• Content Count

  • Joined

Community Reputation

13,505 Excellent

About Snark

  • Rank
    E Pluribus Boojum

Contact Methods

  • Website URL Array

Recent Profile Visitors

16,526 profile views
  1. Nice! Welcome back, looking forward to seeing what you come up with. Moving to Spacecraft Exchange.
  2. Thanks, guys. I've been laggardly about marking all my mods as "works in 1.9.x" because I was right in the middle of a Kopernicus play-through in 1.8.1 when 1.9 hit, so I haven't actually played 1.9.x yet and therefore haven't had the chance to verify that the mods are working. (I'm pretty confident that they all will work, because they're fairly simple and 1.9 didn't change much of KSP's internals... but as a matter of due diligence, I don't wanna go and mark that they do work until it's actually been confirmed, by me or someone else.) I've now marked this one as 1.9-compatible, thanks!
  3. Many posts have been removed due to some combination of: pestering modders for updates (see forum rule 2.2.p) berating people pestering modders for updates (3.2) haring away on off-topic tangents about the philosophy of modding, and modders' relationship to users (2.2.o) Folks, it's great that you love Kopernicus. We all do, myself included. And I'm sure everyone means well. Please remember, though, that: Modders are busy and have no obligation to anyone. It'll be ready when it's ready. Please don't pressure them. Starting a sentence with "No pressure, but" is basically a red flag that you're pressuring. (Just as leading with "no offense, but" is a sure-fire indicator that you're about to say something offensive, etc.) The way to avoid pressuring people is to actually not pressure people. Adding an empty disclaimer like that doesn't somehow "make it not count". Asking "when will it be ready" is pointless. If the authors knew when it would be ready and wanted to make an announcement about it, then they presumably already would have done so. Until and unless they get around to that, then the answer to this question is the same as it always is: "As soon as the authors have time and inclination to do so." Please don't tell others what to do (or not to do). You're not a moderator, it's not your place. If you see someone whom you believe is coloring outside the lines, please just report the post and the moderators will have a look. It's what we're for. Please try to stay on topic. The topic of this thread is Kopernicus, and how to use it, and what it can do, etc. The topic is not to have endless arguments on the nature of modding. There's nothing wrong with having discussions like that, but this thread is not the place to do so; feel free to go spin up a topic in Add-on Discussions if you like. Thank you for your understanding.
  4. From not quite three feet away. Had to switch to a dedicated pair of "computer glasses", what with worn-out middle-aged eyes, and bifocals were becoming tiresome for it. You're what make the KSP forums my favorite place on the internet. I've never participated in any other online community to any significant degree, because I find them some combination of uninteresting and/or actively toxic. This is a neat place because of the people in it. It gets the job done. UI's clunky in places, but to be honest I've never seen any forum software that made me wanna write poetry about it. My favorite social circle. "My, folks sure seem to find some silly stuff to get worked up about" They're listed, as others have pointed out already. KSP's still my go-to hobby. Other than that: reading (a lot!), hiking, drone photography. Had no profile picture for the first couple years on the forum, nothing really seemed right-- what would a Snark actually look like? Henry Holiday was decidedly coy on the subject. Then one day I came across this image and immediately thought "that's it!" An airplane on a treadmill would have no trouble at all taking off, for obvious reasons. This is not a hard problem. (Though a lot of folks who don't understand how physics works tie themselves in knots over stating the problem in an illogical way that presupposes an answer.) Well, obviously if I told you, then it would no longer qualify, now would it? Evidently not.
  5. Snark

