you design the craft with nearly perfect horizontal symmetry (as in it is not left or right side heavy) and if you have enough pitch authority (center of mass stays slightly forward of center of lift and you have enough control surfaces that can lift the nose with relative ease) you can get very good stability using only pitch trim.
To set pitch trim, turn SAS off and hold Alt while you slew up and down with the S and W keys.
SAS is not perfect, it is a catch-all algorithm that is trying to keep a huge range of rockets and planes stable, with a lot of drawbacks. One of it’s biggest is the input delay. If SAS is holding a particularly nose heavy craft for instance, any input you make will completely dump all SAS controls the moment you hit the key and you’ll pitch down dramatically as a result, even if your only input was a roll command. That’s why it’s usually better to fly aircraft with SAS off, if possible.
-
2 hours ago, benjee10 said:
I suspect if this *is* being caused by a drag issue (which might not be the case) it will be to do with how the drag cube is generated, rather than the drag values of the part itself. I know changes were made to how drag cubes are handled recently, and dynamic drag cubes in particular caused a lot of problems (see the solar array loading issue).
You could also try deleting PartDatabase.cfg from your Kerbal Space Program folder - this is where generated drag cubes are stored. Deleting it will force the game to re-generate all the drag cubes when you next start it. If HabTech has somehow messed with how the drag cubes are generated, the fix may not show up until the game is forced to re-generate them.
Wow! Looks like, to me, the issue is fixed. Doing as you said and copy/pasting the drag cube block from the Solar Truss into the Triple Radiator cfg did the trick...! I tested it by booting the game up and loading my certified tail-hauling aircraft that can pull mach 1 right off the runway. It behaved just like it should have, whereas before without the patched cfg, it would refuse to hit 200m/s until it got very high. I also tested the panel to make sure it behaved properly on the ground retracted, and deployed in orbit.
As far as WHY or HOW this even happened in the first place... that is still a mystery
-
Got it, I had no idea the drag cubes were dynamically generated... I thought they were manually placed somehow in the model. Though if the .cfg has anything to do with drag cube generation, then it might be a dead end, since like I said I removed all drag values from the cfg and still no dice. I’ll be testing that then, thank you!
-
Hey benjee, I know you guys have been busy. Just wanted to touch back on the 1.10.1 drag bug and report my findings. I’ve done some very limited testing on the .cfg portion of the problem (as now it is confirmed that the Triple Radiator is the offender) consisting of stripping out all of the values related to drag and even heat control, basically just leaving enough for the part to load and be placed in game.
Basically there was no change whatsoever leading me to believe that the problem lies with the drag cubes present in the part model. Though I don’t have the software required to change those myself.
Would it be possible to push out a quick update with the drag cubes removed (provided that is indeed the problem) similar to the initial quick-fix on the solar truss. It seems that this bug affects all craft, not just SSTOs and it is simply most noticeable there. But my train of thought is that while not ideal as far as total game balance goes, just about everyone using these parts are sending them up to orbit inside your shuttle or a proper payload fairing, so having working drag models shouldn’t be necessary.
Hope this helps!
-
Digging the new ICPS. Still blown away by the detail on all of the Delta IV parts.
(Here's a list of the other mods pictured to avoid too many off-topic posts like last time lol)
ReDirect for the Orion MPCV
Sobol's SLS Part Pack for the Orion stage adapter
Textures Unlimited and Magpie Mods for the shiny texture on the capsule. -
18 minutes ago, CAPFlyer said:
I'm still tweaking on this but as always I love to get opinions from those here who know better, but in the most recent version of the mod, I've started having issues with instability of the Juno II going through MaxQ. I do use FAR and a 2.5x rescale, so I'm sure it's an interaction with FAR and the mod that is causing the problem, but what happens is that as I get to about 95% of MaxQ I start getting a sudden Alpha change that isn't being commanded and then the control inputs are too slow to properly damp it resulting in a harmonic deviation that quickly breaks the launcher at the Stage interface between the Juno tank and the Juno Command section (the tapered part). I've tried using all 3 MechJeb launch algorithms and GravityTurn and while I can get it to not happen with a very steep launch, that results in a massive overshoot of the initial periapsis and thus early staging and loss of Dv and inability to get orbital insertion because neither guidance will go up through MaxQ then make an aggressive pitch over (which is what it would need to do) and I'm not good enough manually to make it work anywhere close to reliably either.
