Jump to content

Xavven

Members
  • Content Count

    1,083
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

954 Excellent

1 Follower

About Xavven

  • Rank
    Junior Rocket Scientist

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I don't miss that at all! And then there were times when adding too many struts would cause parts to explode on the launchpad, so you'd have to figure out which ones to remove to stop that problem. It was a balancing act. Ugh!
  2. That is pretty noodly! Mine looked a lot like that when I joined circa 0.21 or so. Was that screenshot taken before 2.5m parts?
  3. I remember learning how to build thrust plates to make big rockets when the Rockomax Jumbo-64 was the largest fuel tank we had and the Mainsail was the most powerful engine we had. Everything back then had to be asparagus staging once you reached a certain size. Now we have 5m parts and my rockets look more reasonable.
  4. Great idea! Thanks for sharing this. I put mini docking ports on things I think will need refueling, but even though a mini docking port is light, its weight is actually significant on smallish satellites. It's sometimes enough to unbalance a craft to the point that I have to counterbalance it with either a second mini docking port or something else of similar weight on the opposite side. I'll definitely use this trick.
  5. OP is wrong. The orbital velocity of a circular orbit at Mun's altitude (12 km) is 543 m/s. As 543 m/s of delta-v would put you at a dead stop, meaning your periapsis would be literally the dead center of Kerbin, it couldn't take more than 543 m/s to lower your periapsis to aerabraking altitude. I'll fire up KSP right now to check the actual. Ok, here we go. Screenshots say it all:
  6. The reason it takes less delta-v to return to Kerbin from a Mun orbit than it does from an equivalent altitude from Kerbin orbit is you're in a way using a powered gravity assist. The Mun itself has an orbital velocity of 543 m/s with respect to Kerbin. And let's say your spacecraft is orbiting around Mun at 280 m/s. That means that from the perspective of someone on Kerbin, your spacecraft is going 543 + 280 = 823 m/s when your spacecraft is orbiting in the same direction of the Mun. But on the other side of the orbit, your spacecraft is going in the opposite direction, so an observer on
  7. I still find it odd that EVA fuel is magically refilled when returning to the craft. Shouldn't it be taken from monopropellant or something? Infinite EVA refills just doesn't seem right.
  8. I totally remember those days! I joined KSP right around the time it entered Early Access on Steam, like 0.23 or something. Bigger rockets were so wobbly you'd have to build a skeletal structure out of i-beams and then attach the tanks to it. Bigger monstrosities would have dozens of struts. Most players on the forums recommended the Kerbal Joint Reinforcement mod which fixed the noodly-rocket syndrome. Since then, the devs made the joints more rigid in stock, but if I'm not mistaken, the Kerbal Joint Reinforcement mod still exists for players who want even more rigid rockets. Just a sugg
  9. This right here. Once I unlock the Gravioli detector, Dres is one of my targets for orbital science farming.
  10. I frequently flip my rovers because I don't drive cautiously, so my designs include a roll cage and motorized hinges that flip the rover back over.
  11. Eve is good for rovers. Solar power is plentiful, and the high gravity gives you traction. Going up a mountain is kinda hard though if you don't have great power to weight. My first rover had to do lots of switchbacks and spent a lot of time recharging batteries. My Eve rover mission transmitted over 3000 science back because it was able to visit so many places! Ultimately, however, I scrapped the Eve rover in favor of an Eve quadcopter. It can get around much faster.
  12. If I'm not mistaken, you can launch a new science lab and then collect the same data and get more science again. You just can't repeat the same data experiment in the same lab. This makes it so that science is infinite, only limited by available funding, which you can get from repeating contracts within Kerbin's SOI. This also means that the game loop is a little different than most games. Usually you're forced to progress until you beat the game. Career mode on the other hand is sandbox with some grind thrown in to give the illusion of purpose. Honestly, it works sorta well, but its limi
  13. I remember several threads on this same subject years ago. Science labs are OP in my opinion if you make the assumption that the goal of the game is to complete the tech tree, make tons of money, and push out to the innermost and outermost planets. Indeed, that's the gameplay loop that KSP set up. However, this can also be thought of as an open-world, sandbox game where you make your own goals. The lab gives an alternate means of completing the tech tree without forcing the player to grind Minmus landings or go interplanetary. Speaking of which, last I heard the statistics showed that a l
  14. Try doing a quadcopter mission on Eve. I just got done with a design that has a max groundspeed of 128 m/s at 10,000m altitude on Eve. Much faster than my last ground rover design could achieve, and hills were of course no problem since, y'know, flight.
×
×
  • Create New...