Jump to content

Mister Dilsby

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    295

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Mister Dilsby

  1. Mister Dilsby
    Actually that's old information--we're not using that one any more. In any case the old Tylo X-whatever was single stage. This is because an important design requirement is that to be able to visit each moon more than once, or multiple moons with the same craft in case a rescue is in order. The current (and i believe final) Tylo lander is the 80 ton Quadhammer, which will also serve for Vall and can probably land/SSTO pretty much any moon or world in the Kerbol system except for Eve and Kerbin.
  2. Mister Dilsby
    Thanks Jim! He keeps saying he's going to do more, but then he gets these ambitious plans like building an enormous carrier ship or doing an Eve rescue, which he carries along for a while and then starts over again. Wonder where he gets that? This morning before school he was trying out the K&K Base stuff I installed for the Intrepid, I'll see if I can nudge him to make some more comic
  3. Mister Dilsby
    Oh. So Thompberry is the Kraken now. That will end well And no crew in that prototype, right?
  4. Mister Dilsby
    Hmm, so topside, above the space doors on B pod? (ETA or do you mean on the forward surface, across the front of the space doors?) I put it where I did (top of forward Q pod) so that returning spacecraft would see the name and hull number of their "home" on the way into the hangar. (ETA They would indeed also see it across the doors--will try it out and see which I like better )
  5. Mister Dilsby
    I hope I don't disappoint! Update: @Angel-125's stuff works PERFECTLY, and #shouldbestock. Thank you! Also, played with the decals and they... are... AWESOME! I might still make a couple more, maybe put a commissioning plaque somewhere on the bridge... Thanks! Yeah, I love that they made it hollow. It's like part clipping, but without the guilt! Ohhh no, there's enough mortal danger on this trip as it is thank you. And I'm impatient to launch! Also it looks like I might end up needing something near the size of the M7 to lift a kerbal from that altitude, which I can't carry inside the Intrepid so fuggedaboudit
  6. Mister Dilsby
    Some more details on the AG map: AG4 toggles the Intrepid's ventral vernor engines as well as Quadhammer's mains (which will be pointing down, out of the open Q-pod)The idea is that those together constitute the ship's belly landing system. Will it work? We'll find out at the Minmus Flats! AG1 is for "lander only" actions. Those all interfere with each other, which is OK so long as none of them get triggered while any craft are docked to Intrepid or each other. Intrepid will have a light somewhere on the bridge tied to AG9 and AG0. (the master RCS arm/disarm) That way Dilsby (and I) will have a visual indication that all crafts' RCS are off before anyone triggers maneuvering. Will have to remember to hit AG0 as a matter of routine whenever a ship docs, as its RCS will be active at that time. I ran out of groups before I reserved one for the Intrepid's landing gear toggle! I might just do those manually, since landing the ship should be pretty rare, or I'll just tie it to the same group as the brakes. Did not show the Scansat because it looks exactly like every other scansat. I'll probably carry only 3 or 4 of them, and do Bop and/or Pol with the ship itself. Still experimenting with the Joolbuster, and may end up dropping it in favor of a sacrificial lower atmosphere probe. Next I think I'll concentrate on cosmetics--getting @Angel-125's outstanding mod installed and working, designing all my cool decals, and possibly... POSSIBLY... finally making a proper set of Kerbfleet uniforms
  7. Mister Dilsby
    Thank you, and thank you Kernel Mitch! I haven't had time to play with this yet but I certainly will. Right now am working on a neat little utility probe for Bill's next update
  8. Mister Dilsby
    Thanks, I'll try it out--I've been trying to write "intrepid" on the sides using OX-STAT panels, which doesn't look as nice Wow! Thanks, that looks perfect--can't wait to try it! Wild Blue to the rescue!