Any ideas (other than removing FAR)? I don't want to really imbalance anything and I'm hesitant to change the gimbal rates if I can avoid it. I did try auto-strut and manual struts to make the joint more rigid, but this didn't help. I'm more interested in adjustments to either my launch profile or ideas where this sudden Alpha shift is coming from (this happens to *all* Juno II configurations and payload setups through Explorer 8, so I'm pretty sure it's something with the base Juno II, not a probe).
Thanks!
Try engaging the Limit AoA setting in MechJeb ascent guidance, upon first entering MaxQ. Set the value low - between 0.0 and 0.1 - and maintain AoA until you are well out of MaxQ. But before disengaging it, go to the Ascent Path Editor window and adjust the slider to closely match your rocket’s active path, to avoid a dramatic pitch-down as MechJeb tries to resume course. I use Classic Ascent Guidance.
-
Here’s how I would do it. Forget about merging anything.
Fully build your generation ship minus the smaller ships and save it. Then clear the VAB and make your smaller craft. Now here’s the sort of convoluted part, but it’s a breeze when you get the hang of it. You need to make the entire thing a subassembly, complete with the appropriate decoupler (radial or inline depending on how that particular craft needs to mount to the generation ship) serving as the root part.
The way you would do that is finish the smaller craft, then grab the appropriate decoupler and stick it on the craft precisely where it needs to be to successfully deploy from the mothership. Now stick something big and random on that decoupler, like a fuel tank, select the “Reroot” tool, and make that thing the root part. Then grab the decoupler, you’ll see this picks up the whole craft while leaving that thing that you just made the root part seperate.
Make it a Subassembly by clicking the double arrow icon all the way in the top left of the VAB menu, when the filter column pops out hit the green subassembly button, and drag and drop that whole craft into the hashed box there at the bottom.
Finally, clear the VAB again and load your generation ship. Find the “subassembly” you just made and attach it to the generation ship however you see fit. If its got a radial decoupler, you can surface attach that small craft pretty much anywhere you want, and in symmetry too. If it’s an inline decoupler you can still freely put it wherever by placing a radial attach node on the ship first, but you could also attach it to the inside of a Mk.3 cargo bay for example.
-
10 hours ago, Spike88 said:
Where are the parts for this from?
The more noticeable ones are NFLV for that cone shaped cargo bay and Kerbal Foundries for the rover wheels. Other parts are run of the mill stuff from Nertea’s Restock.
-
@golkaidakhaanaOdyssey!
(Not included in the original pics because it doesn't include anything BDB to my knowledge lol)
-
Fascinating, thank you for the insight! Though the more obvious route would of course be for you to simply make a switchable “icy” texture for the upper tank, complete with a nice misty particle effect......
-
1 hour ago, Zorg said:
Nice! Are you using Conformal Decals for the ice on the lox tank?
Yes!
it’s just two enlarged Nuetral Flags slapped on there with the opacity turned down.
Is that really all ice...? I thought it was also some sort of surface treatment
-
Dropping by to pay more respects. Here's some Atlas V 541 in the style of Mars 2020, carrying my Duna Rover Odyssey.
-
4 hours ago, luisitoISS said:
I don't think the patch was installed properly, since a lot of things happened to me far from being able to have the IVA textures,
which even made the whole game crash (fortunately, it was in a backup copy
); But I think I did something wrong, and that's why all this happened.If someone can explain more fully how to transfer the textures from Hab-tech 1 to Hab-tech 2, I will be completely grateful.
PS: I'm new to this field of modding, and I really don't know how to install it. I apologize for those people who may be angry about what is happening to me, and for not installing a simple patch.
So I had to figure this out as well and hopefully I can help you solve the issue:
Download both HabTech1 and Habtech2, and place both folders into your Game Data folder.
Now copy and paste the patch (found in Cheescake's post on the previous page) into a blank Notepad document, and save the file as "something".cfg (name it whatever you want as long as it ends in .cfg). Place this new .cfg file anywhere in your Game Data folder, you can make a separate folder for it if you want, or leave it by itself. Mine is in a folder with other patches that I've made.
Now most HabTech2 parts should be displaying IVAs from HabTech1 in game. To keep the old parts from showing up, you can delete everything in the HabTech1 folder besides "Internals".
