Gaarst

Members
  • Content count

    2317
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2452 Excellent

7 Followers

About Gaarst

  • Rank
    Librarian

Contact Methods

  • Twitter Alas poor Yorick!

Recent Profile Visitors

5628 profile views
  1. SRBs already have terrible Isp on Kerbin. I don't expect them to be of any use. In fact I'd be surprised if any of them could lift its own weigh. As for the LF engines good for Eve, the Aerospike, Vector and Mammoth are the top 3. Don't remember much about the other engines since I haven't been there in a very long time.
  2. Yes. Reversing the direction of an orbit is very expensive in terms of dV (twice your orbital velocity) so I doubt it is an option.
  3. The ascending/descending nodes tags show the difference in inclination between your orbit and the target orbit. Here you have "ascending node: 180°" this means that your orbit is inclined 180° relative to the target orbit. In other words, you are orbiting in the wrong direction. In the map view, you should be able to see shadings on the target orbit line moving around: these show the direction of the target orbit, pay attention to these when launching to avoid this common mistake.
  4. Yes, launch to the West. 180° is an equatorial orbit, only opposite the usual way. Remember to pack a little bit more dV since you won't be using Kerbin's rotational velocity, but rather be fighting against it.
  5. Thanks for your patch! The license of the original mod allows for redistribution under an identical license, which you've done, I don't see anything wrong. I'll be adding the original mod with a link to your patch straight away! There is probably a reference to something in here, but I am too uncultured to get it. Either way, I haven't started the spreadsheet yet because there are some things that I need to take care of. Nothing too bad, just annoyingly slow, I can't be bothered starting the spreadsheet right now.
  6. No, ground effect is not simulated. So no ekranoplans can't be an efficient way of travelling in KSP. An efficient way to travelling around Kerbin, flying aside, is hydrofoils. This means using the lift from the water to have your craft fly just above the surface. Pros: a lot more efficient and faster than a boat since only your foils are in contact with the water, since water is 1000x times denser than air you need small hydrofoils to lift a craft (as opposed to huge wings). Cons: they are a pain to make stable.
  7. The five first nodes of the tech tree. I created a career mode and cheated myself a couple thousand science to unlock all these.
  8. As @Physics Student noted earlier: TWR is important to fight gravity drag in the earlier stages of the attempt. I took my previous lifter, reinforced the lower stage, now powered by one Reliant and 4 Sparks (Vernier hype) instead of the dual Thuds, giving much higher TWR at launch. I modified the upper part accordingly, mostly optimisations and moving fuel from the stage to the payload, allowing me to have a smaller tank for the second stage, saving some more mass. As a result of the TWR increase, the flight profile was much more aggressive, with a gravity turn starting a couple seconds after liftoff (hitting 45° around 8km). From there, I raised my apoapsis to 70km in several steps (always thrusting exactly prograde) to avoid overshooting it to end up in a 70x40km orbit. A final circularisation burn brought my periapsis above 70km. Result: 3.66t to LKO for ROcket 10! If I do a next attempt, I'll be focusing on the second stage: I feel like the Terrier is giving me plenty of TWR that the upper stage doesn't necessarily need. I'll see what I can do with a smaller (and lighter) engine.
  9. *

    Since the moderator in question got demoted, we can speculate that, as you said, this was more than an accident, at least in intent. Either way I'm personally satisfied with the forums moderation, and don't feel censored in any way: I (and many others) have been able to openly criticise Squad and/or Take-Two without any consequences (as long as we stay polite, but that's courtesy, not censorship). It's a shame that this mistake happened, especially for the users involved, but it's not really our business. The ban was an mistake or an error of judgement, it was reverted (with the posts being lost unfortunately) and the concerned moderator punished. That's as far as it goes for me. I've not had any problems with the moderation personally, as far as I'm concerned they are doing a good job. Speaking of "abuse of power" in a forum maintained by Squad themselves is kind of absurd, especially when (as with any decently written rules) the Guidelines specify: Even if the action was not a mistake and justified from a moderator standpoint, there is little we users would have to say about it, since we've all (consciously or not) agreed to these Guidelines. As was said earlier, if you want freedom of speech (or a moderation that isn't related to Squad) r/kerbalspaceprogram is a good place, but personally the situations where such conflicts happen are way too scarce for me to bother.
  10. *

    These are the official forums. They are managed by Squad, so they are pretty much allowed to moderate how they want, go to Reddit if you want less moderation. EDIT: EDIT2: The above is true. Now I'm going to stop talking because I'm breaking a lot of the rules.
  11. My attempt, using ROcket 1 because I forgot to name it in the first place: All conditions are respected (I think). Brought 3.005t to LKO easily: I had about 100m/s of dV left in the tanks, did not flew in the most efficient way, lost a bit of dV due to low TWR (though a 10kg margin doesn't allow for much modifications on the launcher) and overshot my orbit by a bit ending in a 72x71km orbit. It probably could have put 3.015t to orbit, anymore and I would have needed to change the launcher because of the mass limit. EDIT: used KER in the VAB to design the rocket.
  12. The reaction wheel is probably too powerful. Reaction wheels and control surfaces do not respond to input the same way: reaction wheels pretty much apply full torque instantly while control surfaces take some time to deploy and react depending on the airflow. By forcing your craft to move using the reaction wheel, you "throw" your surfaces out of the airflow by the difference in response or simply because the torque of the wheel exceeds the torque the surfaces can apply/withstand. Reaction wheels and control surfaces usually don't work that well together, but it can be amplified depending on the craft itself (ie: shape, CoM and CoL positions...). It's just an hypothesis but SAS is known to destabilise crafts when too much torque is available. Kind of hard to say for sure without a picture of the craft or a craft file.
  13. You mean the dots under your name? They depend on your post count, I know you get 5 dots at 1500 posts but I don't remember the lower thresholds. As for the description ("Librarian" for me), you can set it to whatever you want by going to your profile, Edit Profile, and changing the "Member Title" box.
  14. Yeah I already watched this video, but it was made when Isp decrease meant increase in consumption (instead of decrease in thrust). I'm pretty sure the changes made it 100% impossible with regular chemical propulsion.
  15. Thanks! That is indeed where I originally saw it, didn't remember it was on Github though and I was searching on the forums.