sgt_flyer

Mmh, make a grand tour with a Class E asteroid ? (or even landing one on tylo )

I had a problem kind of similar with my r.a.t 7 - i redownloaded the saitek drivers and reinstalled them. I think those mouses maybe quite too far off the HID system to work correctly with generic drivers.

Delta IV Heavy added to the main post

the boosters are SRB's i have simply hidden them inside the emptied rockomax fuel tanks (because there are 6 of the new SRBs per booster here - and with only 6, i don't know if the 'rounding' effect will be enough )

Hello with the new patch, i have built some new stock replicas of real life heavy lifters - Delta IV Heavy and Ariane 5 (version with ESP upper stage (so G/GS/G+ all apply ) a note of warning : high part count replicas ---------Ariane 5 Series------------ Ariane 5 tandem launch Album : the boosters use 6x of the new SRB's per booster, which i have hidden inside those drained rockomax fuel tanks. the launch tower and the fairings accounts for a lot of the parts - once dropped, the game speed should be much more normal the Ariane 5 comes with a SYLDA for putting two satellites into orbit. the ascent shoud be pretty straightforward (be sure to drop the fairings around 20000m to save weight/delta V - structural panel fairings are heavy ) i have two files : one Ariane 5 with two satellites onboard, and a 'empty' Ariane 5, which can also be used as a subassembly. if you use it as a subassembly, the 'root' node is the payload decoupler inside the SYLDA. then, for building the second satellite, you will need to 'pick' each main fairing decoupler (i used a cubic strut and 0.625 decoupler, so it will be easy to replace them once you finished) and let them waiting in the VAB. you'll have access to the decoupler on top of the SYLDA, and you can build your second satellite starting from the bottom down, before replacing the fairings. Ariane 5G with double satellite payload Ariane 5G with sylda and no satellite ---------Delta IV Heavy ---------- Delta IV Heavy mission album (with 92 tons dead weight payload) Launch animation : (click the image to see the .gif animation - to prevent from slowing down the post loading with a heavy anim ) Launch profiles : the central engine will change it's throttling (the hidden mainsail will be toggled at each stage) to replicate the delta-IV heavy throttling down. for having this ingame, i advise to stage the 'empty' separatrons (stage 5) when your rocket is between 4000m and 5000m of altitude. (i added the empty separatrons to get an intermediate stage for the 'on stage' action group for toggling the mainsail) launch sequence : push your throttle to the max, stage a first time (the central mainsail will turn on then immediately off because of the action group) and stage a second time to lift off. eject the fairings a few seconds after dropping the lateral boosters. (note, i know, the fairings 'nosecone' can hit the payload - handling this kind of fairings is hard ) here are the files Delta IV Heavy with a 92tons dead weight payload Delta IV Heavy with no payload (perfect subassembly) Have Fun !

Edit : Ariane 5 G series Mission Album !

personally, i use something similar, adapter to rockomax adapter to FL-A10 adapter to small parachute as nosecones - because all those parts together (including the new 3.75m to 2.5m adapter) is lighter than the large nosecone also, the result does not have too much altered drag compared to the large nosecone - which can be a pain in the ass sometimes when those nosecones are lower than the center of gravity of the rocket (it can happen when you use boosters around a serial staging - when the lower stages are almost empty - which makes the rocket unstable)

Delta IV Heavy - roughly 100 tons to LKO (i got 92 tons on a 100x300 orbit - i tried to see how far the upper stage could lift me 438 parts on the pad (most of it being the fairings, i'm afraid ) i've hidden mainsails inside the KR-2L engines, the central one is toggled automatically with the staging, to emulate the Delta-IV heavy throttling of the central engine. (that's why there's two separatrons in the staging, those are empty with thrust set to 0) - basically, i've added the central mainsail to the 'staging' action group - first staging : toggle on and off (activated by the actual staging, and toggled of from the action group)- second staging : activate all remaining first stage engines and toggling back on the central mainsail. once i'm at 5000m, i stage the fake separatrons to turn off the mainsail, which will be reactivated when i eject the empty lateral boosters (that reduces the central booster to 62% of it's max thrust - and improves central stage ISP ) the fairing is ejected at the same time than the lateral boosters - it splits in half Upper stage of the rocket :

sorry, bad post. mmh - can't seem to find the 'delete' button anymore... if a mod can delete this post?

