Jump to content

[It's finally here!] Apollo Replica "MUNBUG XII" Saturn V, CSM, Lander, Buggy

Mulbin
 Share

Recommended Posts

Mulbin

Mulbin

Posted
  • Author
Posted
my Brother tryed out munbug... the game crashed!
My computer just got a high-end graphics processor,and that save was LOADED WITH HUGE MODS...So,yeah...I'll try a clean install.

Just a thought... Munbug XI is a little unstable on the pad. I have added a couple more launch clamps to mine on my save.

It may be that Munbug is trying to explode on the launchpad which is what is freezing your computers... try adding some more launch clamps in the VAB and see if it fixes it.

Also make sure you have the "max physics delta" slider fully to the right in the options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mulbin

Mulbin

Posted
  • Author
Posted
The MunBug IX doesn't have the fuel to make it to a 100 km orbit...how many kilometers do you orbit with it normally?

Do you mean Munbug IX... or Munbug XI? I can't speak for Munbug IX as it was made for an older version of KSP.

If you mean Munbug XI (the latest version)...

The third stage has enough fuel to get you to a 75km orbit and also transfer you to the mun on a free return trajectory... with some fuel to spare. You shouldn't need to use the engine on the CSM until you get to the mun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Swanny

Swanny

Posted
Posted

I just made an account as I'm getting quite frustrated with this...

I have tested it in 0.23 and so far I haven't even been able to reach 20km AP. It seems to just lack in power, the highest surface speed I reached was about 150m/s AND it spins and moves about uncontrollably to the point where in some occasions the whole rocket just turned 180 degrees and nose dived into the rocky surface of Kerbal. Secondly, I tried it in a 0.22 but this time, and EVERY time, as soon as I put it on the launchpad, the entire craft explodes in an instant with no input from myself. Any ideas?

Nick

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Woopert

Woopert

Posted
Posted
I just made an account as I'm getting quite frustrated with this...

I have tested it in 0.23 and so far I haven't even been able to reach 20km AP. It seems to just lack in power, the highest surface speed I reached was about 150m/s AND it spins and moves about uncontrollably to the point where in some occasions the whole rocket just turned 180 degrees and nose dived into the rocky surface of Kerbal. Secondly, I tried it in a 0.22 but this time, and EVERY time, as soon as I put it on the launchpad, the entire craft explodes in an instant with no input from myself. Any ideas?

Nick

Try to touch the controls as little as possible for the first stage. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheWanderer

TheWanderer

Posted
Posted
Mulbin, I can't believe you are still working on this! Your dedication to this craft is amazing. I'm sure I can speak for many of us in saying that you have inspired more than a few Kerbal Rocket Engineers :P

sadly he has also inspired a lot of people to rip off his work and claim it as their own......

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mulbin

Mulbin

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Ok... just did a fresh install and downloaded Munbug and can confirm it is working just fine with more than enough DV.

Some points to remember when flying...

1. Don't use any mods that effect the way craft fly! Such as FAR... I cant make my stock ships work with every single mod.

2. Munbug is a replica of the saturn V/Apollo... as such it has only just enough power and just enough DV to complete the mission. If you want an overpowered, easy apollo... download a mod craft.

3. Munbug is an advanced ship, it takes skill and practice to fly, you need to understand efficient ascent angles and how to keep your AP ahead of you (for example when staging to 3rd stage you will likely need to pull up to 45 degrees to keep from passing your AP).

4. Craft this big are unstable in KSP... you cant just turn on SAS and expect it to fly straight up. You will need to make constant course corrections (at least on the first stage) to avoid losing control.

I'm now sitting on a free return trajectory, with the third stage still attacked (with some fuel left in it) about to separate and retrieve the LEM... like I say its working just fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mulbin

Mulbin

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Mulbin, I can't believe you are still working on this! Your dedication to this craft is amazing. I'm sure I can speak for many of us in saying that you have inspired more than a few Kerbal Rocket Engineers :P

Thanks... there are plenty who have inspired me too.... but I wont try to list them in case I miss any!

sadly he has also inspired a lot of people to rip off his work and claim it as their own......

I think more people give me credit and learn from my stuff than just rip it off... but yes, now and again I see something that makes me think..."Hey, thats my craft.. where is my credit?".

But its no big deal... The munbug thread has 115,000 viewers who know better :)

I just made an account as I'm getting quite frustrated with this...

I have tested it in 0.23 and so far I haven't even been able to reach 20km AP. It seems to just lack in power, the highest surface speed I reached was about 150m/s AND it spins and moves about uncontrollably to the point where in some occasions the whole rocket just turned 180 degrees and nose dived into the rocky surface of Kerbal. Secondly, I tried it in a 0.22 but this time, and EVERY time, as soon as I put it on the launchpad, the entire craft explodes in an instant with no input from myself. Any ideas?

Nick

You should hit an AP of about 20km with just the first stage... I've just done a test run and its working fine for me. Are you using any mods? Something like FAR would really mess up a large stock craft like this. (dont get me wrong, its an awesome mod... just kills large stock craft)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Majorjim!

Majorjim!

Posted
Posted
sadly he has also inspired a lot of people to rip off his work and claim it as their own......