  9. Mister Dilsby
    Working on a little something called a spacecraft carrier and have what I think is a nice solution for carrying a Mk2 spaceplane internally. Asking for some help from the mod community for how to make deploying the doors a little more easily. Here's the carrier with the "space doors" for the internal hangar midway through the 'opening' operation... The doors are six stock CRG-25 short Mk3 cargo bays. To "close" them I set the Deploy Limit to 50, and to open them I set it to 100. In the picture, all the doors are "closed" except for the center lower one which has been set to 100 and is "open" And here they are opened, (deploy limit = 100) with my spaceplane backing into the hangar deck: ...and a portion of the config file for that door: MODULE { name = ModuleCargoBay DeployModuleIndex = 0 closedPosition = 1 lookupRadius = 1.5 nodeOuterForeID = top nodeOuterAftID = bottom nodeInnerForeID = top2 nodeInnerAftID = bottom2 So what I'm wondering is this: can I change closedPostion or one of the other parameters such that when I trigger the "Close Door" action it goes to the 50% deployed position? This would allow me to use Action Groups to toggle the doors to the open and "closed" positions as i have defined them. I already tried setting closedPosition = 0 and that didn't seem to do anything. Will be grateful for any help, thanks!
  10. Mister Dilsby
    So hey, regarding space doors--I think I might have found a way to get them to do what I want but I need some advice. Here's a shot of the doors midway through the 'opening' operation. The doors are six stock CRG-25 short Mk3 cargo bays. To "close" them I set the Deploy Limit to 50, and to open them I set it to 100. In the picture, all the doors are "closed" except for the center lower one which has been set to 100 and is "open" And to explain why I want them to open and close this way for anyone new to the thread here's my Mk2 spaceplane backing into the hangar deck: Here's a portion of the config file for that door: MODULE { name = ModuleCargoBay DeployModuleIndex = 0 closedPosition = 1 lookupRadius = 1.5 nodeOuterForeID = top nodeOuterAftID = bottom nodeInnerForeID = top2 nodeInnerAftID = bottom2 So what I'm wondering is this: can I change closedPostion or one of the other parameters such that when I trigger the "Close Door" action it goes to the 50% deployed position? This would allow me to use Action Groups to toggle the doors to the open and "closed" positions as i have defined them. I already tried setting closedPosition = 0 and that didn't do anything. Not sure if @Porkjet ever slums over here in Mission Reports but tagging him just in case--will of course be grateful for any help from the semi-divine or non-divine as well
  11. Mister Dilsby
    Wow, finally caught up! Honored by all the references to Kenlie and Kenlie, of course Very interesting what you've done with Martystu: I think you've successfully inverted the trope! And wondering if your Jeb will ever return--and no, I haven't seen him since the crossover, myself
  12. Mister Dilsby
    Finally caught up--great work, Jim, on crafts, story and piloting--not everyone can stick landings within a few meters of a base or an anomaly And yeah, log rock lady. Ha!
  13. Mister Dilsby
    Yes, I visited about 20 years ago, before they had Enterprise on it. And yeah, there's a school break coming up and we're thinking of going to see it--both kids were really excited when I told them about all the craft on display
  14. Mister Dilsby
    Oh yes, quite. We'll just try to steer clear of any large blob-shaped 'anomalies'. Fortunately that's one of the few situations Val and Dilsby actually trained for.
  15. Mister Dilsby
    Yeah, I did look at that and you can see a Deep Freeze module a few updates ago. Decided against it in favor of the post I ninja'd you with Oh yes, there will be mammoths. I think I've given a peek at the expendable boost stage a few pages back--yes there are enough mammoths to make Mort weep--and yes, it orbits
  16. Mister Dilsby