the standard JD-Drive with two FL-A5 on the bottom don't work anymore (leg breaks instantly) my modified JD-Drive seems to still work (at least in hover mode), with a standard docking port instead of a FL-A5 at the far end. although, it seems to be much less reliable than before edit : i replaced the remaining FL-A5 with the Z-1K battery - the drive seems to not be able to work reliably in hover mode, it can break easily. however, it did not break once on multiple activations in orbit. (and with a 10g acceleration !) - though it's more sensible to sudden turns deactivate the drive before changing the spacecraft's attitude i tried to slow down below the 750m/s mark - the craft almost instantly slowed down to hover mode speeds, the leg broke, but the craft stayed in one piece with the leg attached. (although falling down directly from orbital altitudes may not be the best way to land ) the effects were the same on the second try : Hello Asteroid ! direct intercept in Kerbol orbit - after multiple correction burns from the JD-Drive (and fine tuning with the RCS) - although the sheer mass of the asteroid (class E, 1425 tons !) makes it almost unmovable by the JD-Drive

Well, if you build a launcher starting from the decoupler on which the payload will be attached, you can save it as a subassembly already, by picking the decoupler and puttingit in subassembly. (Although that can mess struts / fuel lines) You can also save the same launcher, and copy the .craft file directly from the VAB folder to the subassembly one. If you want to reuse an existing launcher, on which the 'root part' is in the payload : disconnect the rocket just below the payload decoupler,, and put it in non connected waiting state in the vab - then pick the root part, and erase the payload + the decoupler. Now, pick the decoupler you just erased in the part list, and it becomes the new root part - and you just need to reconnect the disconnected launcher to the decoupler. Regards, Sgt_flyer

WIP delta-IV Heavy with the new parts. upper stage + boosters the upper stage (note, the control probe is not part of the stage - it was just there to test the rocket ) the KR-2L engines are 'augmented' with mainsails hidden inside them - the central core mainsail is only activated when the lateral boosters are staged, to replicate the Delta-IV Heavy central core throttled down engine. the new stock joint reinforcement is really powerful - the KR-2L + mainsail are attached on both ends of a... cubic strut... radially attached to the bottom of the tanks. i only added 4 struts per engine to attach them to the tanks. currently, it's 271 parts.

I know it's a two month old thread, bu i think this is relevant : Some two days old news slipped by unnoticed on rosetta Philae (the comet lander) has been waked up by ESA (this time, the wake up order came from earth, it was not a preprogrammed wake up time) - signal was sent at 6:00 GMT the 28th march, and esa received a reply from philae's systems at 11:35 GMT http://www.universetoday.com/110822/esa-awakens-rosettas-comet-lander/ Rosetta also got it's first images of it's target on march 20th http://www.universetoday.com/110761/rosetta-spacecraft-spies-its-comet-as-it-prepares-for-an-august-encounter/

if the russians had develloped it, the UR-700 rocket http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/ur700.htm now, that's the kerbal way ! fuel crossfeed boosters, moon landing & return with the CSM

Well, it 'should' be possible to somehow replicate in stock game, with fixed hidden control surfaces in the pod (for lift) a weight to slightly offcenter the COM and a counterweight in the service module (to have a centered COM before separation)

A very funny story just be sure to check the date

Be careful what you did was simply an aerobraking pass The Apollo Skip reentry is used, of course, to limit the reentry spped and heat, but it's also used to steer the reentry module to target a specific landing zone. The basic concept is, the reentry module has an offcentered COM, which means the module is tilted relatively to the reentry vector. This tilt ends up 'deflecting' more aire towards one side than the other, relative to the module's path - and by reaction, the module is pushed the other way. The reentry module combined this with an ability to still perform rolls during reentry - so if they thought they'll overshoot their landing zone, they roll the module so the air is deflected upwards instead of downwards - resulting in the module going down faster, allowing them to target a much more reduced target landing zone.

