tater

Members
  • Content count

    5475
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by tater

  1. The Mun Exploration set of missions is titled "Moon Exploration," whereas Minmus is "Minmus Exploration."
  2. I did a Mun impact mission, and combined it with another mission by including 2 probes, one was aimed at the mun, the other then orbited. Everything seemed OK, but it balked on the new craft part, even though it was indeed a new craft. I launched the next thing I had, and the existence of a new craft on the pad satisfied it.
  3. Partially inspired by this thread, I decided to cut out one of my "spear suckers" from the dwarf banana. There he is, transplanted. If I can keep it alive, I will move it outside as soon as I am sure it won't get too cold at night for it. My goal is to see how well it grows in full NM summer. On the right is one of many jade plants (impossible to kill), and on the left is a pretty manky poinsettia.
  4. There's an implicit story in KSP already, so it might as well be a good one. There are competing programs, for example.
  5. Needn't be perfectly orthogonal to be polar, merely highly inclined. So it could be moving clockwise, but at an extreme inclination, near 90 degrees. I'm obviously talking about a solar polar orbit.
  6. I thought this was going to be about the fact that the "tracking station" should be renamed, "Mission Control," and "Mission Control" should be renamed into whatever it actually is (which is without question has nothing at all to do with mission control)
  7. The number of crew isn't really a difficulty thing, IMO, since landing or orbiting more effectively requires building a contraption. I'd think that anyone interested in a historical/logical set of objectives is likely less interested in some Rube Goldberg spacecraft for an arbitrary goal. The stock goals are already arbitrary. I was getting the Mun missions at a point where the stock pod I had was the mk1---a pod I always curtail myself to only ever using in Kerbin orbit. Trying to make career seem like it has a point is pretty difficult given the awful career system Squad came up with, sadly.
  8. Bloody autocorrect. "Supercargo" was "supersize," yeesh.
  9. Borrow from Pohl's Gateway. Put a world in a random (each game) orbit beyond Eeloo. It might even be a retrograde, polar orbit. Set it so that it is a "supersize" asteroid, that requires the asteroid day stuff to discover, and in fact you need to discover it from far out in the solar system. When you get to it, it's a stargate, and flying through it takes you to a new star system to explore.
  10. So a simple clarification: Is the "Mission Builder" a mission builder (career), or is it a "Challenge Builder" (codified version of forum challenges)? The latter is far, far less interesting (to me).
  11. For temp and pressure, you can simply replace the current survey missions with polar orbits at perhaps different altitudes, and a new craft might only be required for the first flight, and orbital changes allowed for new missions, "Retask your munar temperature scanner to a lower orbit, and scan for 80 days" for example. This is because you only get 1 temp, and 1 pressure reading, so if the player has already gotten that science with a flyby, it doesn't matter, it's just a few points. So that's easy. For the gravoli sensor, and some modded science instruments that look down from orbit at each biome, the trouble is that the player can click flying over each biome (big ones are easy, but "slopes" might come and go before you can click the part, particularly in low orbit). Then, if the new mission gives the sum total of such science as the reward, the player could collect the reward the easy way (a polar orbital probe for XX days), THEN they could click on the part and get the science again---unless a contract can mark science as collected. This only applies to instruments that collect data on biomes. The other solution is to not have the "scanning survey" missions for those parts.
  