Jump to content

maro

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    173

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by maro

    Budget in career mode

    in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion

    Posted

    Maybe you can do some sort of deal with parts manufacturer or buy parts in large amounts to get a discount?

    With subassembly now functional one way to do that would be to buy a allready designed stage or assembly cheaper each time it is used then separate parts.

    You have then to decide if you by allredy used/testet but probably not as modern design but a lot cheaper then a new design. And it should get cheaper each time used - lets say 5% with a bottom at 65% from its original price.

    So first time you fly it would cost 1000, second time 950, third time 902, 857, 814, 773, 735, 698, 663, from no. 10 onwards it would cost 650 each time....

    For the career mode i would like to chose "manned" or "unmanned" from the beginning - or - instead of small part sets group them in tier-groups from 1 to 10 or 15. And one can cose parts whatever one want out of the open tier groups instead of such sets. Think it would be more difficult for unexperienced players but one has to make well prepared decissions what parts to chose.

    My new 3DA-Shuttle

    in KSP1 The Spacecraft Exchange

    Posted · Edited by maro

    3DA means 3-Delta & Asparagus-Shuttle an features


    • all stock parts design
    • payload capabability 5t in to 250km circular orbit
    • orbital flight after reentry @ 300-350m/s @ 10.000m for 35+ min.
    • center tank deorbit ability (needs ~150 units of monopropelant from a 250km circular orbit)

    Shuttle Feature


    • 1200 units of monopropelant
    • four rockomax 24-77 and fife FL-T100 tanks for orbital maneuvering
    • two turbojet engines for atmospheric flight after reentry
    • Clamp-O-Tron Docking port equiped with remote guidance unit to assist docking maneuvers
    • PB-NUK for endless elecricity

    Center Tank feature


    • remote guidance unit to enable deorbit maneuvers after decoupling
    • Bats and solar panels for elecricity
    • plenty of monopropelant for transfers and deorbit
      Easy to fly but i strong reccommend a very late garv turn(!)
      Activate RCS and SAS on the Pad until your in orbit and start your turn at 25k+
      After reentry deactivate your 24-77s (4x) and start your jet engines at 10-12k - you can make good use of your RCS fuel left over to support your jet engines or braking.

    Pictures of test flight One

    44s7.jpg

    n3kj.jpg

    q48a.jpg

    6tww.jpg

    tssd.jpg

    s8pq.jpg

    05xf.jpg

    wbec.jpg

    q2bn.jpg

    h53a.jpg

    Pictures of test flight Two – withcupola module

    gbq7.jpg

    fkvk.jpg

    j59n.jpg

    e5jk.jpg

    o2d9.jpg

    0zcz.jpg

    tmdz.jpg

    53oq.jpg

    16f7.jpg

    gp7a.jpg

    vj4e.jpg

    http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/3da-shuttle-stock/

    FINALLY Docked A Ship!

    in KSP1 Discussion

    Posted

    YES! After many attempts, two hours and a very confusing HJKIL control scheme, I rendezvoused two ships and docked them!

    It took me also a lot of time...but when you managed it you have defiately made a "giant leap" and working that out gives you a lot of knowledge and experience that brings you realy further in this game.

    grats!

    About the Tech tree

    in KSP1 Discussion

    Posted

    Very interesting alternate route for tech development and it would be cool to have test pilot missions where new engines are put through their paces and the results used to improve their reliability..
    That's something else to wonder about and contemplate: reliability. Will career mode include realistic reliability stats for newly-unlocked parts?

    Was also my intention, but was told that part failures will not be a "feature" of this game.

    Therefore a new, much easyer idea to implement: What if SQUAD implements only the financial result of experience...?

    Example: One can buy parts in numbers to reduce the price of a single piece AND one can buy a stack of parts to reduce the price of the whole stack. Therfore you can invent whole "stages" and as more they are used unchanged they cheaper they get....as a result of the experience on the assembly line.

    Would work like this - if you take any parts out and put it together you pay 100% of its single peace price. As you can save the whole launcher you can save the stage or a probe, a lander, a satellite.... And for any stage-configuration that one uses again the price for the parts-set will drop.

    Using a stage a second time will drop its price for 10%, a third time will drop by additional 5%, from 4-10th launch the drop each time is 2,5%, up to the 25th launch is 1,25% and there after ist 0,75% up to the 45th launch - then the price of the stage configuration has decreased allmost to 50% and will stay there.

    Altering designs would also be possible this way.

    Removing a part out of a stage will reduce the stage price only by 25% of the price of this part

    Adding a part will increase the price of the stage by 10% + the parts price.

    Example: After 10 launches one adds RCS thanks and thrusters to a stage - starting price was 10.000 at the first launch, by the 10th it was 7.161. Now the price increases again to 7.877 + the price of the RCS stuff.

    This will result in a more real live behavior of the financial aspect of KSP

    Kerbin Mini Shuttle

    in KSP1 Mod Development

    Posted

    This project looks amazing. Hope it flys as it looks.

    My experience with glider landings within KSP are much dissatisfying - wasnt able to come close to KSP center, lost control several times, and wasnt able to control sink rate below 2.500m.....

    Therefore asking if it is possible to fit something as a glide-path indicator in it to help landing it

    cockpit.jpg

    2412098-OrbiterVirtualCockpit1.jpg

    6587170-1344961809749.jpg

    Engine fairings / engine mount plate

    in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion

    Posted · Edited by maro

    If you now place an engine below a tank and then a decoupler below the engine - you get automatic a fairing around the engine. This works well as long as the diameter of the tank above and the diameter of the decoupler below are the same and the engine is centerline. More complex engine placements like multi engine stages or a small diameter engine below a big tank are not supported.

