• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by CoreI

  1. What lessons can be taken away from catastrophic failures? How about redundancy! I often pack my ships with redundant engines, and now I suppose that will be put to use! I like adding the part failure feature to KSP, because it adds realism with being too hard. I'm not sure how close to finished the expansion is, but (I'm not asking for a date) will 1.3 and the expansion be released at the same time, or one released after the other?
  2. What category would an X37-B style launch be under? I'm working on one currently that blends the Falcon 9 (recoverable first stage) and a NERV-powered spaceplane? In case you don't know what X37-B is:
  3. In my career game my mission control stopped offering contracts. Fortunately, i have fixed that thanks to this reddit post However, now i am being bombarded by ~50 contract offers. Is this because my reputation is ~50? Or is it because I raised the contract limit to 30? If I am being offered so many contracts because of my raised limit, how can I bring the number of contracts being offered in mission control down a few notches to feel less cheaty? Thanks in advance!
  4. You asked the wrong question. The question is, what would my dog do? Case 1 (Dog is inside during landing): Well, my house would have one less door, and earth would have three less kerbals. Case 2 (Dog is already outside during landing): I'm sure that my dog would happily run up to them wagging her tail, and I would be slowly sneaking into the kitchen (knife rack) just in case the kerbals turned hostile. I don't know why, but my dog is super aggressive when she is inside and someone else is outside; but if she and the person are outside, she is very happy to go up to them and request being pet.
  5. Is it confirmed that the KSP Vostok will be weighted to one side? Because even if real Vostok was weighted asymmetrically, is KSP capable of supporting non-center CoM? I personally love the idea of a capsule rolling if it lands in the wrong place. It adds a bit more realism while not making the game super hard.
  6. Judging judging by the relative size of those RCS thrusters, I'm guessing that the Vostok fits onto a 1.25 meter stack, correct? Also, is that small black cylinder on the top right of the pod part of the capsule or a different part I never use? Overal, good stuff! I'm glad to see development moving along at a nice pace. Can't wait for Asteroid Day to be integrated.
  7. Fantastic news! I love to see development moving at a fast pace. Those new retractable rover wheels look great and I love the idea of having them retractable. Is it possible to see pictures of them next to the other rover wheels for size comparison? On another note, I have scoured SQAUD's image on the mun for anything not mentioned by anybody else, and I found something! On the rover (sorry, I don't know how to post an image into my post), look to the bottom left of the kerbal's head and just to the right of the battery. What is that box-shaped thing? A new RTG? A new probe core? I don't think it is part of the new rover base, because it has a different coloration.
  8. Yeah, I got a little scared there. I don't remember ever seeing that happen there. Although, if that left (from the webcast PoV) grid fin had given way and fallen off, would the rocket have been able to land? This may be the case considering that the Falcon 9 was built from the ground up with redundancy in mind. SpaceX has claimed that one engine can go out and the mission could be fine. But does the same apply for grid fins?
  9. Woot woot!! SpaceX has done it again! Anyone else hear unconfirmed rumors of a planned attempted fairing recovery for today's launch?
  10. You sir, could be an excellent marksman. Your shot-in-the-dark theory is indeed correct. I do not pack thermal control systems on spaceplanes. I shall try putting some on next time I play with fire, I mean, spaceplanes. In that case, anyone looking for advice on spaceplanes reentry, disregard my previous comment.
  11. To add onto what @Wanderfound said: This is a decent way to brute force the landing accuracy. This also allows you to land a bit quicker in real time. However, the reason others, including me, may suggest keeping your periapsis at ~20km is that in order to renter with a periapsis of 0km your plane is going to have to be made of some sturdy stuff if your coming in from orbital velocity. The heat will pile on really quick, especially with a low AoA. *DISCALIMER* I've never tried coming in with a 0km periapsis myself, but my Mk2 plane starts to get pretty close to the bursting point when I begin to get into the ~18km range. If you share some images of the craft, we might be able to tell you better how low you can go before burning up.
  12. In my career game I have gotten to the point were I will begin to exploit the Kerbin System of its valuable resources (ore). To do this, I am going to build a rover which will search for the best spot once I have done the orbital survey. However, I would hate to have to drive all over Minmus to find the best spot. So I figured that I would make one faster, larger rover which would carry a couple smaller ones, which could go out and come back. Here's where the doors come in. I would like to have the front half of the river to be science, then the back half be a garage with a ramp. So that the ramp does not drag along the surface, it has to be on a powered hinge. I have experimented with a couple ideas, none of which have been reliable. The best one uses antennas to rotate and landing gear to go up and down. My problem has been keeping both antennas in their sockets. Thanks in advance! CoreI
  13. Great idea, and I considered it, but I can't fly a VTOL, even a rocket powered one, to save my life. Now that I think about it, I am really doing it for the heck of it, but give me a minute... *one minute passes* Ok got it! So since, as you mentioned in your reply, things tend to go airborne (spaceborn?) on Minmus, if I have one rover, and something happens to it, goodby Mission. At least with one mothership and several smaller ones, if a small rover is destroyed all is not lost. If the mothership crashed and is disabled, the smaller rovers should survive.
