natsirt721

Members
  • Content count

    121
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

70 Excellent

1 Follower

About natsirt721

  • Rank
    Dot Collector

Contact Methods

  • Website URL http://steamcommunity.com/id/natsirt721/home

Profile Information

  • Location M31
  1. I've tried this too, but it looks like the small static panels only operate at around 20-30% during the worst bit of reentry. Only when my speed drops to ~1km/s do they suddenly suck the heat up and then usually sit around 70-80% until touchdown or the heat dissipates. Intuitively this doesn't seem right, but I'm not nearly versed in thermo enough to repudiate it. Something to do with the plasma sheath perhaps? The panels are also really draggy so I try to avoid using them whenever possible. As for stability, pairs of airbrakes at the rear of the vehicle can dramatically help during reentry. If you attach them top and bottom but make the top ones stick further out, the resulting drag will tend to keep your nose up a few degrees. They're also super useful if you end up in a flat spin - I've recovered several times from certain death by deploying them all (beware of over-gee!). Their thermal tolerance is pretty low however, make sure to watch the gauges and retract them before they fry.
  2. I thought fine controls just graduated the ramp-up speed of the control outputs. Does it do more than that?
  3. The ISS does align its panels edge-on to prograde during the night, but that's only to reduce drag (might also reduce micro-meteriod impacts?). At higher altitudes that behaviour is entirely overkill; first because drag becomes negligible, and second because the higher you go, the less time you spend occluded w.r.t. your orbital period.
  4. According to my rough calculations, a mere 10 m/s would require 300,000,000,000,000 tons of liquid fuel with the LV-N. Using 100 of them (60,000 kN thrust) would take about 430,000,000,000 seconds or ~13,000 years.
  5. And you're worried about overkill? edit: But point taken, I would agree with the overkill assessment
  6. Oh I totally agree about the realism aspect. Automatic deployment is something I forgot to consider. I think fuel cells will reduce their output based on need, that's sort of like automatic deployment?
  7. I think stock can handle boats just fine as is, and the KSC is close enough to the ocean not to warrant a designated dock. One of the great things about KSP is that people do crazy stuff with parts as they were never intended to be used. I just saw examples of people using fairings as rotor bearings. People make boats work all the time with what they have, I see no need to specialize there. Plus, designated boat parts would be very strange to work with. Lego-ing hull segments together doesn't seem like it would work as well with naval hulls as it does with space/aircraft. That being said, an electric or liquid fuel propeller / impeller would be amazing - current propulsion methods are pretty limited. Air-breathers do well enough until you get to Eve, and nothing else matches that level of efficiency.
  8. When If we get actual shadows maybe we'll get something like this.
  9. Toggled by clicking a menu item (or AG) as opposed to deployed by clicking a menu item (or AG)?
  10. Try separating the munition before launching, but keep indestructibility on. That would confirm the joints theory. Also use a single part for the munition so there's no inter-play there. h0: The forces involved would probably break the joint, but it's hard to say what the end effect would be. The munition might carry on its course or something else crazy might occur.
  11. I could see this either way - having never used PF I can't really comment of its ease of use but I don't really have qualms with the way stock fairings are implemented, except for when they totally and utterly faily to function as intended. That I can and will disagree with. The last time it happened was with a 3.75 and 3x clamshell. I would concur that the smaller ones seem to be more stable.
  12. I'm with Gargamel on this one; KSP is not an easy game by any stretch of imagination, and I like it that way. Few games these days are challenging to the point where you don't have to learn a specific skill set in the context of the game to be effective - KSP provides practical experience with a vast array of pragmatic engineering subjects. Some tasks are definitely outside the scope of the game but very few are impossible - often times you just need to approach it from a different angle. Decent land vehicle design is pretty tough in KSP because most of the dev effort is focused on simplifying rocket physics, not driving physics. While I do agree that it would be a nice feature, especially given the current configurable state of wheels, I cannot really justify steering limiters (except perhaps in the reduced slew method I mentioned above) in any other regard.
  13. I find that if I use more than 3 pieces, when I go to detach it turns the contents into a blender. 2 and sometimes 3 seems to be ok (n.b. version 1.2.2), but any more than that fail miserably. I swear, if SQUAD had fewer qualms about integrating mod content like they did with SPP back in .25, KSP would be in a MUCH better place...
  14. I think you're confusing your gaming experience with 2001:ASO
  15. Prepare to die disappointed