Jump to content

Pappystein

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,377

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Pappystein

  1. Pappystein
    I have this problem with the Stock capsules as well. It has to do partially with what you hang on your particular craft. I am working my way through some lower level part fixes before I get to the Big-G (for my internal mods) but If I figure something out on Big-G I will post it. are you running Stock aero or are you running something like FAR?
  2. Pappystein
    @SuicidalInsanity I love the Mk2 form factor even with all it's limitations. You have done an amazing job of expanding on the basic form factor. More options is always better than less. On the subject of Mk2 parts and options, any chance we could see a 2x2 engine adapter? I build long Mk2 Space-planes and a Single Jet engine with two 0.625m Rockets are rarely enough thrust to get my SSTOs into orbit. and I end up with too much useless weight when I add 2 1.25m sets of tanks in a trebble bubble layout with the Mk2 parts. As I envision it the 2x2 would have the 0.625m Vertical with the 1.25m nodes horizontal. this will cause a slight bump up and down on the basic Mk2 profile but that could be turned into a vertical Chine along the profile of the wing chines to allow placement of a Vertical Tail or Ventral fin. Of-course then we will just need a Retractable Ventral Fin set Thanks for considering such an endeavor!
  3. Pappystein
    Ok I have already posted my suggested engine performance for Kerbalscale "Stockalike" for the Saturn F-1 Engines... I however did transpose some scaling numbers. Actual Scaling numbers I am using: F-1 Scales well compared to the much more memory intensive FASA F-1 engine MODEL { model = RealScaleBoosters/Parts/Engines/RSBengineF1 scale = 0.60, 0.78, 0.60 } F-1B Also scales well with the FASA F-1 engine. MODEL { model = RealScaleBoosters/Parts/Engines/RSBengineF1B scale = 0.60, 0.70, 0.60 } Please note, Design differences between how Frizzank and NecroBones chose to make their respective mods is the main reason the Y axis is not just 0.60, 0.60, 0.60 on each of these engines. My S-1C stage now uses less memory! YAY! On to J-2 engine family.
  4. Pappystein
    Just a heads up, you would use these same stats for the RSB F-1 engine after a rescale. I am still trying to fiddle with the scales to match the Kerbin scale rockets. It took several attempts to get the scale for the F-1B "nice" The Stock F-1 is taking even longer. For anyone who thought making a Mod is easy (or heck just editing CFG files!) Proof in the Times listed above. Thank your Mod Creators! I know I do!
  5. Pappystein
    Rescale Report: Rocketdyne F-1B. Scale Factor used: scale = 0.66, 0.66, 0.8 This scale factor gave me an almost identical size difference between the re-scalled F-1B engine and the FASA F-1 engine (using the below image to verify scale.) I consider FASA to be the baseline of Kerbal scale at this size and above. On the below image, the Turbopump Exhaust INLET is the same size. Thus the F-1B bell is physically smaller than the F-1 or F-1A engines of history. Please note the SLS launch platform with two Twin Engined Pyrios boosters in the background Below is a simple Chart of Mass, Thrust, ISP of the FASA F-1 engine. My altered F-1 and F-1A Cfgs using the FASA model and basic CFG, and my Rescale F-1B from this mod. Engine Name Source of CFG/Model Engine Thrust Engine Mass Engine ISP (SL) Engine ISP (VAC) F-1 FASA 1550 8.75 280 320 F-1 FASA CFG mod by me 1550 6.5 280 320 F-1A FASA CFG mod by me 1780 6.75* 263 290 F-1B RSB CFG mod by me 1840 5.4 270 308 F-1B Full Thrust** RSB CFG mod by me 2000 5.5 260 300 * I have found no reliable source for weight/mass of the F-1A engine in FLIGHT condition. Mass is estimated. ** F-1B Full thrust is my name for the proposed uprated F-1B for later production (allowing a further 20 tons of lift into Low Earth Orbit on SLS. No Official name exists for this engine that I have found. Lightly Related: It should be noted that the bottom of the Pyrios booster already SORT-OF exsists in KSP as a 2.5m part (it should be a 3.75m/Size 3 part at Kerbal Scale)
  6. Pappystein
    RSRM is any Shuttle SRB post 25th flight. (Per Links posted already by Felbourn) Sorry for the poor "SRM family tree" below but this is the evolution of the "SRM" as I understand it. United Technologies UA-12xx Series and UA-156 series | | | Thiokol SRM Series 1 for Space Shuttle | Thiokol SRM Series 2 for Space Shuttle (used in most of the first 25 STS missions) | Challeger Explosion | Thiokol RSRM (Structurally Beefed up SRM series 2 with new O-Ring design (please note that atleast part of one of the Final RSRMs to fly the shuttle had parts from the ORIGIONAL SRM-1 from STS-01 (Columbia's first flight) | / | | / | Hercules SRMU (Replacement for the UA-1207 SRB on Titan IV) Newest US made Large Scale SRB (Technology and Design wise.) | ATK-Thiokol/Orbital-ATK RSRM of various Segment count (Basically same RSRM as Space Shuttle, not a New Design and not new technology.)
