Snark

Moderator
  • Content Count

    8,481
  • Joined

Community Reputation

12,094 Excellent

About Snark

Contact Methods

  • Website URL Array

Recent Profile Visitors

14,656 profile views
  1. Geosynchronous and geostationary orbits are absolutely possible, since the Mun orbits Kerbin exactly once every two Kerbin days. It's just that there are certain Kerbin longitudes where you can't park a synchronous satellite because the Mun will hit it as it sweeps past periapsis. I've never bothered to work out exactly what range of longitude is the "forbidden zone", but you can see it pretty clearly if you just watch the Mun as it passes through periapsis. As long as your satellite isn't too close to that, you should be fine. In particular, the Mun sweeps across KSC's eastern sky at periapsis, so if you park a satellite in KSC's western sky, I expect you'll be okay. As for other "safe" altitudes for satellites: it's pretty simple arithmetic to work out the range of altitudes. Take the Mun's periapsis altitude, subtract its SoI radius, and anything under that will be safe. Similarly, if you add the Mun's SoI radius to its periapsis altitde, anything above that will be safe. You can also pretty easily make a safe orbit that spans the Mun's periapsis altitude, if you make it eccentric. Set it up so that your satellite is orbiting in a plane roughly perpendicular to the Mun's, and with the Pe and Ap located such that the satellite's orbit and the Mun's are like two oval links in a chain (i.e. the satellite's Ap is above the mun's Pe, and vice versa.
  2. +1 for the request for a picture. It's practically impossible to give specific advice without seeing what the ship looks like. The most likely problem is that your center of mass (often referred to as CoM) is too far towards the rear. You need the CoM to be farther towards the front of the plane. If it's close to the back, it's just not going to stay stable no matter what you do. Seriously, though-- post a picture, please? Should help to settle the matter.
  3. Nope, that has nothing to do with it. You either need to have a pilot on board, or else you need to have an SAS-capable probe core or the avionics nosecone. Comms back to KSC does matter if you want to be able to use maneuver nodes. Pilots can always set maneuver nodes, but non-pilots can't unless there's a comms link back to Kerbin. Anyway. All you need to do is put an SAS-capable probe core on the lander, and it'll work fine without needing any pilot anywhere.
  4. Really need to see a picture of your spacecraft to be able to offer any constructive suggestions about why it's taking heat.
  5. Right. That's what people do, when they have a suggestion to make. Well, one of two things will happen: Possibility #1: Your idea is a popular one, and lots of other people want it too, and there's chatter in your thread. In which case it won't get "buried", it'll stay near the top of the forum, which raises the likelihood of getting noticed and potentially implemented at some point. Possibility #2: Nobody but you wants this thing, and so your thread just sits there and doesn't get any attention, so eventually it will get pushed to later and later pages as other, more popular ideas percolate in front of it. Eventually it fades into obscurity. Either way, it's the right thing to happen. Look, I get that you really, really want this. I understand the frustration, and I sympathize. Do bear in mind, though, that there are literally hundreds of thousands of other users in this forum, and they really, really want things, too. There's no way that the devs could possibly implement even 1% of everything that everyone wants; it would be a physical impossibility. There are only just a few devs, and they generally have their hands very full just building the features that Squad has designed into the game. They can and do read the "suggestions" forum, and when there's something that's really popular and in high demand from lots and lots of players, it gets noticed. Maybe even implemented. But there's simply no way they're ever going to have the time to implement some special feature for one person who wants something-- no matter how passionately. And every other player here has just as much right to their wish-list as you have to yours, so there's really no special mechanism to push your idea to the front of the line for special attention. The thing that's frustrating you is "well, if I just do that, my voice will be lost in the crowd." Yes. It will, if you're the only person asking for it. That's absolutely correct. And that's also absolutely unavoidable when there are hundreds of thousands of forum users who all want stuff, and only a small handful of devs. The only way for "user feedback to devs" to work at all is to just make a big bucket where everyone can toss their suggestions, in a place where the devs can see it. Which is exactly what the Suggestions forum is for.
  6. You post a thread about it in the Suggestions forum, like everyone else who has suggestions about how to improve the game. It's what it's for.
  7. Fair 'nuff, if that's what you're interested in, but not much point in pinging me about it-- I'm not a KSP dev, and don't work for Squad (most of the moderators don't, we're just volunteers who help with the forum). Barking up the wrong tree, my friend.
  8. The mod adds the pitched control point to all the cockpits by default, as well as to all SAS-capable probe cores. The only reason you'd need to tinker with ModuleManager would be if you wanted to add the functionality to some part that I haven't already, or if you wanted to change the adjustable pitch range to something other than the default 0 to 90 degrees. Nope. The mod does pitch only.
  9. Note that you don't have to be actually focused on the science pod itself, as long as the vessel that you are focused on stays within the atmospheric physics bubble (I forget how big, but I think it's something like 10 km). For example, if you drop a pod-with-parachute from a plane, and then the pod lands before the plane gets too far away (over 10km-or-whatever-it-is), then you're fine. But if you've got a plane going at hypersonic speed and high altitude and it drops a pod, the plane races away so fast that it gets outside the bubble before the pod lands and then it's auto-deleted. Also, please note bewing's and Claw's comments immediately above, about turning on debris display on the map. It's possible you could have something that actually did land safely but you're not seeing it on your map because it's "debris" and you don't have that display turned on.
