• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

882 Excellent

About Xavven

  • Rank
    Junior Rocket Scientist

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Happy Birthday KSP! I'm still playin' and will right up until KSP 2. Then I'll be playing KSP 2
  2. These forums seem so deserted lately and the devs haven't released anything in like, weeks. WEEKS I tell you. With no new updates since forever and no other updates planned, I can't help but feel... like KSP is dying! Obviously kidding. I just found out KSP 2 was announced and I am beyond hyped.
  3. The worst thing in a positive way is how there's always a new challenge to overcome, so I never really feel like I have "finished" KSP. The worst thing in a more literal way is the lack of planetary axial tilt.
  4. I think this is the best answer. Even too much CO2 (air containing over 10% CO2) can cause convulsions and death in humans. Kerbals probably evolved to breathe a very specific mix of gases in the atmosphere.
  5. I dont' like using SRBs, so the Reliant and Kodiak fit perfectly as radial liquid-fuel+oxidizer boosters. With higher thrust than the Swivel, they give just a bit more power to get off the pad.
  6. Returning to Kerbin? No, I don't jettison it. The parachutes are enough to slow the craft. On other atmospheric bodies? Yes, I jettison it. I need to get it out of the way so my landing legs or rover wheels can contact the ground.
  7. I start with Hard settings and make the following additions: Enable Part Pressure Limits Enable Part G-Force Limits Enable Kerbal G-Force Limits Enable Require Signal for Control Enable Plasma Blackout I leave all the rest of the settings alone (stock Hard).
  8. Yeah, it's a pretty niche situation, avoided by putting antennas on every craft, and having a pilot on every manned craft (and a probe core anyway because why wouldn't you want KerbNet access?). If I forget antennas then it's a mission abort anyway.
  9. To answer OP's original question, no I don't think the RAPIER needs a buff. It's already the best engine in the stock game for SSTO launches. It outperforms the whiplash in airbreathing mode, as it has more thrust and operates at higher altitudes, and on top of that it has great thrust in closed cycle. In my most recent spaceplane design, whiplashes + swivels could not get me to orbit in a single stage, but all-RAPIERs did so extremely easily.
  10. One of the (many) worst things about Eve testing is that launch windows take a lot of time warping to get. Same with Duna.
  11. I'm a PC player but play without mods. I had landed and returned manned and collected almost all science from every planet and moon before they had biomes, circa version 0.24. I did it using a delta-v calculating spreadsheet in Excel. I imagine if I played console I'd have my laptop next to me to run Excel. KER would have been more convenient, and since 1.6 I've ditched my spreadsheet now that dV calculation is stock. I will say that it added a lot more tension landing and returning from planets, not be able to hyperedit them first to test or "simulate". For me, I have to design something that would theoretically work, and then put in the time and effort to get it there and back. I usually test using unmanned probes first so that I don't put Kerbals at risk, and then if it works, come back for the real deal manned. My first Tylo landing and Eve return were both extremely intense because of that factor of the unknown, and it made success that much sweeter. I realize this playstyle isn't for everybody. I guess the point of my post is that different players enjoy this game differently. There isn't a "correct way" to play this game.
  12. This especially is annoying. If you set your probe core to SAS on + hold retrograde, which is perfect for a capsule with a heatshield, I should be able to hold that. But the game decides to change it during blackout to SAS on + hold current heading instead of hold retrograde, which can cause the vehicle to peak from behind the heatshield and explode. Annoying!
  13. Sepratrons did the trick. I put a pair of them mirrored pointing to one direction to the side and just a few degrees down. It blows the heatshield well clear. Thanks!
  14. I'm designing a rover for Eve, and I need help with getting my inflatable heatshield out of the way when I jettison it. It's aerodynamically stable during reentry and descent, and then I pop my chutes and jettison the heatshield, but the darn heatshield is so light and has so much drag that it doesn't fall away, but rather sticks to the bottom of my rover and starts causing disturbances, like out of control spinning. What have you all done to solve this type of problem? Weigh down the heatshield with a full tank of rocket fuel? Ballast hurts my dV so I want to avoid that. Add a bunch of drogue chutes to my rover? Push it away with sepratrons?
  15. I'm meaning to refer to the inclination of Moho vs. Kerbin, with respect to the sun. I think of transferring to Moho as an orbital rendezvous, but where your target has a gravity well you can exploit for gravity assistance. Basically, even if you capture at an AN/DN of Moho, you inherited a 7 degree inclination difference from Kerbin that you have to work off one way or another. You can do that in solar orbit, or you can do that as part of your capture burn at Moho, but either way, your orbit with respect to the sun has to change inclination by 7 degrees. Doing it in Moho's SOI just uses Moho's gravity to assist, reducing your dV expenditure. I'm not sure what you mean by bi-elliptic transfer in this case. My understanding of it is wikipedia-level: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bi-elliptic_transfer. I thought a bi-elliptic meant raising your Ap far beyond the new orbit you wish to transfer to, raising/lowering your Pe at the extreme Ap, then finally lowering your extreme Ap. What you're describing is (I think) lowering your Ap with respect to the sun twice (not raising it above Kerbin first), splitting up the burn in two places -- one in solar orbit and one while in Moho's SOI, so that you don't have one big burn. It doesn't decrease your total dV required though. If anything, it increases your dV requirement because part of your burn is in solar orbit where you're not making use of Moho's gravity well. Lastly, radial-in/radial-out burns are the least efficient way to change your orbital energy. Prograde/Retrograde are generally the most efficient. So your increase your dV requirements in total by crossing Moho's orbit in such a way that you need a radial component to your burn with respect to the sun. I think we'd be more on the same page if you totaled the dV required on all of your burns starting from LKO, not just your final capture burn.