Jump to content

Pappystein

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,414

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Pappystein

  1. Pappystein
    And they do not exist in the VAB or SPH... IE no models to place IS there supposed to be a Texture Zip for this update?
  2. Pappystein
    AWESOME! Saving as CFG now! Thanks!
  3. Pappystein
    Not trying to sound snippy or go off on a rant but HOW would you make one to Scale? Scale requires a size reference (tape measure) in game that is adjustable to the size of the object you wish to make, I looked at a Picture, Guessed the correct length for the CCB, made 2x copies and radially attached, Viola Delta IV Heavy. To be clear, There is no handy reference in KSP for how long a CCB tank, or an Atlas tank or a S-IC/S-1D tank etc. etc. etc. should be. It is not like KSP puts a perfect .64 scale picture on each wall of that profile so I can just chug blocks together. WOW! those are some nice looking panels. I will have to wait until your next release before I start my new Career!
  4. Pappystein
    Just to be clear since you didn't provide any information. The RS-68s and Fuel tanks are coming from SSTU and you are not running other mods (SMURFFS RSS or RO being the prime ones I am thinking of right now.) With 3 CCB boosters and RS-68s you should have TOO MUCH power. a .94 is an very good TWR for a Fighterplane where the wings provide the lift. it is a HORRIBLE TWR for a VTOL or a Rocket. As Jimbodiah stated in the post above, did you throttle up?
  5. Pappystein
    Is anyone else using any of the @NecroBones mods in KSP 1.2 Pre-release? I am having a Graphics only issue with the various NecroBones modes I am using. I am un-able to switch texture on any of the tanks and the various texture options all go crazy wonky on the actual tanks of SpaceY and Fuel Tanks + Thanks in Advance! It wasn't the engines that were the root cause of the N-1. Rather it was shoddy plumbing (Fuel and Hydraulics) to the engines and a poor design of the rocket stages themselves for stress and flex issues. The N-1's engines were used on Antares right up until last year (NK-15 and NK-33 are basically the same engine with minor changes to the hydraulics and multiple ignition capabilities.) The Main reason for the re-engine of Antares is due to the NK-33 not being in production since oh... 1976ish NK-33 synopsis I routinely use either the Kosmos URM or Bobcat Soviet Engine packs for their NK-33s and -43s
  6. Pappystein
    Alter-Ego? Just kidding guys but it is a valid observation. They are so eerily similar yet soo Different at the same time! I would further suggest that not all Stock parts should be eliminated. I am in the middle of designing my own Rocket based on your design. I am using the SSTU tank and Pyrios engine fairing with a pair of F-1 engines. And a 3.75m to 1.25 cone I have with a Shielded docking port. My parasite transport has a Shielded docking port between the engines. PS I REALLY like the idea of a 2 stage to Orbit full recoverable and LANDABLE transport for crew.
  7. Pappystein
    I would nominate The late Great Ed Heinemann. Sure, he was an engineer more than a pilot but come on. After all, unlike many of the Aerospace Engineeres and Rocket Scientists today, Ed Heinemann did not even graduate High School. Yet he, as an engineer, is single handedly responsible for all the most important Douglas combat Aircraft from World War II until the early 1980s (SBD Dauntless, A-20 Havoc, A-26/B-26 Invader, AD/A-1 Skyraider, A3D/A-3 Skywarrior, A4D/A-4 Skyhawk, F4D/F-6 Skyray, F-5D/F-6 Skylancer and the F3D/F-10 Skyknight.) . Who else could design a tiny plane to do the role of massive aircraft that all his competitors did. The weight of 5 of this aircraft was less than any ONE SINGLE competitor for it's mission (A-4 Skyhawk.) Who else produced a Dive Bomber or attack plane that not only was impressed into use as an emergency Fighter preforming that roll well, but was responsible for the sinking of 4 aircraft carriers in one 24 hour period? (SBD/A-24 Dauntless/Banshee) Kerbals learn by doing more than going to class (we don't have a Kerbal School do we?) Ed Heinemann learned by doing, not by going to an organized school. Without Ed the United States would have likely lost the war in the Pacific, Neil Armstrong would not have looked so good (he came to prominence flying Douglas F5D Skylancers for the USAF's Dyna-Soar program.) Coincidentally, Alan Sheppard was the Chief test pilot for the F5D. Wing Commander Bader Please note the origional post as well as mine had his last name misspelled.
