• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7623 Excellent

About Snark

  • Rank
    E Pluribus Boojum

Recent Profile Visitors

10346 profile views
  1. Bigger landing legs

    They will be releasing KSP 1.4 and the Making History pack soon. It's been publicly announced that between the two of them, there are 75 new parts. I don't believe it's been announced how many of those are in 1.4 and how many of them are in MH.
  2. long range ferry craft

    Rocket engineering is all about tradeoffs. You can't have everything. Essentially, what you're asking for, here, is: high dV high TWR few stages (you don't actually say this, but implicitly you're asking for a single stage) You can't have all three. Any time you improve one of these three things, it hurts the others. High dV means low TWR, and/or more stages. That's because getting a high dV means you have to use high-Isp engines (which typically have low thrust), and also means you have to absolutely minimize dead weight (which means few engines, and discarding empty fuel tanks). High TWR means low dV, and/or more stages. That's because getting a high TWR means using high-thrust engines (usually lower Isp), and having lots of engines (lots of dead weight), both of which lower your dV. And getting a high TWR also means shedding dead weight other than engines, which means multiple stages. Having a ship that's only a single stage means you can't ditch the dead weight of empty fuel tanks and unused engines. This means you're hauling a lot of dead weight and will get absolutely clobbered by the rocket equation (lowering your dV) and also by Newton's second law (lowering your TWR). So. You can't have all three, which means you have to pick what's actually important to you, optimize for that, and accept that you will get that by sacrificing everything else. For example, if what you absolutely have to have is a high-dV interplanetary tug that's fully reusable (and therefore can't shed stages)... well, that means you have to accept that you'll have an absolutely abysmal TWR. The other thing we haven't mentioned here is refueling. If you set up ISRU refining/refueling infrastructure at each of your destinations, then you make it easier to get where you need to go. You can't mine xenon, which means in this case the best Isp you can get is LV-N. So, let's do the math and see what your ship would have to look like, shall we? You've said you want 10 km/s dV on your ship, and we know the Isp of an LV-N, so plug those numbers into the rocket equation. 10,000 m/s, divided by 9.8 m/s2, divided by 800 s (the Isp of an LV-N), then raise e to that power... and we get a minimum required mass ratio of 3.58. That is, the total mass of your ship with a full load of fuel, divided by the dry mass (after it's empty of fuel), can't be any lower than 3.58. Your ship consists of: engine, payload, fuel tanks, fuel. (I'm defining "payload" as "anything other than engine and fuel tanks".) It needs to be the case that (engine + payload + tanks + fuel), divided by (engine + payload + tanks), is no lower than 3.58. Abbreviating, (E+P+T+F) / (E+P+T) >= 3.58. For standard stock fuel tanks, the mass of the tank is 1/8 the mass of the fuel it contains. So, we can say T = 0.125*F. And in this case, the engine is an LV-N, which has a mass of 3 tons. So, this gives us (3t + P + 1.125*F) / (3t + P + 0.125*F) >= 3.58 3t + P + 1.125*F >= 10.74t + 3.58*P + 0.4475*F 0.6775*F >= 7.74t + 2.58*P F >= 11.42t + 3.81*P So. If you want to have a single-stage ship, powered by a single LV-N, that has at least 10 km/s of dV ... then the amount of fuel it has to carry will equal 11.42 tons, plus 3.81 tons of fuel for every ton of payload (where "payload" is defined as "anything other than the LV-N and fuel tanks"). Which means you're going to have a very low TWR. For example, even if your payload is a paltry 8 tons... that means you'd need to carry 42 tons of fuel, with a total ship mass of 58 tons. Which means, with a single LV-N, it would be able to accelerate at just barely over 1 m/s2. And not a whit more. And if you want more payload than 8 tons... the TWR would have to be even less.
  3. No, that's absolutely not how it should be-- that's clearly broken. I'll need to look into fixing JX2Antenna appropriately, but in the meantime, you can fix this problem by going into the JX2Antenna/Patches folder and deleting the file called jx2_OPM.cfg. That ought to fix the problem for you. (Thanks for the heads-up, @JadeOfMaar!) Technobabble about what's going on in spoiler section, for the curious.
  4. And, indeed, KSP itself is often the reason for being short on sleep...
  5. Staging problem

    Moving to Gameplay Questions.
  6. So... this thread, which was a perfectly reasonable request for technical support, asked in a perfectly reasonable way, in the right place (i.e. the tech support forum), got an answer, but then quickly devolved into insults, condescension, outright mockery, and accusations. Accordingly, the whole shebang has been pruned out, and this thread is going to stay locked. In answer to the original question: there's a FAQ here with useful suggestions (admittedly, not directly linked from the tech support forum): Executive summary for recommendations in this case is: install fewer mods, and/or run 64-bit KSP. As for the behavior that happened here. A few pointers, which I'm sure we all already know (right?), but perhaps a refresher is in order: It is never appropriate to be rude or condescending to anyone who asks a question. If you want to be helpful and answer, just do so, politely. If you are disinclined to answer nicely, then you can just walk on by and not respond. There's never any call to be a jerk. Remember that the question you see all the time, is new to the person asking the question. So it's never appropriate to make a response of the form "nobody ever checks this" or "everybody always does that", because the person asking the question isn't responsible for what "everyone else" does. Do not let yourself be provoked. Engaging in flame wars never solves anything, and everyone loses. If you think someone is being a jerk, just ignore them-- either don't respond, or else ignore the provocation and respond politely. If you think their behavior is so egregious that they're violating forum rules, then by all means report the post and let the moderator team sort it out. But do not try to "correct another person's behavior, e.g. don't call them out as a jerk, regardless of circumstances or merit. Mockery is not okay, regardless of provocation. In particular... one thing that is really not okay is to quote someone else's post, then edit the quote to something they didn't actually say in order to make them look stupid or unreasonable. That's never okay. If someone is aggravating you to the point that you feel tempted to do something like that... it means you're letting something get to you that you shouldn't. Either ignore the provocation, or walk away, or report the perceived offense... but do not escalate, please. Thank you for your understanding.
  7. How to turn on the KSPI salt reactor?