  7. Pappystein
    That is probably the Titan IVB SRMU. ATK Purchased Hercules Aerospace in 1995 half way through he SRMU production run. And no, I have not seen a SRMU model yet for KSP (I am currently re-using FASA's UA-1207 "Titan White SRB" model for the SRMU in my personal configs.) Crap tons more fuel than the UA-12xx series, Much lower overall weight (Carbon Fiber instead of metal.)
  8. Pappystein
    <Sorry> Couldn't type below the quote the first time I tried this today... Gack where is my 20lb sledge? I too have done some crazy builds that way. A Tinker toy in space build with 3 2.5m Nuke engines on long stacks with no less than 7 various Gemini capsule combinations and a crew of 10... The Kraken ate that one before I could get the money shot with screen capture. Since I am currently focusing on my personal CFG changes to various mod parts I use, I am not going to have a Tinker Toy ship again for a while. My Original concept was for multiple landers with pilots and science officers to land in the Various Biomes, collect science, and return, All from one or 3 orbits of the Mother-ship. Krakened every time (too many mods... GRR 32bit version!
  9. Pappystein
    I too had this problem. I created an Action Group to Toggle the RCS on the Command Module itself. Mechjeb does not understand RCS the way it is set up on the CM's cone, so shutting the RCS off on the Command Module fixes the issue (but it dose slow down pitch/yaw/roll acceleration.) I now have no issues using the CM/CSM stack. Although I still prefer to run Gemini or BigG.
  10. Pappystein
    You have non FASA parts on the Sargent stack (Looks like a Roverdude US Probe pack probe,) The rockets are balanced for the FASA Explorer probe. .To make certain other probes are similarly balanced would require a lot of back and forth from one Mod to the next.
  11. Pappystein
    Thanks for Adding The F-1B. J-2T is a Torodial Aerospike of either 200 or 250Klbs thrust (890kN or 1.1mN) It later evolved into the Linear Aerospike RS-2200 for use on the X-33 J-2T uses basic J-2 Pumps and attachments, RS-2200 uses updated J-2S pumps and attachments. Assuming since the J-2T is a Toorodial, that stearing of the thrust would be by external gimbals (IE gimbal the same way the Bell does on the J-2 Conventional engine.) http://www.astronautix.com/engines/j2t250k.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerospike_engine
  12. Pappystein
    IF there is any part of the rocket in the swing path of the arms, yes bad things can happen. When I use the Apollo Towers, I also have some base clamps(FASA 1.25m Redstone or Gemini clamps) and I stage in this order: All Apollo Towers If wobble on staging Apollo towers, wait for stability Engage Engines at max thrust and pop the remaining clamps. Oh and it is VERY helpful if you are using the latest release of Feram's Kerbal Joint reinforcement as suggested in the OP by Frizzank.
  13. Pappystein
    Given J-2X is already been listed, Any chance of seeing either the J-2T or F-1B engines so we can up-rate our Saturn rockets? I prefer New school engines on my Old School rockets rather than stupid administratively castrated Rockets (Constellation/SLS) TIA
  14. Pappystein
    1st I am glad you edited in the comment about posting in the wrong forum. While this is not the right forum for Remote Tech it however is the right forum for where the parts go. I can not speak for Frizzank or Nathan Kell but there are people here that might have input into your question that might not use/read the remote Tech forums. 2nd I was under the impression based on the history books I have on Spaceflight and the Wikipedia articles about the Pioneer program that all the Earth centric Pioneer Probes and the Lunar Centric Probes were gravatically steered so as to point their antenna toward Earth, or had multiple antennas to cover all sides that would possibly be pointed at earth. That implies that the antenna in question is at best mildly non directional (greater coverage than a straight line, less coverage than hemispheric)
  15. Pappystein
    Agreed, and some think it is too restrictive in the Science tree, Hence, Landing Guidance is now at the start in my games.
  16. Pappystein
    Ok, I realize I probably borked this up. I origionally only wanted the Kosmos engines (they are some of the most AWESOME engines available in game for shear LOOK if nothing else,) So I copied just the engine parts and then updated all the CFGs. Now I have added the whole mod over top of the engines (not overwriting what was already there.) None of the tanks or other parts appear in the VAB (they show up just fine on the Science nodes in the R&D buildings.) Any idea what I have borked up? I have tried a wipe and re-copy of the pertinant CFGs to no avail. While I do have a crapton of mods (B9,FASA,Kosmos, to name the bigguns) I have not reached my memory limits (game still runs fine.) Just no tanks. TIA <EDIT> If I do a by Sort by Science Tech Level search, I can find the parts.