  14. So, you appear to be having issues with navigating using RCS. One of your problems is probably what view you are in. Hit 'V' until you see 'locked' at the top of the screen. Now all the directions from your PoV will be correct for how your RCS is firing. This makes navigation infinitely easier. And that's how you steer. I'm too lazy to write it all. Another tip: Right click on the docking port on the vessel you are controlling, and click control from here. Then, right click the docking port on the other ship you are trying to dock with, and click set as target. This will make the navball show the and markers correctly.
  15. Hello Apollo 13, and Soviet failures. So, hypothetical scenario: I buy DLC, install DLC. I continue existing Career game. Will parts randomly fail/malfunction? Just to be clear, I am in favor of this. I also think it could add more usability for engineers. Will the Making History Expansion add another game mode (ex: Sandbox, Science)? If so, will we be able to use these new parts in a Career game? Overall, I love the way the DLC and ksp as a whole is shaping up. I can't wait to participate in challenges using Mission Builder!
  16. Actually, asparagus staging was something that was planned to be implemented on the Falcon Heavy, but became too complicated. Of course, we are nowhere near ten-stage asparagus monsters, but the Falcon Heavy was close to using it. In fact, I remember reading that in later iterations of the Falcon Heavy in the future they may use asparagus.
  17. Be very, very careful when comparing the achievements of SpaceX and BO. Theoretically, BO landed and reused a used booster before SpaceX. However, you have to look at the booster and mission. New Shepard is a much smaller rocket than the Falcon 9. Also, it only went onto a suborbital trajectory. Not to hate on BO, but a suborbital return is like a bounce pass in basketball when compared to returning after delivering a payload into orbit. Also, one of the key factors in BO's ability to reuse New Shepard five times was that the heating from reentry was much less intense than what the Falcon 9 has to endure. With all the delays to Falcon Heavy, what are the odds that New Glenn launches first? (I know, close to zero. It's a joke)
  18. No!!!!! We are not worthy! That module looks Fantastic! I love the interesting twist with the built in RCS, but no reaction wheels. A lot more realistic. Judging by the last sentence, I think we can discern that in the expansion will be a new 1.875 meter stack. Also, I think we know know where the Rocket Part Art Overhaul went. It wasn't shelved, I'll bet it is the art used for the 1.875m stack. I do not look forward to changing all my rockets back to the old art so that there is no confusion. That took forever.
  19. I am still unsure if I shall buy the DLC or not. It will probably depend on the price. I can see and understand what SQUAD is doing. They are a company and need to make money. Completely understandable. However, (I can't name them off the top of my head) I know there are already mods for historical rocket parts, but I imagine a SQUAD-developed pack will be more balanced and less buggy. From the pages of this thread that I have read, there seems to be little anger, which is a good sign for SAUAD and the community. However, I would like to know if 1.3 is the last major version of the stock game, if 1.4, 1.5... etc. are only bug fixes, or if features will continue to be added to the stock game. Any word on a release timeframe?
  20. If I had to take a guess, I would say sometime around when devnotes come out on Friday (in terms of time of day. I know that the pre-release is today). I also wouldn't be surprised to see an announcement/early devnotes accompany the pre-release.
  21. You sir, are a genius! That's something I've never heard before. I may not be a programmer, but it doesn't sound too hard to implement in stock. On another note, the OP talks about semi-confirmed, confirmed, and might-be-resurrected features. However, since the pre-release is tomorrow, it would be logical for SQUAD to announce these not-quite-confirmed features before the players get their hands on them. So, I think I can conclude either A) We will see an announcement either later today or early tomorrow, or B) the pre-release is just localization, not 1.3.
  22. So, I've searched this thread for the answer to this, but haven't found a conclusive answer to my question. In the pre-release tomorrow (March 16), which I believe is for 1.2.9, what exactly is included? I'm interested in three things: Bug fixes (ex: Terrain/Runway Seams) Features (ex: Asteroid Day into Stock) Localization (Which I already know is included) Also, I've received some conflicting vibes about this one, but is this the 1.2.9 pre-release or the 1.3 pre-release?
  23. Well well. I think this is one of the first times the devnotes has actually used the term "1.3". I'm glad we won't be stuck in 1.2.x forever. Ok, so could someone make this a little clearer for me? I've never used the mod, but I get that it adds a bunch of contracts and requires you to put a satellite in x orbit with a telescope in order to see asteroids. So, is the inclusion of the mod in the base game just limited to the extra contracts + telescope, or will we be required to put a telescope in orbit x to have the ability to see and track asteroids?
  24. Sweet. I love seeing localization almost complete. Hopefully after this all development time will be spent on new features/bug squashing.