  8. Pappystein
    he is a famous RAF WWII Ace pilot who was (IIRC) shot down, Captured, Escaped and was allowed to fly again after proving he could do it despite missing most of his legs. I have several pictures of him wearing his prosthetics climbing into or out of a Spitfire
  9. Pappystein
    IIRC the Gold is there as part of the passive Heat management. IE they are minor radiators to bleed off any heat generated by the solar panels themselves. This is not a Radiator for the ISS itself but rather just the solar panels. The Path of electricity is run up and down the panel with the central Girder Pylon being Ground. The large gold foil pieces at the end have all the wires running THROUGH them (You can clearly see if you zoom in.) Even the best non Superconductor wire heats up with electrical flow. The Gold at the end isolates the heat from the station structure (reducing the amount of heat the Solar panel "Gives" to the Station structure. We are talking a few hundred watts or Joules, if you prefer, of energy (maybe even a couple three kW. Nothing like what the Stock or @Nertea's Radiators dissipate please note, a lot of Solar Panels have HUGE radiators on the "Dark" Side of the panel. I am not talking about those in the description above.
  10. Pappystein
    Ok not exactly germain to this discussion but it is the Acronym that was left out of American Pie (the Movie) And like at East Great Falls (Err East Grand Rapids) NCAA should be used liberally in KSP No Clue At All!
  11. Pappystein
    @qoonpooka 1st) there is not a lot of information provided here to solve your issue. a) What mods beyond engineer b) what speed and altitude did you start your gravity turn c) what AOA were you at when the rocket flipped out d) Picture of the Entire rocket? e) Does this happen before or after you eject the SRBs f) main engine stats (Type/Number) 2nd) SUGGESTION; Spend time doing a SHALLOW Gravity turn. Sure not as "efficient" but it eliminates a lot of the issues you are reporting. 3rd) fact, I am not a fan of the AV-R8 winglet. It does not seem to control as well as the "Standard Canard" I never use them because they do not have enough control authority 4th) Suggested design change. Launch a small probe based tug that can assemble the side arms in flight. SURE it is more parts but it will solve the issues caused by the massive frontal area with minuscule sized control surfaces. Better your payload be TALL and THIN than Short and FAT on a Tall and Thin Rocket Hope this helps! PS your rocket is atttempting to simulate a Delta III. Delta IIIs had a lot of issues due to the huge faring small rocket....
  12. Pappystein
    Not only was it ground tested, there was room for improvement and the stats are accurate. the J-2X design takes into account all that was learned starting with the original J-2, then the J-2x (First use of the designation) the J-2S uprated J-2, the J-2T Torriodial J-2, the RS-2200 Linear Aerospike, the HG-3 Advanced J-2 Replacement, and finally the RS-25 (SSME) The J-2X is the most advanced engine in it's class as far as design and economics. Now if only the US Congress would stop meddling in NASA the way they were, we could replace the expensive RS-25 engines with a Sea Level rated J-2X variant.... Moar Thrust= MOAR Payload! then again if Congress would have stopped the meddling then the F-1B equipped Pyrios booster would have finished development. A Throttleable F-1 class engine *WOW!* PS @Shadowmage Thanks again for the Pyrios shroud for a two engine mount! Now I Just need to add it to a few other SSTU engines that do not offer that style!
  13. Pappystein
    Mechjeb is not ready for the lime-lite YET in 1.2 But I am MORE THAN CERTAIN that there will be a release of 1.2 compliant MechJeb once 1.2 goes live
  14. Pappystein
    RE Tank Variants, By Variants I assume differing textures based on tank selected, we can then choose to swap out say KLox for NTO? RE Part upgrades and SRBs: Most SRBs of X type do not ever get upgraded. The Exception to the rule is the Space Shuttle SRB. IE the UA-1205 used the same fuel and thrust curve from the 1960s right up until it's last launch in the 1990s. The UA-1207, which uses a slightly different fuel and two addtional segments, was the same from the late 1960s right up until the early 2000s for last launch. The next Generation USRM for the Titan however is a whole new beast and is more technology advanced than any rehash of the Shuttle SRB (it was after all designed with lessons from the Challenger explosion in mind.) PART Upgrade and Engines: I can see a great use for this so long as we are not trying to bring Different engines in that re-use the same designation (J-2X vs J-2, they are almost completely unique to each other.) For example the J-2 via the J-2X (first use) program resulted in 9 engine variants... not all are germain to Part upgrade (J-2T Annular aerospike) and not all were actually built. The engine that has the most upgrades is the TItan's LR-87-AJ-x for the US. THe RD-58 also has 8 differing engines. *ISSUE* There are reasons a lot of engines have Variants... Not always is it because it is better. For example the LR-87-AJ-3 was KLOx, not NTO like all later production LR-87s. LR-87-AJ-3s were used at the same time as the Latter LR-87-AJ-5 (NTO) engine was used. I am personally not for using Part Upgrade unless there is a way to "Decrement" back to an older version for things other than tanks. Lastly Engine Clusters. Instead of making it a change in thrust. What about if it is a change in the SIZE of the cluster (# of engines.)