    So, why Intrepid? And why didn't I just say so earlier? The answer to the second question first: I didn't decide on it until just a few days ago. Before that I thought to call it the Galactic (in fact that's the name on the craft files up to 0.80) and before that I wanted to do something friendship/loyalty related, based off the root "fidelis". Why Intrepid? I always liked "adjectival" ship names like Indefatigable, Resolute, etc. And this one fits the image of Kerbfleet very well I think. In addition it's the name of an American aircraft carrier that has had more than a little bit to do with our human space program. Anyway, borrowing a name from a US Navy carrier worked out pretty well for a somewhat more famous interplanetary exploration vessel. Post is already a bit long but here's some more technical information on the mods. The algae containers each (I have 8) make only 0.43 fertilizer/hour as supplied. This seems to match with the 'old' USI-LS greenhouse which made 0.86 supplies/hour from .1433 fertilizer. But the latest greenhouse makes 18.36 supplies an hour from 2.16 fertilizer, and the kerbal consumption rate has been raised to match (16.2 supplies/day) So I'll config the algae to make 9.18 fertilizer each per hour and scale up the other inputs accordingly. This all means I'll have to park on an ore deposit for several weeks to convert 19 tons of mulch (full tanks) back into 19 tons of fertilizer--seems a reasonable time to refresh for a second five-year voyage. Other configuring fun: in USI-LS the stock research lab is a 70% recycler that can serve up to 5 kerbals' needs. I think I'm going to make the four Planetary Base hab modules be the recyclers in this setup--seems reasonable to me that each one should be able to recycle for the 3 kerbs that live in it, at a 70% rate. There! Enough shenanigans. Next up I'll either test some probes, or just say "fudge it" and get the Intrepid into orbit. I can always dock the probes later, and I'm getting impatient to fly something for real ETA: Links to the mods-- Kerbal Planetary Base System USI Life Support USI Core (fission reactors)
  17. Mister Dilsby
    Ok have been trying out the Planetary Base stuff--and I think I really like it! I can put a few 4-kerb base modules on the back of the lower B-pod, forward of the bridge, and I think it looks pretty good both inside and out. Also included in this pack is an algae farm that makes fertilizer from ore and mulch, which is exactly what I was going to mod the MPL to do for me! So, looks like Deep Freeze is out, K&K Bases is in, and we'll be designing for 4 years endurance. Still need to work on those probes, not sure I'll get to it today.
  18. Mister Dilsby
    Good points--although a big part of the motivation for a hibernation unit is to avoid having to carry 50t of fertilizer. I do have some alternatives though. Probably the most attractive one is to follow through on my 'threat' to make fertilizer out of ore and mulch, either in the ISRU or the MPL. That way I only have to design for ~4 years endurance, making sure to grab some dirt periodically. And don't worry about Mister Blocko's timer, Bill already reset it off-panel. I'll let @Parkaboy keep his monopoly on countdowns to file corruption doomsday
  19. Mister Dilsby
    OK friends, I'll just put this one out myself--hoping to have an update from Bill later on the probes. First, here's the upper B pod forward of the bridge showing 'habitation' section. That's a 10-kerb deep freeze module on top. So yep, another mod to my beautiful stock game though I'm not completely sold on it yet Seems logical though to have a freezer if I already made 'natural' hibernation canon. This would accomodate 10 of the 12 crew. Might be nice to leave 2 kerbs always awake, in shifts, over the long journey. (will carry extra glykerol or whatever it is for that, of course Then there's the life support for when they're awake: On the left is R pod, stacked from bottom to top with a mobile processing lab, a container with 20,000 fertilizer, an empty tank for mulch, and a USI-LS greenhouse. Naturally there would be a matching set in the L pod. To the right is lower B pod, with a pair of 1.25m nuclear reactors from USI-Core below the storage tank (mostly hidden by radiators). The 'main engineering playset' Bill showed last time is in the Mk2 cargo bay above the ore tank. I figured the engineers could use about 15 tons of rock between them and the enriched uranium in the reactors. And if you were surprised to see Kuzzter using mods, you'll be shocked by the next part--I'm actually going to ask for advice! What sort of better 'habitation' module could fit in the upper B pod instead of those two hitchhikers? I haven't looked through all the USI stuff yet, and would not want to add, say, MKS parts if they were going to make the life support stuff even more complicated than it already is.
  20. Mister Dilsby
    How many votes for 'truth' or 'lie' is a TOTM sticky worth, I wonder? Congrats!
  21. Mister Dilsby
    Well done on the sticky, Chemp! Congrats!