I disagree. I haven't seen anyone passing off Mulbins work as their own.

the fact of the matter is this, Mulbin made an excellent Apollo replica. There are very limited stock parts available in KSP. So anyone else wanting to make a

decent looking Apollo style craft will inevitably choose most of the same parts. As they are the best aesthetic choices.

I think Mulbins KSP genius comes from the little ways he applied those parts. Such as the Ibeam fairings and that new 'Spider' lander that still amazes me

when I think about it.

That puts him above other builders.

We should expect Apollo rockets to look similar and use the same parts.

MJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mulbin

Mulbin

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I disagree. I haven't seen anyone passing off Mulbins work as their own.

Its quite rare... I had to deal with someone posting youtube videos of "their creation - Munbug" which wasn't just based on my craft... it WAS my craft :) Also a steam user stealing my banners... but mostly, you are right that craft tend to be based on my techniques rather than just stolen, which is actually pretty awesome to think I've influenced the way some people build.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Majorjim!

Majorjim!

Posted
Posted
Its quite rare... I had to deal with someone posting youtube videos of "their creation - Munbug" which wasn't just based on my craft... it WAS my craft :) Also a steam user stealing my banners... but mostly, you are right that craft tend to be based on my techniques rather than just stolen, which is actually pretty awesome to think I've influenced the way some people build.

Damn straight you have Mulbin! Keep up the good work mate.

MJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheWanderer

TheWanderer

Posted
Posted
I disagree. I haven't seen anyone passing off Mulbins work as their own.

the fact of the matter is this, Mulbin made an excellent Apollo replica. There are very limited stock parts available in KSP. So anyone else wanting to make a

decent looking Apollo style craft will inevitably choose most of the same parts. As they are the best aesthetic choices.

I think Mulbins KSP genius comes from the little ways he applied those parts. Such as the Ibeam fairings and that new 'Spider' lander that still amazes me

when I think about it.

That puts him above other builders.

We should expect Apollo rockets to look similar and use the same parts.

MJ

you obviously dont look around enough. also this isn't the only craft mulbin has made.

so many out there which are clearly the whole design or significant parts that people give no credit for. Like taking the upper stage from a Mulbin craft and sticking a fugly launcher under it and calling it your own work.

dont get me wrong a lot of people do give the credit but a lot dont. as mulbin himself said there was a guy posted a serious of vids with mulbins ship claiming he had built it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Majorjim!

Majorjim!

Posted
Posted
you obviously dont look around enough. also this isn't the only craft mulbin has made.

so many out there which are clearly the whole design or significant parts that people give no credit for. Like taking the upper stage from a Mulbin craft and sticking a fugly launcher under it and calling it your own work.

dont get me wrong a lot of people do give the credit but a lot dont. as mulbin himself said there was a guy posted a serious of vids with mulbins ship claiming he had built it!

Perhaps your right that I just haven't been looking. Although I do check this forum daily and have yet to see one.

Do you have a link for one? It would be good for a laugh.

MJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mulbin

Mulbin

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Nice Ship! Looks exactly like it :D

Thanks! Its evolved over the last year becoming gradually closer to Apollo.

Mulbin, you don't need ullage motors on the second stage. The Saturn Vs for Apollo missions with the rover don't have ullage motors. Plus, it would bring down the part count.

Do you mean the retro ullage motors at the top of the second stage? Or the prograde ones at the bottom of the second stage (which fire when the first stage separates). Glad to hear I can shed some weight!

Looking great as always, Mulbin. Also, is the Mainsail replaced with a Skipper there (for the second stage)? It's hard to tell buy it looks like it. :)

Yes... but I'm having trouble getting enough TWR from it. It drops some speed after first stage sep so will need to work on it for a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mulbin

Mulbin

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Are you ever planning to do a replica of the N-1 rocket? A Russian styled Munbug would be great. :)

So many craft to build... so little spare time at the moment! N1 isn't high on my list I'm afraid but maybe one day.

There are some great replicas around already though, for example you could try Munstrosity by GusTurbo...

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/32817-0-20-Munstrosity-I-Russian-N1-LOK-LK-Lander!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sgt_flyer

sgt_flyer

Posted
Posted (edited)

@ mulbin - on the various documents, they spoke of 4 ullage and 4 retro rockets on the s-II - what wikipedia says is that the s-II used only 4 of those engines for the first manned missions, and , it's there that it's complicated with wikipedia, that the engines where removed, without specifically telling what was removed (only the unused ones - or not : p )

Nevertheless, i think they at least had to keep 2 ullage rockets for the s-II for the inertial flight phase :)(so did they ditched all 4 retrorockets (which were used when they separate s-II from the s-IVB) or used only two sets of each, that's much harder to know (and i did not find it explicitely myself : p) the pictures themselves don't help, because we can still see retrorockets / ullage engines fairings separated by 90 degrees on apollo 15 pictures (so we have 4 of each in the end for the symmetry). (Maybe there was not any solid booster inside some of those fairings anymore, but that doesn't help : p)

My personnal guess is that they ditched the 4 retrorockets of the s-II - because using them meant they had to blast away the protective fairings, which could have potentially made a hazard for the s-IVb - (there was the same infos on the S-IC 8 retrorockets, but what was said was the distance between the base of the s-IC and the S-II limited (or even canceled) shrapnel risks for those retrorockets fairings. Wherease the s-II one where mounted on the interstage between s-II and S-IVb

Edited by sgt_flyer
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...