    If you look at the picture

    1) below the capsule and the x-200-8 is a poddle - looks/works perfect

    2) below that is a 909 and i use the space below the tank for adding RCS and bats - 909 engine has fairing but wrong diameter

    3) below is a 3 engine layout - would work well - but the engine mounting has more diameter then the nozle. Would fit well if the engines mountig is not so wide and there are no engines fairings at all

    m2mx.jpg

    Now my suggestions

    1) To enable the use of the area around the engine mount like shown above (2) every engine should be connected to the tank only with a thin mounting - just a small frame and tubes. This would allow to use this area for additional things like RCS tanks as shown.

    2) To enable a automatic engine(s) fairing between stages with every configuration there should be new parts - lets call it "engine mount plate". It has to be placed between the tank and the engine(s)+add. parts below and its diameter is the "target" for the automatic engine fairing - and not the diameter of the engine as now - as alos the target for the structural stability. Because right now the engine itself is a structural part in the stack and that is not realistic. Bcause if one now builds such a stack one has to add a lot of struts to enable stability.

    This way the decoupler below and the "engine mount plate" will work together, building a automated strut/fairing around everything between them.

    [NOW WITH ATLAS AGENA TARGET VEHICLE!] Project Jebini - Replica Gemini Titan

    in KSP1 The Spacecraft Exchange

    Posted

    You mean that rocket that never really worked?

    Yep :)... worst rocket in space flight history! But it looks so cool! And it did manage to not blow up any Mercury astronauts...

    Maybe as a target vehicle it "never really worked" but overall Agena is one of the most used rockets in US service - 365 Agena vehicles were launched....

    [TABLE=class: wikitable]

    [TR]

    [TH=bgcolor: #F2F2F2, align: center]Variant[/TH]

    [TH=bgcolor: #F2F2F2, align: center]Engine[/TH]

    [TH=bgcolor: #F2F2F2, align: center]Thrust[/TH]

    [TH=bgcolor: #F2F2F2, align: center]Burn time[/TH]

    [TH=bgcolor: #F2F2F2, align: center]Rockets[/TH]

    [TH=bgcolor: #F2F2F2, align: center]number of launches[/TH]

    [/TR]

    [TR]

    [TD]Agena-A[/TD]

    [TD]Bell 8048[/TD]

    [TD]69 kN[/TD]

    [TD]120 seconds[/TD]

    [TD]Atlas, Thor[/TD]

    [TD]20[/TD]

    [/TR]

    [TR]

    [TD]Agena-B[/TD]

    [TD]Bell 8081[/TD]

    [TD]71 kN[/TD]

    [TD]240 seconds[/TD]

    [TD]Atlas, Thor[/TD]

    [TD]76[/TD]

    [/TR]

    [TR]

    [TD]Agena-D[/TD]

    [TD]Bell 8096 (Bell 8247 on Agena Target Vehicle[5])[/TD]

    [TD]71 kN[/TD]

    [TD]265 seconds[/TD]

    [TD]Atlas, Thor, Thorad, Titan IIIB[/TD]

    [TD]269

    [/TD]

    [/TR]

    [/TABLE]

    No one doing a 44th Anniv Re-enactment? Let's all land on the Mun this weekend!

    in KSP1 Discussion

    Posted · Edited by maro

    I was searching the forum for any discussions regarding the 44th anniversary of Apollo 11 and was a bit puzzled as to why there seemed to be none (correct me if I'm wrong). Anyways, I thought of starting this thread now (better late than never, even though that, in "retro realtime", the launch already occurred several hours ago). Perhaps we can share screenshots or videos of our "Apollo-esque" launches and landings we'll be doing in the next few days. And to make it a true commemoration, let's all set our target landing site to the AP11 Memorial Site on Mun, then share our screenies and videos here? Thanks :)

    What a nice idea

    Jeb is allready in training

    screenshot146j.png

    and the Saturn V is ready on the pad

    screenshot73la.png

    Everybody who is in need of a working SaturnV/Apollo11 design can use my stock design: http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/0-19-ancient-launchers-stock/

    The Shuttle Discussion Forum!

    in KSP1 Discussion

    Posted

    You should 24-77s to counter the drift instead of tons of rcs + thrusters(Its what I use for my shuttle rocket). Much simpler and reduces part count a ton.

    Have seen this layout.

    But i tried to make a shuttle able to be flown with ASAS - it will probably work better when 0.21 solves the ASAS probelms, because now about 50% uf RCS fuel goes in the wrong direction.

    The best way to do ist would be new stockparts - big SRBs with TVC and "SSMEs" with 10times the TVC then the 45....togehter with the new ASAS this should produce a good system.

    Has anybody solved the glider landing?

    The Shuttle Discussion Forum!

    in KSP1 Discussion

    Posted · Edited by maro

    Here some pictures of my own - stock parts only - shuttle tests

    m6um.jpg

    hwty.jpg

    jh87.jpg

    6b3g.jpg

    vps2.jpg

    Solved the folowing problems

    - Orbiting

    - Orbiting with 3000kg paylaod

    - Orbiting with payload + enough RCS fuel to manipulate Orbit up and down between 70/200km

    Problem Nr.1) Existing SRBs in KSP are to weak (can be solved with using liquid boosters & Mainsail)

    Problem Nr.2) Existing SRBs in KSP has no TVC capability (solved with RCS) [Original Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters have TVC !]

    Problem Nr.3) Existing Main engines (i used 3 x LV-T45) have to less TVC capability (sloved with much more RCS) [LV-T45 have 1° while Space Shutlle Main engines have TVC "around two axes of freedom with a range of ±10.5°"]

    Problem Nr.4) Gliding performance below 2.500m is to weak, the shuttle gets to slow and cant reduce ist descent rate apropriate. (wasnt able to solve this)

×
×
  • Create New...