BlazingAngel665

so is it downloading something?

MOAR BOOSTERs for the HYPE TRAIN!!! Now in the terminal count

Steam db has registered a KSP update

Steam db Update!!!

check steam db KSP last update 2 minutes ago

A lot do. I know in the past that modders I worked with got early access.

Has anyone had success landing the EWBCL with FAR installed, at low speeds I find the craft neigh uncontrollable, at least using the FAR fix provided a while back.

1. More solar pannels is more weight, which we can't have because we need the propellant. 2. As long as you keep your voltage up you should be able to undercurrent an ion engine as long as the halo remains stable. Alternatively Busek has many other high ISP designs. EDIT: Either or, but I pulled the pic because it is a 3u sat with the expected solar deployment.

This would be something like what we would use. 1u for prop, 1u for avionics, attitude, and comms, 1u for science and spare fuel.

For solar array the simplest (and probably most effective) solution would be four 30cm x 10cm arrays stowed alongside the craft until deployment. Clyde Space stocks these pannels, and we can get some that are about 200g per array. Each one will give us about 7 watts during our MTO injection. With basic folding clips, we can stow 2 to a side, we can get about 60 watts. This gives us 20 watts for electronics and comms and 40 for prop. Each of those arrays is about $5k, so we are talking about $40,000 to equip the electrical system, plus battery costs, on the downside we are talking about 1.6kg, or almost half of our crafts mass in solar cells, so we may want to shop around on that one. EDIT: BRFIT-7 is way too much engine for us, we would float the gap in the current models with a 40w model. EDIT2: costs came from here, note this also includes launch services and itegration. http://spaceflightservices.com/pricing-plans/ we also have to find a way to pay to recieve telemetry either on the DSN or a similar service.

Math text wall With an assumed ISP of 300 (high for UDMH) then we can begin to get an idea of how much dV our craft can have. At 1.33kg/u limit for Mass on cubesats we find that our maximum mass will be 18lbs or 8kg. We are also volumetricily limited to 10cm^3 per u. Standard fuel loads are about .75kg/u limited both by volume and mass. Therefore for dV of a UDMH system we find that we can expect about 2400m/s in dV using Vex*ln(mf/me) So for cost: 3u Cubesat to GTO $650k 6u Cubesat to GTO $995k by using a 3u satellite with Rf Ion engines you have a budget of $345k for that subsystem to break even. Note, propellant costs hardly figure into these equations, UDMH is <$100/kg with electric propellants in a similar price range. The primary fund outlay is for system development and hardware. Aerojet Rocketdyne would be the preferred supplier for a Hydrazine system, due to product quality and flight legacy. None of there systems are large enough without extensive (and dangerous modifications). Quotes are available on request for all of these systems though. Busek is a decent bet for electric propulsion with several options to chose from that all fit within 1u giving us lots of volume to play with. I had the opportunity to view one of their electrospray thrusters at an Edwards AFB lab and was very impressed with the people and hardware. Our best bet here would be a rf ion engine. The ISP could approach 3000 seconds. This gives us theoretical dV of tens of thousands of m/s. This is a far better solution cost wise, and science wise. Prices also available upon request. For a Phobos landing we are talking 1 million dollars, minimum. A small aperture space telescope in LEO could be done for less than $200k if we make sacrifices in quality. The primary outlays in this endeavor will be for the launch cost, unless we decide to get very exotic with our satellite design. SIDE NOTE: I am assuming that the design and final assembly will come from concerned community members and not have to be contracted out, if this is not the case then our costs balloon like no other.

The external structure of the Cubesat will basically be predetermined as a side-effect of the deployment system. Designing a crumple fuel system is not of significant benefit to us at these low velocities. It would expose the solar panels to undue danger at landing, since our best bet here would be to fold them in alongside the z axis of the craft to prevent damage to them in case of tipping. Landing should be done propulsive with our electric thruster if at all possible.