  10. So, if you've got no comms, then that seems likely to be your problem right there. A few questions: What are your game settings for CommNet? Specifically, do you have extra groundstations enabled or not, and have you checked the "require comms for control" setting? What sort of antenna do you have on the vessel? At the time that you're unable to steer, how far is it from the vessel to the nearest control point (i.e. KSC, or a relay chain connected thereto), and what sort of antenna power is on that control point? i.e. do you have direct LOS to KSC? Are you running any mods that could conceivably affect the controllability of the vessel?
  11. So, "1 m/s" is a velocity, not an acceleration. Did you mean "1 m/s2" acceleration? i.e. if you wait 10 seconds, you gain 10 m/s velocity? (Sorry, I really don't mean to be pedantic-- just want to be sure we're on the same page, here, so we don't end up talking at cross-purposes.) If you've got a phantom acceleration that big, when RCS is turned completely off and you have no throttle, then that sounds like a bug. Moving to Technical Support.
  12. Well, certainly one's design philosophy will enter into it. For me, neither the size of the fairing nor draggy-bits-sticking-out is an issue. The fairing's not an issue because if I need a very different fairing size, I don't use the same size launch vehicle. I size the diameter of the launch vehicle to be an approximate match for the fairing. If I'm launching something that needs a fairing 3 meters wide, I'll use a 2.5m stack for that, not a 1.25m stack. So my fairings are always a fairly consistent size and shape relative to the launch vehicle, and it's just not an issue. I launch exactly the same way all the time, and it always works. Likewise, "draggy bits sticking out" isn't a thing because I make a point of designing vehicles that are very streamlined. They simply don't have significant "draggy bits". If I have draggy bits, I put those in a fairing. (Of course, there's the occasional oddball vehicle that has a really awkward payload that there's no good way to make aerodynamic-- e.g. big miner/refiners. But those are the rare exception, for me.) How is that relevant? I mean, sure, if the COM is so low that the vehicle is actually aerodynamically unstable, then the rocket's gonna flip. Which is why one designs rockets not to do that. But as long as the CoM is high enough that the rocket is stable-- which is a basic design requirement-- then the actual position of the CoM is irrelevant, at least for a ballistic vehicle that simply follows all the way to orbit. (It would matter if one were building a spaceplane, but that's not what we're talking about here.) CoM position's not going to affect the trajectory, because that's purely a function of speed, gravity, and acceleration, not mass distribution. Must be a difference of design technique, then? That never happens to my vehicles, ever. I don't make them excessively tall, relative to their width, so the rockets are always stiff. I don't make excessively draggy payloads, at least not for 90%+ of my launches. If I've got something that's draggy, I put it in a fairing, and the fairing is a pointy-nosed cylinder that's no more than slightly wider than the rocket body. When I do need to get fairly tall, I use construction techniques designed to help with stiffness, especially in the early stages of launch where stresses (both thrust and aero) are large. And of course it's important not to over-provision pitch and yaw authority. I almost always reduce the gimbal authority on the engines to something like 30-40%, and do the same with control authority on steerable fins, if the rocket happens to have those. The taller the rocket, the less gimbal it should have. Having too much pitch/yaw authority isn't necessary (because there's practically no "steering" to do, it's just following all the way and is mainly using aerodynamic stability to maintain that), and it can be actively harmful (because SAS can over-correct and end up making the rocket flex too much). Also, by pitching immediately and then simply staying perfectly all the way, there's remarkably little flexing stress on the rocket. It's compressed longitudinally (drag hitting it from the front, engine thrust hitting it from the back), but there's no torque or lateral force at any time, which is quite gentle on the rocket and doesn't cause problems. That's pretty much how my rockets look. But "stubby" is a relative term, would have to see a screenshot of your vehicle to get an idea of whether it's more or less stubby than my typical ones.
  13. Have you tried cutting throttle before staging? You can crank it back up again after staging; all you need to do is zero the throttle, stage, then add throttle again. If the throttle is non-zero when you stage, then the staged-away boosters are going to keep firing (assuming there's some fuel left), which will accelerate them up into your ship; it's a collision hazard. And with all those Mainsails, and if the fuel tanks of the lower stage are mostly empty (thus low mass for the stage), it may actually have a hefty acceleration once it's not trying to lug the mass of your heavy, fuel-laden lander.
  14. That's weird. I've never observed that myself, nor have I ever heard of anyone else experiencing the same problem. A few questions: What platform are you playing on? And what KSP version? When you say "accelerating", how big an acceleration are we talking about, here? Do you mean "it gains 0.1 m/s over the course of a minute"? Or "it's pulling a full gee of acceleration"? Something in between? Can you estimate how much dV per second (or per minute, if it's small)? Do you notice this when everything is turned off (no throttle, and RCS is deactivated)? Or does it only happen when you have RCS turned on?