  15. Pappystein
    @Murican_JebThe parts are not for a P-51. The wings and engine you refer to are for a Supamarine Spitfire XIVc. It is a 5 blade Rotol Propeller and the wings are true elliptical (not the Half elliptical like the P-47.) While the above picture is of a Mk19 PhotoRecon bird, you can clearly see the wing platform is the same as Firespitter as well as the 5 blade Propeller
  16. Pappystein
    It looks like you have SAS on with TORQUE on. Before docking Disable torque on all craft! I used to have destructive Stations and Tinkertoy Ships until I either; A) get all Gyros in a single line all on the same plane of rotation(hard to do) or B) Disabled Torque on all parts. The Shuttle is offset by a large mass movement arm as well as having a lot of mass itself. It is also 90 degrees off the plane of the rest of the station with it's docked location. All of those with the torque from the SASes will QUICKLY rip apart a station. After all that is why all REAL space ships use RCS for positioning.. Gyroscopes are limited to keeping balance or orientation not actually for moving a ship.
  17. Pappystein
    @Nukeproof I take your silence to mean you have figured out how to fix the issue based on @Marcelo Silveira's and my comments?
  18. Pappystein
    Cool, I personally ended up making my own files based on some of the code in the posts above (5 different airbrake sizes.) However a lot of players are not good CFG ninjas.
  19. Pappystein
    From the side the S1B H-1 engine array looks like a Straight Shroud mount. However like the Russian N-1, the Engines are actually embedded inside the structure (there is a bottom plate and some structural members below the engine attachment points. Here is a picture of the bottom from SA-209, which is in the rocket garden at Kennedy IIRC. The only Saturn Stage that Had and kept a Straight Shroud like you created for your mounts was the S-II (C or D?) stage for the proposed but never built Saturn II (INT-17,-18 or -19) In those cases it was either 7,6,5 or 4 J-2s or HG-3s in an open cavity, the shroud acting like a Cruiser transom on a boat/ship. The original S-II shape from a stock Saturn V would cause a significant reduction in effective thrust until out of ground effect (~100 meters AGL.) Due in part to poor aerodynamics around the 5x engine arrangement and partially to excessive drag. And yes, the H-1s only had 1 axis/direction gimballing. Outer engines only = Roll Control but only to the left. Inner + outer engines = Yaw and Pitch control (one inner and one outer engine for each Direction +Yaw, -Yaw, +Pitch, -Pitch) The whole setup looks complicated but it is actually simpler than a Bi-Directional Gimbal setup for the early computer control.
  20. Pappystein
    I can see launching that inside a fairing to dock with a space station or Tinker Toy ship. looks good!
  21. Pappystein
    Then there is your problem! You can either delete the Drag Cubes from your FASA CFG : OR Delete the Realchute MM file in the Real Chute Directory that directly affects FASA.
  22. Pappystein
    Are you using realchutes or SafeChutes?
  23. Pappystein
    It sounds like another MM file for contracts is going to be needed. Much like the "Deploy Parachutes while splashed down" with Real chute that prevents such a thing....
  24. Pappystein
    If you are Using Ascent Guidance, you CAN make a whole slew of changes to improve your rockets Flight however each of those changes except MaxQ are unique to each rocket. IE you have to experiment with repeated launches to figure it out. Playing a ZERO revert Career? easy, put a probe core inplace of the Parachutes on the pod and make certain to remove your crew. That is what NASA did to learn. I have one question no one has asked. Are you using Kerbal Joint reinforcement? (AKA KJR) The Saturn V and Titan will not fly *Well* without it in a Stock+Mod game. In a RSS/RO game I don't know but this is NOT the forum for RSS/RO discussion.
  25. Pappystein
    Actually, I think @NecroBones solved this issue with his radial SAS module in his SpaceY mod. It goes on in Symmetry 2. Drag and Wobble forces will cancel each other out because the same drag/wobble is happening exactly 180 degrees out of phase (IE on the other side of your Rocket.) Applying his methodology, assuming a quarter circle with an RCS thrust point at each end, and the attachment halfway across the arc. You will have reduced your RCS part count by half and you are ALMOST as accurate (in lack of wobble) as you were with the standard parts. But I agree with others that a modified stack mounted probe core is the better choice because then everything is centered no matter what. can you swap node sizes out when you resize a part (for larger torque/drag resiliency on larger stack RCS modules?) I was out of SOI of the station for much of that time (6 weeks game time.) waiting for my probe to get to it's next burn point and time warp was a factor. I have run 3 rockets now with ZBO tanks, each keeps spamming in the right click Tweakable menus a temporary loss measured in what I think are µl. I am checking these during my burn to orbit or while ON station. NOW, Not all of my tanks are ZBO but the non ZBO tanks are not in the same stage and there is no fuel flow that should be happening. Re The tank fragility, I am sick so this weekend when I am up I will play with things further.
×
×
  • Create New...