  17. Pappystein
    So downloaded this mod. The A-4 engine is not compatible with the existing tanks (requires LOX and Alcohol, tanks are setup as LFO. If there are additional mod dependence please post them on your release site (Kerbalstuff) and OP. TIA
  18. Pappystein
    So I have not used (or at least rarely used) the Apollo CSM due to how it's bottom node almost completely depends on the SIVB LEM adaptor. Most of my Saturn manned rockets either have a Gemini variant (Gemini, BigG, WingedG, Gemini II etc,) or the Stock 3 person capsule. Does anyone have knowledge of a Different adapter/fairing that will work with the node setup in the FASA Apollo CM/CSM and it's AJ-10 engine? i have played with Procedural fairings but they require a top node device. Due to the way theh AJ-10's engine colliders and nodes are setup, using Procedural Fairings results in a lot of explodie Bitz! Dose anyone have other ideas? I am trying to make a Saturn II that uses the Apollo CSM/CM to build a modular space station in the short term, the long goal is to carry a Large habitat/lander to Duna later in the game on a NERVA equipped Saturn Nova rocket. TIA!
  19. Pappystein
    I wouldn't call anything in KSP as "Limited Usefulness" I am still routinely launching Rockets with the Redstone (A-10?) engine from the FASA mod and I am established with an orbital station and routine flights to the mun and minims in my current campaign. I am sure this engine could also find uses later on in the game, even if it is just to run some new science experiment when a new science part is unlocked.
  20. Pappystein
    Wasn't suggesting it (Grand Slam or Cloudmaker) Should or would be in your mod. We actually have no idea if Cloudmaker would have ever been used against ships at anchor. And Grand Slam was not ready in time, to try against any capitol ships... Tripitz was already sunk by Tallboys. I was only stating that the Tallboy model, via a rescale factor could be used for Grandslam but not Cloudmaker, even though the Cloudmaker was a derivative design.
  21. Pappystein
    And Grandslam is (Model wise) just a scale up unless you want to go super detailed. Only the US Cloudmaker (43,000 pounds) version of the Barnes Wallis Supersonic bombs would need a new model. It had flat sides on the warhead section and the light alloy Breakaway tail was of a less acutely angled cone with 4 fins canted to induce spinning at 40RPM if I recall correctly. T-12 Bomb on Wikipedia
  22. Pappystein
    I to have been using BOTH Pwing mods since I found them. However I do not use FAR as it seems to be MORE un-realistic to me than it is realistic *OPINION* However I think KCS123 understated the keys to either Procedural wing mods. In conjunction with the CLAW's stock Bug fixs Stock Bug Fix you can actually create Variable incident Wings that WORK! Hello F-8 Crusader true functionality My SSTOs commonly have a VIW with a 2-3 Degree changeable incidence. AWESOME on landing! you can dramatically lower the part count of your aircraft, and make the aircraft more rigid (sick of having wing panels break off in a high G turn because it is way out there and not enough struts?) Much easier to control the COL placement in relationship to the COM. More advanced airfoil designs (shape and limited-camber not actual airfoil profile obviously) allows for more complex wings (I Often use Cranked Arrow and Scimitar wings which are hard to construct and keep together on a maneuverable aircraft with stock parts due to the above #2 Oh and lets be honest here. There are lots of wing parts out there if you don't like Procedural, including the old B9 ones in the Legacy packs. The B9 design team has decided to no longer create new parts or provide more than basic support for those old parts. Nuff said.
  23. Pappystein
    Darn my Trust of Wikipedia Seriously the examples I used were right out of the Monopropellant page on Wikipedia. When does FASA grace your Signature Nathan? That is what I do. Honestly as soon as the armored Solar Cells are available, I put 3 or 4 on the Gemini capsule to stage 2 adapter or the CSM module for the Apollo and run with them. Not Realistic but FASA isn't either. I have used the Fuel cell when I am stuck behind a celestial body away from Kerbol for an extended period.
  24. Pappystein
    By Design I think. Frizzank has always maintained that a limited amount of dependencies was the most efficient way to make sure FASA alone did not crash your game. Most Fuel cells use some sort of Hypergolic or very low flash temperature fuel to create an Electrical charge that can then be applied to a battery or other stowage device. Mono-propellant (a most in-appropriately named fuel BTW) is a Hypergolic fuel. IE it reacts when both parts of the Fuel are combined (See it is Bi-Propellant not Mono.....) So without needing an additional mod to add more resources to the Game Frizzank used the most appropriate fuel available for the job. In the Real World Hydrazine Hydrant is used for the Maneuvering thrusters on things like the Space Shuttle, Apollo, Gemini etc. The second fuel is the catalyst which in the case of the modern thrusters at least is a piece/strip of Iridium Metal. One of the solid compounds that causes Hydrazine to ignite on contact (SO it is Half Liquid Half Solid fuel rocket motor. As only one fuel is used in any quantity someone thought to call it Mono-propellant. Sorry for the digression but it is important to understand WHY Monopropellant was Frizzank's best choice.
  25. Pappystein
    I to am having issues with the Airbrakes. Except I don't use FAR/NEAR, just stock aero. In my case, the Air brakes are fine, until I leave the ship in orbit to go to a different ship (Docking/etc.) Afterwords the Air-brakes are stuck and only deploy about 1 degree back in Atmosphere. If this isn't an easy fix, Is there any way AeroSufacePlus can be separated into two separate select-able items? AeroSurfaceLOCK and AeroSurfaceAdjustment, to prevent the in-inadvertent control lockout. Thanks for the continual and Great effort in bug squashing!
×
×
  • Create New...