  22. Mister Dilsby
    I don't think I'm going to give Bill quite that level of omniscience/omnipotence Let's just say as a rule of thumb that he can see and affect Kerbfleet assets and nothing more. He doesn't even know whether Kopernicus is installed or not "The thing's gotta have a tailpipe!" -- Commander Nyota Uhura, Starfleet "We have no concept of violence and believe that Kerbals are the only sentient beings in this solar system." -- Comder Dilsby Kerman, Kerbfleet "We've already gone from no mods to adding USI-LS to adding USI Core to thinking about Deep Freeze. No way am bringing in flippin' BD Armory on top of all that!" -- Kuzzter
  23. Mister Dilsby
    That is, I edited the config file and changed the "NoHomeEffect" consequence from 1 (Kerbal refuses to work) to 0 (nothing happens) LIFE_SUPPORT_SETTINGS { SupplyTime = 324000 //How many seconds before Kerbals are affected by no supplies EVATime = 21600 //How many seconds before ill effects on EVA ECAmount = 0.01 //EC per Kerbal per second SupplyAmount = 0.00075 //Supplies consumed per Kerbal per second WasteAmount = 0.00075 //Mulch produced per Kerbal per second NoSupplyEffect = 1 //Effect if a Kerbal has no supplies or EC NoSupplyEffectVets = 1 //Effect if a Kerbal is a vet and has no supplies or EC EVAEffect = 3 //Effect if a Kerbal exceeds EVA time EVAEffectVets = 3 //Effect if a Kerbal is a vet and exceeds EVA time NoHomeEffect = 0 //Effect if a Kerbal becomes homesick NoHomeEffectVets = 0 //Effect if a Kerbal is a vet and becomes homesick
  24. Mister Dilsby
    I actually didn't think I would make any net mulch while running agroponics-- that is, it would all be turned into supplies and the supplies would be consumed. But then again that violates conservation of mass, so yeah. Moving on, I find the following consumption rates for different numbers of labs turned on: 12 kerbals, 3 MPLs, 2 agroponics: 0.71 fertilizer per kerb per day 12 kerbals, 2 MPLs, 2 agroponics: 0.96 fertilizer per kerb per day 12 kerbals, 1 MPL, 2 agroponics: 1.35 fertilizer per kerb per day 12 kerbals, no MPL, 2 agroponics: 1.90 fertilizer per kerb per day This isn't quite what I'd expect if the MPL is supposed to recycle for 5 kerbals. (BTW I can't tell how hard the MPLs are actually working, since they always show 100% load no matter how many kerbs are on the test rig.) Anyway, if one MPL really does recycle 5 kerbs' mulch I would expect that when I have 12 kerbs and only 2 MPL then: --the 10 kerbs served by the MPLs would make 0.71 mulch each per day = 7.1 mulch/day --the 2 kerbs not served by the MPLs would make 1.9 mulch each per day = 3.8 mulch/day ...averaging to (7.1+3.8)/12 kerbs = .91, not .96 as observed. So, something else is going on. Anyway, I think I can work with this... though now that I see I'll have to carry 40-50 tons of fertilizer, maybe I'll rethink this whole freeze/hibernation thing after all
  25. Mister Dilsby
    This has been a really great discussion, thanks @RoverDude, @Geschosskopf, @Araym and anyone else I might have missed for helping me out So it looks like I'll have to correct Bill's calcs in light of the new parts and configs. I did some tests and realized that things get complicated when you have agroponics and recycling going on at the same time. Rather than try to sort it out on paper or in Excel, I hyperedited this thing into orbit: 12 kerbals aboard, 2 large agroponics greenhouses, 3 labs (which should be enough to recycle for 15 kerbs, right?) a huge full tank of fertilizer, a huge empty tank for mulch, and an oversized nuclear reactor. You see the time warp is one notch below maximum, because on maximum the system does not seem to consume any fertilizer or make any mulch at all. 426 days (one Kerbal year later) here's how it all looks. Note that I turned off the "habitation" effects, so no one got homesick. How quickly a year passes! So, looks like my 12 kerbs made 3463 mulch and consumed 3463 fertilizer. No net supplies were used. Note that if they were just consuming supplies with no recycling or agroponics, they should have eaten 16.2 supplies/kerb * 12 kerbs *426 days = 82,414 supplies and deposited exactly that much mulch. So yeah, I think this is the way to go. I could see carrying two labs on the ship but not three... so I will either bump the max kerbs/lab value up to 6 (it's 5, if I understand this right) or just go with two and accept lower efficiency. I'll be sure to test this rig again with one fewer lab, don't worry--but either way, it looks like the KSS [REDACTED] will have to carry about 40,000 units of fertilizer and have empty tanks for 40,000 units of mulch (as I did not see a "dump mulch" function anywhere.) to hit its 10 year endurance target. @RoverDude, if this seems correct to you I'd be happy to cross-post the study on your USI-LS thread. It might be of interest to others trying to figure it all out.
×
×
  • Create New...