Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

134 Excellent

About natsirt721

  • Rank
    Dot Collector

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. You will probably never see the enhancements you want for two reasons: 1. KSP2 is in development. For any studio this is going to be the primary focus. 2. Its pretty obvious that KSP EE was a cash-grab to try to open the market up to more causal console players. From the sheer number of separate keys I use to fly some of my vehicles it seems insane to attempt to reduce that to controller inputs, but alas, they tried. And failed, from what the reviews suggest. The games runs mostly fine most of the time, and with a 64 on metacritic the aren't going to be too concerned about trying to
  2. Agreed. Engineering is about compromise. Sometimes you're not going to be able to do the thing that you want - that's ok, because you can probably do something similar. I have successfully used the large LF wings on some spaceplanes, but you have to be very careful about your entry angle. I had to add a few airbrakes to the rear and fly with a very high AoA while high up in order to bleed enough speed before entering denser air. Lost a few of the prototypes coming in too hot. I found it helps to keep them as full of LF as possible, increasing their thermal mass and the time it takes for them t
  3. Thanks for the reply, I figured something like that was going on. Kinda frustrating that the altitude extends so far up, as you can't really have anything stationary at that altitude given the limitations of the game engine. Also doesn't look like there is a way to modify that without recompiling, so I guess I'm going to have to boost my altitude a bit so I don't run out of power every 3 days.
  4. The problem is that the the closest approach indicator looks for a local minimum distance, rather than the absolute minimum distance along the entire orbit of the vehicle you're planning for (or something like that, either way it doesn't do a good job). For simple orbital geometry this is sufficient, but you appear to have found one of the cases where it is not (planning a direct transfer from kerbin to Moho is another one). Fortunately, there is a workaround, not altogether unlike the solution you have described. When placing maneuver nodes, the closest approach algorithm starts searchin
  5. I think I may have found an issue with the way that vehicle attitude is persisted, but I have an old version of the game and a modded install so I'm going to spell out my test case and see if 1) it is actually a bug and 2) ask that someone attempt to duplicate the test case and see if it is actually a bug. Situation I have placed a vehicle in a 30 degree inclined Mun orbit at 55x57 km. I set the camera to ORBITAL, and align it so that Kerbin is in my field of view. I crank the time warp up to 1000, and as expected, the camera remains fixed to the attitude of the vehicle. However, as
  6. I think you got more or less everything covered, but depending on the nature of the colony some of those may not be strictly necessary. I'm assuming that the environment is friendly or at worst neutral to a human presence, apart from the local fauna - the air is breathable, the temperature is temperate, the soil is rich enough for cultivation. If you don't have some of those then the colony would need some higher tech levels in order to provide e.g. artificial fertilizer, or perhaps advanced drugs to allow humans to digest the local flora, or suits or breathing apparatus - things that would po
  7. One possible use may be to launch bulk material into orbit, a sort of poor-man's mass driver for an atmospheric body. Water ice, aluminum, steel etc. for an infantile orbital manufacturing industry, until asteroid mining or lunar export becomes practical.
  8. GUT generator attached to a photon drive. Infinite fuel, and a free petawatt laser in case the locals get frisky. May lead to minor vacuum decay.
  9. In the .sfs file, there is a block called FLIGHTSTATE. One of the items in there is UT, in seconds since midnight day 1 year 1. 25 kerbin years would be 230088625 seconds, 25 earth years is 788400000 seconds, not counting leap days.
  10. This reminds of the Alderson drive from Pournelle's CoDominium universe. That was also a jump drive, but it used a fifth fundamental force called the Alderson force. Basically, nuclear fusion affects Alderson force similar to how mass affects gravity, in that there is vector field in the universe, with points of high Alderson potential and low Alderson potential. The drive lets you jump from points of equal potential instantly, but the points themselves are very small, and if you're not in the right place you burn a bunch of energy and go nowhere. The points are only formed between 'adjacent'
  11. For initial capital dollar per dollar probably not, but if these guys find paying customers and can actually meet their five launches per day target, then the economies of scale should make it worth it.
  12. The SAS feature isn't designed for flying aircraft, its designed stability control in cases where vehicle dynamics are much simpler. The only time I use SAS when flying is during takeoff when I don't want to deal with touchy wheel steering to keep my aircraft on the runway. Instead, I recommend using the trim feature (Alt + WASDQE). You can trim the control surfaces to reset to a non-zero position without any input, and this is a far more effective way to stabilize an aircraft. Keep in mind that airspeed and altitude will change the lift and drag characteristics of the aircraft, and you w
  13. Even if they do get it working, you aren't going to be able to launch any old satellite on this. 10,000 gee is well beyond the acceleration rating for many sensitive electronics e.g. IMUs. The payloads are all going to have to be incredibly over-engineered just to withstand launch, which is going to cut into their stated cost reduction fraction quite a bit. Not to mention the fact that maybe we should consider the consequences of flinging thousands of satellites into a low orbit every year (I'm looking at you, starlink).
  14. Supersonic, yes. Hypersonic, yes but it's harder. Supersonic is relatively easy, depending on the total mass of the craft, a few Panthers should provide enough thrust to break the sound barrier. I have a small Mk3 transport that weighs 60 tons, can carry 68 kerbals, powered by two Goliaths that tops out around 550 m/s (Mach 1.65 at sea level). If supersonic is your goal, the Panther is probably the best engine; avoid the Goliath and Wheesley as they're up the the task, but tend to overheat. Hypersonic is usually defined as mach number in excess of 5, and for that you definitely need
  15. I don't think that NASA would do it this way given the choice, but their priorities and timetable are being set by the white house, not by internal processes. Leads to some unfortunate results, like that price tag. Now that I think about it, cost-plus for a PDR does seem a little strange, but I'm not well versed in contract norms. I guess the incentive in that case is to work quickly?
  • Create New...