KerikBalm

Members
  • Content count

    3766
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1392 Excellent

1 Follower

About KerikBalm

  • Rank
    Capsule Communicator
  1. post the config file's orbit parameters?
  2. because its basically just Mun, but farther away and in an inclined orbit. One might say that about Moho, but Moho has extra challenge to it. Moho transfer windows are also more frequent, and the trips are shorter. Eeloo is farther away, but at least looks visually distinct from Mun, and then you get the bragging rights of visiting the most distant object in stock. Dres... its just in the middle with no particular incentive to go there. Getting there doesn't feel like as much of an achievement as getting to Eeloo/Moho/Tylo But FWIW, I've gone there more than I've gone to Bop, Val, and Pol... those moons I don't see much incentive to go to. Sure, I may be in the system as part of building a base on Laythe, and I may take on the challenge of Tylo while I'm there... but those other 3 moons... meh... I know I can do it, so, why do it more than once?
  3. The difference with thermal and normal, is that vision is based off of reflected light, not emitted light. I'm not even thinking "whats the point" for close range, I'm thinking about that attack Helo 2km away with a 30mm gun slaved to its FLIR view, or the jet flying overhead with a FLIR targeting pod that can get your coordinates and drop a bomb in your vicinity. Wrapping yourself in a thermal blanket will surely work for a while, but its not something you'd be wearing for hours on end before you know when the fighting will start. Its not something you'd be wearing as you move several km on foot as part of an operation... Transfering heat to another object rather than just direct IR emission doesn't help so much, because that heat will be re-emitted. Granted... if your body is at 37 C, and you have a high airflow so that air passing by only warms from 25 to 26 degrees, then it will be much dimmer and shifted to a lower wavelength... but I really really doubt that there's going to be enough airflow to keep the wearer cool for an extended period of time/after a few minutes of physical exertion. I've seen claims that some suit is still cool enough... but I've never seen a demonstration that makes it clear that the person has been wearing the suit for more than a few minutes... I think for such a suit to be practical, you'd really need to be able to wear it for at least an hour while doing moderate physical activity - but I don't know if that is the case
  4. Here on Earth, as in space, your heat signature makes you easy to detect in most combat scenarios. However, on Earth the background temperature is generally above 270 K, as opposed to 3K in space. Radiation of heat can be done via convection, and its easy to obtain material to use as a heat sink. Additionally, there are some directions in which you could radiate heat with a low probability of detection ... that said, I have my doubts that stuff like this really works in combat: It seems to me that sure, when you first put on such a suit it can block the IR radiation, but heat will build up underneath the suit, and surely after a while it too will start to glow in IR. They claim the suits allow you to stay cool, but I doubt those claims. I'd bet it gets extremely hot inside one of those suits rather quickly. If there was a lot of convection with the air, without having skin directly exposed, you could make your thermal signature more diffuse... but I highly doubt any suit designed like this will be as effective as these pictures imply for more than a few minutes. Your basic body metabolism is releasing a certain amount of energy, and that energy doesn't just disappear, and black body radiation in the IR spectrum at these temperatures cannot be stopped. Am I missing something? do these suits actually work or are they a gimmick that lasts a few minutes?