well, i never spoke of aluminium in the case i highlighted,specifically the nasa part, it's a nickel based SLM - and nasa studied the finished product afterwards : basically, it's overall resistance is lower than a standard part, but don't suffer from weldings (which would be even weaker points). the main problem if you send an automated manufacturing system in space, is the sheer size of such a system, if you want it to do specific elements - plus, it's not versatile... i'm well aware that we can't use the current ALM systems for high finish parts - but a more evolved technique than what currently exists will have the capacity to change what it builds without needing complete retooling - you just send it the blueprints. the problem in space, is it will be very difficult to make a complex manufacturing system reliable - imagine the sheer number of moving parts... 3d printing will allow to have waaaay less moving parts, so you can concentrate on making it reliable without regular maintenance (for automated systems). i don't think asteroid exploitation will start with space miners but rather robotic systems

there's several groups working on airships to orbit concepts (the most known would be JP aerospace) here's a wikipedia page on this concept, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_airship which also summarize the technical difficulties needed to be overcomed

A quick note for building basic parts in space - it will have a big chance to be done through 3d printers. After all, they started to 3d print some rocket injectors-and they work ! (Check Selective laser melting) (rocketdyne / Dynetics F-1B engine is planned to have most of it's parts 3d printed) They even want to send a 3d printer to the ISS - so if they need a tool or a specific shape to fix something, they are sent the 3d files for the part, and print it only when needed. Then a ressuply run will bring the 3d printer refill. With selective laser melting 3d printers on the asteroids, those use fine metal powders melted through a high power laser - so you'll only need to extract those metals from asteroids and turn them into a powder for the printer Of course, those would have a harder time (in current technology) to build small electronics / cpus, which would need to be shipped regularly from earth. But a huge quantity of those is very lightweight compared to sending, for example, a full rocket engine

Hum, an umbilical would be hard to do here - a Nerva engine turbopumps would pump aproximately 1700l of LH2 per second. (Not taking into account the effects of such a high fuel flow in ducts - of cryogenic stuff ) (Based on the known nerva dry / empty weight and burn times) - the umbilical between the reentry module and the csm needs waaaay lower fuel ) The known specs for a nerva stage : Dry weight : 34019kg Full weight : 178321kg Burn time : 1200s Lh2 mass / L : 0.07 kg. So you get : fuel weight : 144302kg - divided by 1200 : 120.7kg/s. This multiplied by 14.28 (approximately the number of liters of lh2 /kg) you have 1717l/s

Well, the mining systems / spacecrafts would need to process at least enough to keep them running - eventually scale up, without needing to send up new mining spacecrafts directly from earth. (If they use unmanned mining systems) this would make things much cheaper if all you need to send from earth would be a regular shipment of the control circuits for the mining systems built there

Well, if they can set up automated factories and mining bots, (maybe in the asteroid belt) they should be able to build some crude return vessel to return the raw materials. (They might even not need parachutes - just a shield to survive reentry, as raw materials won't be annoyed as much as humans / delicate electronics by an impact at terminal velocity after maybe several aerobrakes) Once they can make regular shipments, it's not really a problem if the trip back to earth takes two years - when you send the return vehicles every 6 month or year while the others are in transit. Nevertheless, i think they might try to set up sooner mining ops on the moon before than asteroids. (Lots of lithium and other elements there, + gravity and a means to dissipate heat more easily (through the ground itself) From there, you might just need a fixed mass driver to send the shipments back to earth, in a container capable of surviving reentry. (The return vehicle might even not need electronics)

@mhoram - in the ARM, the grappling device is articulated - you set the grapple into 'free move', and target the center of mass of the ship + asteroid (which is a new target mode) . Then you rotate your ship around the grapple, thanks to it's hinges (while still attached to the asteroid) to line up your ship with the center of mass, and lock the grapple in position. So in ARM, it will be much more easier to be lined up with the CoM than you think

Well, changing between number radices can be fun We can even say 31 = 25 ! But we should have the number bases at least abbreviated near it when working with different radices in this case, i have 31oct = 25dec (octal and decimal) - now you can understand why some geeks get mixed up between halloween and christmas