Like I said, forget cost, for a Phobos landing you would save more money by using a 3u sat with an expensive propulsion unit then you could by using UDMH, also, LV providers will give you hell trying to handle that.

Electric propulsion is already a must for a interplanetary go. Even using a 6u cubesat traditional propellants are barely sufficient to have a chance of lunar orbit, forget farther out. Math is forthcoming.

You have real problems fitting that into the available bays. The panels will need to be as large as possible if we are going with electric propulsion. If we were to use UDMH like you want to, then we run into issues launching it (its toxic stuff) as well as dV issues, We would be talking about 6u+ for even an extraordinarily minimalist Phobos lander. Also, why all the storage capacity? Transmission downlink would be a better place to spend your weight budget. Forget money, if we are trying for Phobos then weight, volume, dV, and finding a ride up to GTO is really where the challenges are.

Over in addon development a modder by the name of lofi is working on this mod Kerbal Foundries which has code for treads. See post #170 in that thread.

Helldiver, for phase 4, in addition to the other excellent vehicles you are making, is there any chance we could get a mobile launch platform and Transport crawler?

After the wonderful excursion into the realm of energy conservation to limit error accumulation in the orbit (I think I understood that) I am thoroughly impressed with you grasp of these topics, and thank you for your dedication to this project. I can't wait to to take Principia for a spin around the Kerbol system.

Check PM BlazingAngel

There are far more problems with this than simple unity importation. The UV maps were not importing properly (probably my fault) and it was causing Unity business. Un-textured parts work fine for the Delta though, I pulled the stats off my old remake of the Delta IV. If someone wants to tell me what I did to create a black and purple Rocket out of Clueless' gorgeous textures I would finish that up.

What are the chances of a 3.75m service module for the Taurus command pod, in the style we all love so much from SDHI? Especially considering how cool the umbilical lines are looking, this is great stuff. The TAC life support will be wonderful. I'm looking forward to the 2.0 release very excitedly.

Thanks. That was my mistake. Working much better now.

Hmm it is mentioning a missing "name space" The exact statement is "Assets/Editor/PartToolsEditor.cs(7,5): error CS0246: The type or namespace 'KSPPartTools' Could not be found. Are you missing a using directive or an assembly reference?" This still means nothing to me. . . . Unzipped them to a folder and dragged the folder in to my project as per link here Yes the old part tools are deleted, in fact I uninstalled Unity entirely and started over (thought maybe I had an old version)

I was sending a new batch of parts through Unity, so I decided to update my part tools to .23 first. I downloaded them, and noticed they were no longer a "unity asset" so I followed the directions and dragged them into my project. Unity didn't mind until I tried to add them to a part. Then it gave me a pop-up saying "Can't add script Can't add script behaviour PartToolsEditor. You need to fix all complie errors in all scripts first!" I am self trained on Unity, so this is greek to me. Any suggestions? I have already tried redownloading (Not corrupt), loading through the asset package loader like the old part tools (nothing to load), and am frankly out of ideas. Help is appreciated.

Majir, I believe I located a bug in the KAS 4.7 release. The issue comes while reverting a flight from EVA whilst "grabbing" a part. The steps to replicate this bug involve 1. Launch a ship from the pad. Make sure there is an octagonal strut somewhere within reach. 2. EVA a kerbal from the launched vessel 3. Grab a cubic octagonal strut. I can't confirm this bug with any other pieces (yet) 4. go to the escape menu and "revert to VAB" 5. proft. (crash) I can provide a craft file if necessary. Here is the output_log: http://dumpr.info/td/1pbp1tu Relevant information? The cubic octagonal strut in question was the base piece for a rover. There were no ill effects when the piece was initially grabbed. I play with other mods: FAR DR EVE Kethane MKS Texture Replacer Firespitter.dll Infernal Robotics Docking Indicator Realchute Active texture management I am running a windows 7 system. If anything else can be provided to help you let me know. Thanks for all the time you invest in these mods.