cantab

Members
  • Content count

    6440
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2798 Excellent

3 Followers

About cantab

  • Rank
    Flight Director
  1. Airbrakes? Inflatable heatshield? If it's a return mission, land near-empty and fuel up with ISRU? You'll probably need to use rockets for the final braking though. And don't forget to target low(ish) ground.
  2. I look forward to it. Although it was never really New Horizons I was waiting on to resume my NH save, but FAR.
  3. Removing that correction for planets and moons would in time cause their orbit phases to deviate from reality. Although KSP cannot accurately represent the Moon's orbit anyway, and maybe the orbital period could be corrected by fudging the semi-major axis a little.
  4. To which I mention the old adage, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The 1.2 ship has well and truly sailed, but Ferram do you see merit in getting out a FAR for KSP 1.3 reasonably promptly, even if it perhaps has some minor bugs and aerodynamic inaccuracies. And Tricky14 raises a reasonable point too, that I think in hindsight updating the first post to reflect the situation would have been worthwhile, even though that situation is No FAR for KSP 1.2 and no estimated release date.
  5. Granted. One is ordinary. The other is made of antimatter. I wish for a third potato made of doesn'tmatter.
  6. Granted. It introduces a new potato blight to Ireland. I wish for the patent to the only possible treatment for that blight.
  7. Inverness
  8. SENDS ALL ITS TRANSMISSIONS IN BLOCK CAPITALS. This Lego house...
  9. And uploaded http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=919808194 And that is my town at least complete. I've filled out the area, the traffic's behaving, I'm happy with that. Screenies to come.
  10. I have the save. Time to do said. And wish Steam hadn't decided to start mucking around when it's supposed to take screenshots; fingers crossed I'll get some this time. Might have to upload them myself.
  11. You've pretty much traded in your snail for a turtle there. From experience the GT 610 will play KSP on low settings, but turning them may cause extra lag. I hope you got the 610 for very little money.
  12. Question: Is it allowed to carry payloads outside of the orbiter body? Or do they all have to be in cargo bays or similar that are part of the orbiter and land with it afterwards?
  13. No. Zeus - Jupiter. Cronus, Zeus's daddy - Saturn. Uranus, Cronus's daddy - Caelus. Poseidon, Zeus's brother - Neptune. Hades, Zeus's brother - Pluto.
  14. I decided to quickly play around in KSP and knocked up the various staging arrangements. Solid core, liquid boosters (that burn for longer), all ignite at launch: 2682 m/s Solid core, liquid boosters, core ignites after booster sep: 2721 m/s Liquid core, solid boosters, all ignite at launch: 2928 m/s Liquid core, solid boosters, core ignites after booster sep: 3106 m/s Screenshots: https://flic.kr/s/aHskYQKeGs So the seemingly-odd GSLV approach does not appear to be as detrimental as you might expect. It loses about 14% of the delta-V compared to doing things the 'right' way, which is noticeable but doesn't seem extreme. Thinking about it, sure, so the 'boosters' are lifting the empty SRB core which is 30 tonnes of steel. But when the second stage has 42 tonnes of fuel, the third stage 12 tonnes, plus dry mass for everything (which I haven't found figure for), well ... actually that empty SRB does look kind of heavy percentage-wise after all.
  15. Because the liquid engines burn longer than the solid engine and are attached to the solid engine, the solid cannot be dropped first. Making the liquid engines burn quicker would require either adding more ($$$), making each produce more thrust ($$$) or reducing fuel load which absolutely reduces performance. Making the solid burn longer with the same fuel mass would reduce liftoff TWR, increasing gravity losses, and would also increase peak g-force which might be undesirable. And totally redesigning the structure is $$$. I'd have thought giving the solid more fuel would have been relatively inexpensive though. Maybe it would affect the aerodynamics? Or maybe it's just not worth it? In any case, "totally redesigning the structure" is exactly what's being done. The GSLV Mk 3 will have two S200 solid boosters for its first stage, and a core with two Vikas engines that ignites in-flight thus being functionally the second stage. That compares to the current GSLV with its four Vikas-engined 'boosters' and an S139 solid core, all ignited at launch.