-
15 hours ago, Nertea said:
Barring anything critical coming up with the last releases of SystemHeat, SpaceDust and Waterfall, FFT betas will start on Friday.
*realizes my Kerbal career is still very much in the NFT phase of spaceflight*
*panics*
-
51 minutes ago, SmarmyNarwhal said:
There actually is one rocket under that big mess. I've tried designing something with a big fairing that has the probes inside, but I can't figure out any way to lay them end to end with structural stability. I have all the fairings unlocked but it's more of a design issue than anything.
Hi there, not sure about the probe control issue but I might be able to help with the design issue! You can stack all three probes on top of each other inside one fairing with this trick.
Go to your settings menu (the one in the in-game pause menu has this option so no need to revert to main screen if you don’t want to) and turn on “Advanced Tweakables”. This presents many new options on parts’ right click menu.
Remove one of your relay sats in such a way that clicking it’s engine picks up the entire thing (this requires that your vessel’s root part be located below your sats) and leave it to the side in the VAB for now. Now select a good size fairing and place it on top of your vessel, and make it the root part using the “Reroot” tool. Right click the fairing and enable “Interstage Nodes”.
(Note: this may very well necessitate redesigning your launch vehicle as you may find yourself needing less boosters and cores since you will no longer be working in 3x symmetry).Now choose a small decoupler and you’ll see you have lots of attach nodes floating in space above the fairing. Put the decoupler on the lower most node, and then grab the satellite you set aside and put it on the decoupler. Voila! Now duplicate the sat (alt+left click) and continue until you’ve stacked three together, using the remaining floating nodes. For more compact form factor, You can use the Move Tool to slide them downwards until they are nearly touching. Then it’s just a matter of building your fairing and revising the launch vehicle.
Sorry I know this is not exactly the question you asked but I know lots of people don’t know how to do this and it really comes in handy. Who knows it might somehow fix your control problem too
-
I'm wondering if this will affect the current Artemis mission architecture. Now that water has been detected elsewhere other than the Shackleton crater, could other landing sites that are easier to get to be back on the table? I would at least entertain that maybe two weeks of sun and two weeks of shade near the equator might be worth the savings on time, complexity, and dV that the NHRO and polar bases present.
-
7 hours ago, chris-kerbal said:
So i did all sorts of tests and could not get anything to spawn in 1km height. Also no explosions. Awesome job, thank you!
HOWEVER
The SSTO bug is still there. When the mod is installed, my SSTOs won't accelerate above 315m/s (using rapiers). Even worse, after deleting the mod, the issue persisted and I needed to reinstall the game and create a new save. Normally it was enough to delete the mod for it to work again. O_o
I also have this bug in 1.10.1 (though deleting the mod was enough to fix it in my case). It is a very strange bug... I don’t quite understand how HabTech2 can affect the aerodynamics of other parts when HabTech2 does not have any MM patches and all of the parts have their own drag models...
I don’t have any pictures but I’ve flown the same vessel with/without the mod with aero highlights turned on, somehow the drag forces on parts with lifting surfaces become comically massive and the vessel will refuse to pass through Mach 1 even with a TWR of over 6!
-
On 10/20/2020 at 5:34 AM, Gameslinx said:
I have done some optimizations and managed to increase the performance by over 2x!
Note: Getting 60fps here on Duna!
Just saying, if an Alpha Dev build were to perhaps become a thing, I’d be VERY happy to do some testing for you
-
New interview from The Angry Astronaut with the Dynetics HLS Payload Manager:
-
50 minutes ago, Zorg said:
A lot of BDB parts dont have IVAs. Most station parts that do have them such as the Dorian lab use stock IVAs which is why you're not seeing them in the BDB directory.
I just checked the Dorian lab and it looks fine. If you're not getting an IVA with that part perhaps something is wrong with your install (re Squad files).
Ahhh got it. Thank you, I’ll check on that, I’m sure it was something I accidentally pruned with Janitor’s Closet.
it’s just two enlarged Nuetral Flags slapped on there with the opacity turned down. 
); But I think I did something wrong, and that's why all this happened.
[New] Space Launch System / Orion Discussion Thread
in Science & Spaceflight
Posted
Much heavier than I remember. So the best way to justify that much mass in an LEO crew vehicle would be with a reusable booster like New Glenn. That is an even more exciting prospect to me, but the question is, is that remotely likely given the state of the industry?