  5. How about we meet roughly half way? Scale it up 3x. Its "halfway" because another 3x rescale gets us to realistic sizes and densities (although an 11x rather than 9x rescale is needed to get kerbin to be the same size as Earth, Kerbin is not Earth, so I think 9x is fine) Well, for 3x vs 3.2x, it doesn't change so much, I'm sticking with 3x because its a nice even number... and its slightly easier to get to orbit. Going to real RSS scale would need a lot of part rebalancing. As for the distances... no, keep those to 3 (or 3.2x) as well. If we look at the ratio of Earth's radius to Kerbin's, and then do the same to SMA, we get 10.62 and 11.0 respectively. similar numbers are obtained for most other bodies and their analogues. Why would we change SMA by such a different ratio to the Radius? I've dropped OPM for now, to focus on a "realistic" and "interesting" inner solar system (jool and inward). To that end I added Pallas and Vesta analogues to keep Dres company, and.. made Duna's system deviate from real life just for a more interesting system, anyway, here's my settings (and thus my suggestions for the KSP system): So as I said above, I made the inner solar system of my game more "interesting" by adding Pallas and Vesta analogues. I also added a body at Kerbin's L4 that is roughly 60% the radius of Mun ... inspired by the hypothetical body "Theia" that may have formed at Earth's L4 or L5, and become unstable as it accumulated mass (growing to about the mass of mars), resulting in an impact with Earth that made the Moon. In my scenario, something like this happened, but there was a runtish body at the other stable la grange point, that still remains there. For Duna.... as you can see earlier in the thread, I gave it oceans and such, but then, I decided to replace Duna with another planet as a Mars analogue... one derived from Mars data... but made larger (3/4ths of Kerbin's Radius instead of about 1/2). This replacement has two moons, Duna and Ike This is my Duna system now (well, this, scaled up 3x): I like my KSP system now, but I'm still tempted to add OPM back to the game... but at 3x, Plock starts to look really really far away.
  6. Well, yea, but the designs for doing that are where the fun is. I spend more time in the VAB/SPH than anything else. Also, all that stuff you want to do on kerbin... you can do it on Laythe, and then you have the added challenge of figuring out a way to get it to laythe, and to the surface safely. Sure I will test surface bases on Kerbin, and stuff that can load/unload from a mk3 bay on kerbin, but then I deploy them on Mun, or Laythe, or Duna... etc. Submarines on Kerbin? Why not tackle the challenge of submarines on laythe:
  7. Indeed, there is an intermediate... while I do occasionally do fairly hefty interplanetary missions.... and I occassionally make relatively short visits to Mun or Minmus, or even set up bases there... most of my actual time outside of the VAB is spent just getting to LKO... which with spaceplanes often means I spend most of my time in the atmosphere (excluding time that passes during timewarp). Indeed, since moving to a 3x rescale of the solar system (and some other custom changes by me), just getting to LKO is hard, and it took significant time before I even went to a moon of Kerbin... I still haven't gone interplanetary on the 3x rescale (well, I think I put something on an escape trajectory to Duna before I took a break from KSP to play Arma). So there's multiple levels here: 4) Visiting the SOI of another planet/ Escaping Kerbin SOI / Interplanetary 3) Visiting the SOI of a moon of Kerbin 2) Escaping kerbin's atmosphere/ LKO (well there's a difference here, but I don't think there's anyone who will get to space but not press forward and try to get to orbit) 1) Staying within Kerbin's atmosphere I spend most of my time at level 2 or 3 (excluding hyperedit/ the alt-f12 orbit-cheating to test designs on other bodies)... for many of the reasons mentioned in that other thread.
  8. Mining titan only makes sense for ISRU, In Situ Utilization... not sending back to Earth. Sending them back would result in a lot resources wasted just sending it. So use it there, don't send it back to Earth. If there was life on the surface of Titan, in those methane/ethane lakes, its biochemistry would be so different, and the environment in which it could survive would be so different, that there would be basically no chance of cross contamination. If there is a subsurface water ocean... then we'd want to avoid contact with that. We certainly want to keep any probe we would send to the subsurface water of Europa or Enceladus sterile (or water ice/RSL/subsurface of Mars). But life on Titan... on the surface... would be amazing. Environments where it could survive would sterilize life from Earth, and vice versa. The science that could be done without risk of biosphere destruction would be amazing. I assume you were referring to reports like this: https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2010-190
  9. Hey, I saw your Mars-Based Planet featured in this post:

    And I was really impressed. Unfortunately, the dropboxz download link is broken, so I couldn't grab it. Have you made any progress with the planet? I would really like to add it to my little solar system.

    1. KerikBalm

      KerikBalm

      Check out this thread: 

       

    2. Imma_Stabya

      Imma_Stabya

      Awesome. Added to my world.

      I'm always on the lookout for more green planets, and most planet packs will only add 1 more habitable world (if any). Thanks for sharing. Is this a project you are still working on?

    3. KerikBalm

      KerikBalm

      Not very active at the moment, I'm on a bit of a KSP break, but I'll be back.

      I don't have so many more ideas for things to change (maybe I'll try adding some noise function to give more close up detail, but im not sure). Go ahead and make suggestions in the thread if you have any

      Im also using a version 3x bigger, along with using the SigmaDimensions mod to scale up the ksp system by a factor of 3. So the version im using doesnt fit so well into most people's ksp system

  10. This post may be useful to you:
  11. I haven't checked if this has changed since then, but certainly before the water physics update, there always was zero ore in the ocean biomes. KSP allows for ore percentages to be defined by biome, and the liquid biomes for kerbin, eve, and laythe walways had zero. Since so much land on laythe was still defined as an ocean biome, this resulted in a lot of the ground on laythe being entirely devoid of ore. They've made the ocean biomes line up with the shores better since then, so maybe its not as bad now.
  12. Radius (km) SMA (km) Radius ratio SMA ratio Kerbin 600 13599840.256 Earth 6371 149598023 10.6183333333 10.9999838369 Duna 320 20726155.264 Mars 3390 227939200 10.59375 10.9976595802 Jool 6000 68773560.32 Jupier 69911 778299000 11.6518333333 11.3168344983 Moho 250 5263138 Mercury 2440 57909050 9.76 11.0027610904 Kerbol 261600 17570E+030 (Mass not SMA) Sun 695700 1.99E+030 2.6594036697 113.1474103586 There's a table I made ^ (The last entry for Kerbol/Sun lists mass instead of SMA, as SMA doesnt apply) If you pretend the radius and SMAs are 10x what they really are, then KSP's system works out mostly OK/realistic. The thing is at 10x radius, a planet has 1000x the volume, and if it was the same density, 1000x the mass, and you'd expect 10x the surface gravity (or for KSP planets to have about 1/10th the surface gravity). Most KSP bodies have ~1/100th the mass rather than ~1/1000th (that you'd expect from their volume) of their analogue because they maintain the same surface gravity. There are some exceptions, notably, the Kerbals' sun is proportionately quite big (its 1/2.66 the radius of our sun, not somewhere close to 1/10th) - they compensate by making its surface gravity quite low. Also, Dres is quite far from the 1/10th radius and 1/100th mass proportions to its real world analogue. Body/Radius (Km)/ SMA (Km)/ radius ratio/ SMA ratio Dres 138 40839348 Ceres 473 414010000 3.427 10.1375271711 I used the mod sigma dimensions to rescale most of the KSP system to 3x the stock size, but I did not scale up Dres, and did a special scale for the sun (and adjusted the surface G to compensate). I then nerfed Dres' gravity down to nearly that of Ceres'. Other deviations from the 1/10th and 1/100th scaling of real world analogues: Jool, its size and SMA are about right, but its mass is far too low because its surface G is far too low to be a Jupiter analogue. In the game I'm playing now, Jool's surface G has gone from 0.8 to 2.5 Mun is also far too close. About 3x too close. I suspect this is because for the size and FOV of the screen, the angular diameter of what you see on the screen seems too small, so they moved it in closer. As an aside, the game Arma gives the players a default 2-3x zoom capability with no optics at all to compensate for taking what should be roughly equal to ones entire field of view (minus some peripheral vision), and reducing it to a computer screen which normally takes up quite a small field of view (unless you have some absolutely huge screen and run at an absurd resolution) Mun (to be a proper analogue) should orbit where Minmus does, so in my game I swapped their orbits. Ratios Radius (km) SMA (km) Radius SMA Mun 200 12000 8.685 32.03325 Minmus 60 47000 28.95 8.1787021277 Moon 1737 384399 The KSP Mun is about 1/9th the size of our moon, and orbits at about 1/32 the distance, swapping orbits with Minmus makes it orbit at a distance proportional to its size for it to be a proper analogue of our moon The minor things like Jool's surface gravity being "too low", or Mun orbiting "too close" aren't really issues because its Jool not Jupiter, and its Mun not Moon. However, one must "pretend" that the radius and SMAs are about 10x as large as they are for the system to be remotely plausible, otherwise the densities are generally way way way too high - the Kerbal sun is an exception, because its much bigger than 1/10th scale, and has a much lower surface gravity. Without this "pretending" that the radius is bigger (and then pretending that the mass is what you'd get from an object of that size with the stated surface G), densities are way to high, yet masses are way to low. A Red Dwarf can be as low as 0,075 stellar masses. The nominal mass of the Kerbals' sun is less than 0.01 stellar masses... which is still roughly 10x the mass of jupiter. Whoever made that graphic made some big mistakes
  13. In the game version at the time the biomes didnt line up well withe the coast, so a lot of the land area was still ocean biome with precisely 0 ore. The particular game additionally had the next highest biome have only 0.2% ore. Also the islands with ore are so small it doesnt show up on the stock scanner (the one that needs to be in a polar orbit). Also twr on airbreathers is lower on laythe, and big spaceplanes (since lower twr makes vtol airbreathing rockets less viable) can be a pain to land, particularly if the nice flat coastal areas have no ore - i think its better now but ore distribution is still random, so i consider laythe to be unreliable.
  14. They have the advantage of generally being simpler to build. Also, they have the advantage of not having any "useless mass for space" - ie wings and air breathers. Thus if you refuel them after getting them to orbit, they'll probably have better vacuum performance than a spaceplane SSTO. Of course, in that case I generally prefer to use a spaceplane just to get stuff to orbit, and if I need a ship with good vacuum performance, I lift it as the payload on a spaceplane SSTO or staged rocket... but not always: Recovery of the first stage happened before we could autostrut parts, and I didn't have the chute deployment timing tweaked right... some parts were pulled off but the stage still landed without any other damage: Even so, all parts were recovered (this wasn't in career, so I didn't care about timing the deorbit to get >90% recovery). But I've abandoned plans for that huge craft which I indended to move surface base modules. The plan was I could use another ship to take modules down the the surface, set up a surface base, then disconnect the modules, pack them on that mothership, and move to another body and redeploy the surface base... but I'd rather just send another surface base rather than deal with loading all the stuff in orbit, and making a SSTO mk3 cargobay dropship that works on every body except Eve/Jool. Also... I've given up on the stock sized system, and I'm now playing a 3x re-scale (with 1.5x rescale of the atmosphere and elevation). I can manage 10-11% payload fraction on my airbreathers, but SSTO rockets just barely make it to orbit and have almost no payload fraction (so... basically like real life today. 3x seems to be where the smaller size is offset by heavier dry masses and generally lower non-LV-N/ION Isp). There is no payload in that payload fairing. By the time I add chutes, some structure to land on, and save fuel for a deorbit and possibly a little fuel for propulsion to cushion the landing, I think the rocket would have less than a ton of payload capacity
  15. There's a stock craft for that, did you have a look at it? can you fly that one?