    This and that

    Several posts have been removed. Folks, please remember that forum rule 3.3 forbids open discussion of moderator action. If you've been moderated and have an issue with it, please take it up privately with the moderators, via forum PM. Don't post about it publicly. Thank you for your understanding.
  6. Several posts have been removed. Folks, private communications are private. It's never appropriate to mention in a public forum anything about what one person may have privately sent another. Please don't discuss other people's PMs in public.
  7. Moving to the Lounge, since this appears to have nothing to do with KSP in any substantive way we've been able to determine. Also, some content has been removed. Let's please avoid reference to sexual content, shall we? See forum rule 2.2.c. Thank you for your understanding.
  8. If you want to float in a medium, you have to be lighter than that medium. For example, if you want to float in air, you need to be lighter than air. That's why helium balloons float on Earth. If you want to float at a gas giant, then your balloon needs to be filled with stuff that's lighter than the atmospheric gas surrounding it. In the case of gas giants, that stuff is often (for example, in Jupiter's case) hydrogen. The problem is that nothing's lighter than hydrogen. A helium balloon on Jupiter would sink. Folks mention hot balloons because heating them up is one way to make that work-- e.g. a balloon full of hot hydrogen could float if surrounded by cold hydrogen. But that then raises the problem of where you'll get an unending supply of heat from, that's light enough not to weigh down the balloon. Thus the problem.
  9. No, it doesn't. Rationale: A user is allowed to request a name change exactly once. The reason for that is to prevent user abuse by hopping names around a lot, which would make life confusing for forum members and a hassle for the moderators. However, if we are the ones forcing them to change their name because we believe it to be inappropriate, then that's on us, not them. So we generally give them the benefit of the doubt by not having that count against their one name change.
  10. Solving multiple contracts with one flight, as folks have suggested, is good. Be aware that you get better contracts when your reputation is higher. Doing some of the initial tourist contracts (like simple suborbital hops) can be worth it-- they don't pay very much, but they give quite a bit of reputation and may unlock better contracts. Contracts to rescue kerbals from LKO are handy to do a few of-- good rep, around $50K funds, and free crew! What have you researched? Once you've got the tech for solar panels and docking ports, you'll start getting contracts for space stations and outposts, and those can pay quite a bit. Have you been to the Mun and/or Minmus yet? Going there for the first time gives a fair amount of cash bonus, even without any contract for it. Even just a flyby is worth something, I believe (though landing is considerably more IIRC).
  11. Here's the tool that I like to use: Just put in your origin (Eve), the height of your parking orbit (let's call it 150 km), and your destination (Kerbin), and it does all the math for you. In this case it's saying you'd need an ejection burn of 1338 m/s. So no, you don't have enough dV; you're just over 400 m/s short. (And that's assuming a perfect transfer window; you'd need more if the planets aren't correctly lined up.)
  12. Whatever that is, it's not KSP and has nothing to do with KSP or this forum. Moving thread to the Lounge, since it's not about KSP.
  13. Let me put it this way. As you approach the atmosphere-- i.e. before you fall below 70 km-- how high is your Pe set to?
  14. Just how fast are you going when that happens? And at what altitude? I've had plenty of unsuccessful reentries myself... but it's generally because I had an unstable craft that flipped over and thus fell outside of its protective heat shield umbrella. Having the heat shield itself fail is generally not something I need to worry about, in my experience. Are you diving straight down, or something?
  15. Mainly I was curious about whether you were referring to your attitude (i.e. angle your craft makes with respect to the oncoming airflow) or your trajectory (i.e. are you approaching the ground at a steep or shallow angle)-- couldn't really tell from what you wrote. If you're coming in on a ballistic trajectory, i.e. you're just plowing through the air, like a command capsule with a heat shield (and not something like a spaceplane that relies on lift), then typically you'll just be pointing your nose and it's not super critical exactly what your attitude is, as long as you keep your heat shield between the explodey bits and the hot airflow. Heat shields in KSP are incredibly effective. Even without ablator, they're still really good-- very high temperature tolerance, and pretty good insulators as well. Myself, I almost never run with a 100% load of ablator even for fast interplanetary reentries-- it's just not needed, in my experience. About the only time I'll ever go with a full load is if I deliberately want to make it extra-heavy so that it'll help my craft stay aerodynamically stable on reentry and not flip over and go kaboom-- which is obviously a suboptimal use case. Most of the time, when I've properly designed my craft to be stable anyway, I just run a heat shield with like 10% or 20% of ablator at most, and that's absolutely fine. One common mistake I've seen a lot of folks make is to try to do the shallowest reentry possible-- their thought process typically follows the reasonable (but wrong) path of "well, if I dive right down to 30 km, it'll get really hot and I'll probably go kablooie, so I better make my Ap be really high so I'm just kinda 'dipping my toe in the water' and I'll carefully bleed off my speed really slowly." That's a perfectly reasonable thought process... but in KSP is generally wrong. The reason it's wrong is that what you care about is not so much how fast heat is generated, but rather how much heat is generated per amount of velocity lost. As you get deeper into the atmosphere, heating goes up, yes-- but so does drag. And the crux of the matter is that drag goes up a lot faster than heating does. If you try to stay way high up in the atmosphere for a really long time, you will heat up a lot (and bleed off lots of ablator, if you've got it)... but it slows you down hardly at all, so you end up slowly baking yourself without really slowing down much. Whereas if you just bite the bullet and slam it to the lower altitudes pretty quickly, then your heating gets fast but the drag gets really strong quickly, before you have a chance to heat up too much, and you slow down by a lot and that saves your bacon. Exactly what the "right" trajectory is, will depend on the characteristics of your ship (how heat-resistant it is, how heavy is it relative to its drag). But the moral of the story is that heating can be counterintuitive, and diving fairly steeply in will often result in less overall heating. Degree of brain inconclusive based on observed data thus far. However, from what you've described, it sounds like you've got an approach that works for you, so that's what really matters. As long as you're keeping the heat shield "umbrella" covering the rest of your craft, you're good. The only thing I might suggest is that you may be lugging around more ablator than you really need to.