12. Odd idea that subverts the normal science paradigm in KSP... It used to be that many science contracts gave large science rewards. Those were then reduced, making the science gained by the parts themselves the thing. A problem I have with stock "survey" contracts from orbit (and science from orbit, like the "transmit science" stuff that rewards the contract even with 0 science points transmitted). OK, here's an idea: The extant surveys include points semi-randomly on the world that you must fly over, which is a pain in the posterior, since you have to warp until you fly over, then make sure the altitude is right (and it varies by site), then find the science part and click it before you leave the flyby zone. Instead, replace those orbital survey missions with specific orbits, usually polar, at a particular altitude, and require the survey science parts be on the spacecraft. So instead of taking temp readings at 3 spots below 13km over the Mun (where you might also have to adjust altitude for 1 area), you would require a polar orbiting temperature scanner spacecraft, and require that it orbit for 100 days, then give the player the reward instead of the click-fest of the current versions. For science instrumentality that scans "biomes" (gravity sensor, for example), I'd like to get the total science as the reward, assuming a contract can mark those experiments done so that it cannot be exploited by 2X measurements. So a requirement of the mission to get the reward is that you fly the orbital scanner (gravoli in this case), but that if it has been used at all over that particular body before mission completion, the player gets no reward from the mission---is it possible for a contract to set science as done?
  13. My mint has not taken over, and I actually want it to for tea and mojitos, lol. Along with some food I cook with mint. Oregano fills that role here, I have to give away large, shovel sized clumps of plant to people. My thyme spreads, but needs to be cut back in winter or it dies in the middle (like the chamisa bushes I hack down to nothing every year that end up the size of a VW by October). Herbs are a good place to start I think, as you can eat them, but you only need a small crop to be successful in that regard, and the bees like the flowers when they get to that point (my friend keeps bees, nd he got me to bump up the flowers around the house).
  14. @Tex, I have no idea what I'm doing, I just plant stuff and I see what grows. Some things I have thrive on a sort of benign neglect (rosemary, for example---mine is already flowering and covered with bees, and it briefly snowed yesterday (it was shorts weather the day before---but that's life in the mountains).
  15. I play scaled up, since stock KSP has no real challenge, even with LS. There are no design challenges when you don't ever need staged landers, for example (I don't even count Eve, since no one would ever want to walk on a Venus analog).
  16. Every 'tater I have in the pantry sprouts.
  17. I'm becoming intrigued, lol. That's not even crazy expensive! PM me when it's coming up and I can maybe PayPal you. I'll throw a Corpse Reviver #2 party.
  18. Where do you live? I love lemons... I have a great cocktail with fresh lemon juice, too, but that might be more of a PM thing . Fruit from other countries is strictly regulated to avoid plant pests and disease, however.
  19. Nearest below sea level to me is Death Valley, though I'd think that's maybe a 9-10 hour drive. A buddy of mine grows green chile peppers (same species as Anaheim, but far hotter), and these tiny tomatoes that are champagne grape size down to pea size.
  20. Which would still be nonsense in ksp as it stands if the goal is anything like the real trade offs with ion engines vs higher thrust engines. As it stands, the only trade off is that long burns are a pain in the posterior, and it has zero effect on mission duration.
  21. Dawn's mass is about 1/2 the heaviest Mercury capsule. Crewed craft flying the same mission profile would be vastly more massive. Astoundingly more massive if we make the mission over 9 years .
  22. This is a pretty rude post. Adding please to what is a demand---already addressed in this dev thread, and dismissed---doesn't make it less rude. If you don't like it, design something that it can actually dock to, like PMA-2:
  23. That's how ions work. Many spiraling orbits. If you care about time, they're the wrong choice. Anyone using them on crew vehicles is exploiting them, IMHO. People can play how they like, but knowing how they are "faked" into KSP precludes using them outside of how they should be used if you wish to suspend disbelief.
  24. @pap1723 I get what you are trying for, and I like it, frankly. I don't like the 1 crew missions, either, but you could imagine such a mission happening in a "space race" if such a thing were possible in KSP. The trouble is that there are no real risks in KSP.
  25. Yeah, making rescale work could be non-trivial, but rescales don't rescale the kerbals, or the rockets (except RO). Wonder if it could use the Kerbin rescale factor as a modifier (if Sigma is installed). The longest Apollo mission was 12.5 days, and I'm sure they must have had a little excess capacity. Regardless, the idea that they would consume human amounts of supplies in 6 hours is bizarre. Even if you used human supply amounts, it should be divided by 4 just for that, IMO.