ARS

Members
  • Content count

    164
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

196 Excellent

2 Followers

About ARS

  • Rank
    AI of Orbital WMD Satellite

Profile Information

  • Location High Orbit
  • Interests Missiles, Rockets, Space Techs, Anything related about Space Explorations, oh, and also Artificial Intelligence

Recent Profile Visitors

1420 profile views
  1. I love space station building in KSP, what I would like to see is more space station specific parts, like habitat, capsules, and crew quarters. About life support, I don't particularly like the idea of limited supplies that makes building and resupplying far stations seems too much to handle. I would like for life support "parts" instead of "resources", for example, an orbital hydroponic that provides food for x amount of kerbal (so more crew means more module needed). However, the food isn't listed on resource tab, its merely an aesthetic to show that there's a need for supplies, yet it's limited for x amount of crew. Adding more crew than the module can handle would result in some of the crew inoperative, or reduce the efficiency of their work (science lab conversion, drilling efficiency, maneuvering rate)
  2. Boosterlands (borderlands) Kerbal: last flight (metro last light) Command and Control: Kerbals zero hour (command and conquer: generals zero hour) Kerbal gear solid: the kraken pain (metal gear solid the phantom pain) Car fly (far cry) Krysis (crysis)
  3. I'll just be honest with my feelings about this. I have a bad feelings, mainly about mods and TT potentially monetizing KSP. I love the game the way it is now, and I'm using a lot of mods (they expand the enjoyment of the game beyond the stock playing), so when I heard that KSP being acquired by TT, which has a problem in the past regarding mods, it surprised me (no, seriously. I just heard about this yesterday). Will this game still mod friendly after this? Like all this time? And about monetizing KSP, I do realize that TT is a company, and company want a profit, so it's logical to assume that they want a return investment from KSP. The question is, how? If they kill big name mods, or start to monetizing with paid DLC (which I assume ranges from new planets, star system or new parts that you can probably obtain for free from mod, over powered parts or something ridiculous like "your ship runs out of fuel on eelo orbit? Wanna pay 0.99$ for refilling your Lf/Ox?") and lock out certain parts, then I'm certainly goes mad. Yeah, I know, I look paranoid about this thing but I care a lot about this game, since this is what makes me interested in spaceflight since 3 years ago (and improve my physics knowledge, both in school and in rocketry) as well as this great and lovely community that always have a new and interesting things to discuss. I'm making a backup game folder now, just in case things go wrong. Just like an actual space program, "always assume for the worst, so when it actually goes smootly right, you can be pleasantly relieved"
  4. Uuum... what do you mean by automatic EVA? Kerbals go EVA when you click a button for EVA near their potrait on the bottom right or clicking crew hatch on a capsule and select EVA. In case of mk1 crew cabin, the hatch is located behind the model, but it's usually used as an attachment point for other parts
  5. I can speak English (my main language), Japanese (quite well), Indonesian (native language), and a bit of Russian, but I prefer speak in english
  6. Nope, scatterer is too much for my laptop. Even simple flying on kerbin is lagging a lot. But I DO have a design for my floating eve colony
  7. Question: -Can I use kerballons? It's an old mod that adds balloons for hovering on atmosphere. My plan is basically have a whole city floating on the eve atmosphere supported by balloons -I don't know of my laptop can handle cloud mods, it's a low end anyway. So is it okay if I post a pic without clouds? That's all. I'll try this one
  8. Nope, I never used monoprop on command pod. I rarely do anything involving RCS, the only time where I'm using it (for my whole 3 years KSP experience) is only 6 times, first when doing docking maneuver (twice, both on space station), landing on minmus (twice, but then I switched to terrier engines for further landing on minmus, the second time is just for airdropping a small rover), grabbing asteroid (once, just for klaw-grabbing), and orbital deorbit (once, because I don't have fuel left and I have no choice). I rarely do anything involve docking, and most of my time playing KSP is spent on creating atmospheric aircraft (sometimes SSTO, sometimes rocket, but then they just for sending satellites)
  9. ah, my bad
  10. This SR-71 blackbird exchange: Until 1981, possibly a bit later than that, U-2 & SR-71 crews weren't allowed to discuss altitudes with air-traffic-control above 60,000 feet (for reference, air-traffic controllers refer to an altitude as "FL" for flight-level followed by altitude in feet, rounded to the nearest hundred feet, and then divided by 100, so fifty-thousand feet would be FL500). Soon after this restriction was lifted, the following exchange is alleged to have occurred. SR-71 radio call-sign Aspen 21: Control, this is Aspen two one requesting clearance for flight-level seven zero zero Air Traffic Control: (laughing audibly on the mic and then speaking incredulously) Good one! If you can climb up that high, it's all yours! Aspen 21: (nonchalantly and without missing a beat) Roger that, descending to that altitude. All who heard the exchange: !!!!!!!!!!!!!
  11. @eloquentJane is right, how many times have you go to eve and returned? This post seems to be a challenge (because no one has attempted it successfully) but the rules of challenge in KSP stated that the challenger have to already performed it to prove that it can be done. I've been playing KSP for 3 years and I've been only on eve (and returned) 3 times. The first 2 uses a monstrous rockets that makes my laptop lags A LOT, while the last one uses a spaceplane with modded engine Now this is what interesting: the last time I'm doing it with spaceplane is a long time ago in KSP 1.1 (just testing it) by using modded engine (.cfg tweaked to match kerbin jet engine efficiency), however, no matter how I tried, it's either: -running out of fuel before leaving atmosphere, even if it's as efficient as jet engine on kerbin -planes being destroyed by drag heating. I can avoid it by throttling down, but then it wastes A LOT of fuel -insufficient fuel to circularize orbit, mainly because of throttling down trying to avoid burning up inside eve atmosphere mentioned above -not enough fuel to return home, mainly because orbit circularization above the main problem is, even if you have an engine efficiency comparable to jet engines on kerbin, eve's higher gravity, thick atmosphere and higher karman line increases the drag your plane experienced, so you stay longer inside atmosphere than a rocket that simply shoot straight up. You DO NOT want to stay longer in atmosphere when launching off eve, since you want to reduce the drag ASAP before it kills off your chance of leaving atmosphere and circularize orbit. And no, using LV-N does not work, it's very pressure dependent, just like @sevenperforce said, you basically wasting fuel with no thrust at all if you fire it up inside eve atmosphere (it even cannot lift itself on kerbin). No offense, but you seemed to be highly optimistic that this will work, so I'll just wait for your entry to prove it (legitimately) and then you can boast off in the forum
  12. I agree with @sevenperforce, this kind of challenge have no limitations or anything to work for building or launching the craft, if you just specify: -stock parts -fly above mach 3 -no debug/cheats Then all I had to do is simply pick mk1 command pod, slap an orange fuel tank with tailfins and strap a vector booster behind it. It'll probably even reached mach 5 and then gets destroyed by overheating (hey, you didn't mention the craft had to survive) but there it is, I did exceed mach 3. I don't want to offend or disappoint you, but if you want to issue a challenge, at least make us do something that's challenging enough that not everyone can do it. This challenge can be completed with basically starting tech level in career (a command pod and a bunch of SRB strapped together)
  13. I've tried doing this for landing my rover on duna. The rover is mounted inside the fairing, which is equipped with airbrakes, drogue chutes and main chutes. Once it's cleared off duna atmosphere, the fairing deploys, while airbrakes slows it down before the drogue chutes deployed. After it's slowed down low enough by rogue chutes, the rover are decoupled mid air while deploying the main chute. It lands on duna, but it seems it depends where and when you land. Earlier attempts seems ended with my rover's wheel being broken/ exploded on contact with surface (though I'm finally able to land it safely by delaying the decoupling long enough so that my rover is able to be decoupled at lower speed than usual)
  14. Personally, I think spaceplanes on eve is not a feasible option. You can't make a pure stock eve SSTO. Mainly because of these factors: 1. Eve has higher upper atmosphere altitude (90km), which means your craft is going to spend it's time inside atmosphere longer than on kerbin (70km) and that means, your craft will be exposed to drag forces longer than on kerbin 2. Eve has thick atmosphere that kills your engine efficiency, and there's no oxygen there, so jet engines is useless. The only engines that efficiently operates on eve is aerospike, mammoth and vector, all of these are rocket engines, they need oxidizers to operate, which means higher fuel onboard, not to mention rocket engines have lower fuel efficiency than jet engines 3. Eve has high gravity, which means higher Dv required to get off of it, however, with thick atmosphere, your craft is going to burn up while it's still on the lower altitude than what you did on kerbin, which means, your craft is subjected on atmospheric heating longer and risk being destroyed 4. Wings do not generate lift by itself. It needs a pushing force against atmosphere from engines to generate and maintain lift
  15. Using flying drone on mars is probably a no-go since mars atmosphere is thin, not to mention dust storms that frequently occur on mars' surface. Remember, you cannot control drone using real time control like you did with RC drone on earth, at the distance of earth-mars, you can't joystick that thing. It's possible to make a drone flying on mars if it's light enough, but then it's highly vulnerable towards martian dust storms, even if it's landed, since it's light weight would make it easily swept away. Rovers have no problem though, since they are usually too heavy to be swept away On venus, a land-based drone is a straight bad idea. Using balloon on the drone might be a good idea, since venus atmosphere mainly consist of carbon dioxide, it's easy to make a balloon that float above certain height using the gas lighter than that, the problem is how to control the drone's heading. I don't know if there's a way to control balloon on venus atmosphere, perhaps using a series of propeller? I don't know About Titan drones, the main problem is power source. Titan only receive 1% of sunlight compared to earth, and even then, the light is filtered by titan's thick atmosphere, leaving only 0.1% of it reaching the surface, so a solar panel is not an optimal power source here. RTGs might work, but then it depends how powerful it is to power the drone for an extended amount of time while keeping drone's weight light enough to sustain flight