    Moving to Add-on Discussions. Though it's worth noting that if you have a question about a particular mod, the best place to ask is in the mod's thread in the Add-on Releases sub-forum, since that's where all the experts (and the author!) hang out. It's the most likely place to find answers.
  8. Ask the Mods questions about the Forums!

    Actually, that sounds like a pretty good idea. Up to you, of course. ...and now we're kinda starting to veer off the main topic of this thread, so, perhaps 'nuff said on that?
  9. Ask the Mods questions about the Forums!

    That would be up to the implementation of the individual user's browser. My guess would be "it'll probably wait until opening the spoiler before it loads the image", but that's just a guess. It's worth noting that a spoiler does not protect against loading ginormous text content: that is, if you paste megabytes of text into a spoiler, then people's browsers will go ahead and download the full text when they view the post, even if they don't open the spoiler. This is a thing that comes up depressingly often: someone with technical difficulties will paste a gargantuan KSP log file into a spoiler, under the mistaken impression that they're somehow mitigating the impact. Whenever that happens, we end up having to go in and clean it out, then advise them... again... to please post log files to a third-party site and then just link to it in the forum post. But I digress.
  10. Ask the Mods questions about the Forums!

    A bunch of screenshots won't cause any problems for the server (since it never sees them, it only sees the links). But a large number of screenshots can cause problems for clients, i.e. the forum users who are trying to view your posts. Because they do have to download all the pictures, which can be problematic for people on mobile devices (issues not just about mobile bandwidth, but potentially also issues such as memory usage as well). So, since everyone is running on a different machine or device with different capabilities... there's no one answer to "how much is too much". The more content you pack in there, the more people you'll end up excluding or causing problems for. So it's a matter of where one chooses to set the bar. Of course... by now, anyone who might be interested in reading Emiko Station presumably knows that it's a... visually intense environment. So presumably they'd avoid reading that thread when they're on their phone or whatever. And if they didn't know before, they'll figure it out pretty quick, I expect. So, overall, probably not something you need to worry about much-- just something to bear in mind, is all.
  11. Ask the Mods questions about the Forums!

    Please don't skirt the filter, guys. It's there for a reason. If the forum doesn't like you using a word, then don't use the word, okay? We have a rule against profanity skirting. Don't do it, please. Looks like you answered your own question. The main issue with starting such a thread is not so much that it's a priori horrible, but more that it's practically guaranteed to go off the rails quickly and repeatedly, and is just encouraging people to work around the filter, and will almost certainly end up needing to get locked in short order. Generating a bunch of pointless scut-work for the moderators along the way... who, I need not remind you, are unpaid volunteers who are putting in our time to try to keep these forums running for all you fine people. So, please, don't go trying to make our lives more difficult just for your own amusement, okay? Yes, it's a funny idea, but it would really be nice if we could just leave it at that. Thank you.
  12. [1.3.1] Fairing Radius Override

    Hi @SlimeOfSteel, and welcome to the forums! Thank you for contributing your mod! Please update your post above, though, to include a statement of the license. (This is needed per the add-on posting rules.) I see that you've already indicated it as MIT license on your Spacedock download, so all you need to do here is just add a line that says "License: MIT" and you should be good to go! Thanks, Snark
  13. KSP: Making History Grand Discussion Thread

    No, I think what we're saying is that there is added content to career mode: specifically, all the new parts ought to be available and researchable. (I don't actually know that, but I'm guessing they would be.)
  14. Ultra noob at docking..

    Ah, glad it worked out for you! FWIW: Even though it's usually easier if you rotate both vessels... sometimes it's only practical to rotate one of them. For example: Suppose you're building a great big massive space station with many parts all docked together. When a structure gets bigger and bigger, it becomes very hard to rotate it (because the moment of inertia goes up with the square of radius). So, if you have a big ungainly space station, it might not be practical to rotate it as needed. So... if you end up in a situation such as the screenshot above, and if the big ship is so big it's only practical to maneuver one of the ships (i.e. the little one) ... that's doable, just rather more inconvenient and tedious. Basically, it means you need to fly your ship over to a location where it's located approximately in front of the other ship's docking port, and then follow the steps in my tutorial. For example, in the screenshot above, imagine if the ship with the big orange tank were essentially immobile and you couldn't rotate it. What would you do? Well, what you could do is, turn that little ship around so it's pointing towards the left edge of the image (and maybe a little bit upwards), and give it a teeny-tiny goose with the engine to send it drifting slowly in that direction. While drifting, rotate 180 degrees so that the engine's pointing forward. Wait until it drifts to where it's approximately in front of the big ship's docking port, then another brief engine burst (or a touch of RCS) to bring it to a halt. Then do the docking maneuvers.
  15. Привет @Flon, and welcome to the forums! As a side note: Please, write only in English (только по-английски) when posting in the general KSP forums-- that's one of the forum rules. We apologize for the inconvenience, but it's necessary for everyone to be able to read it. We do have a Russian forum, and you're welcome to post there in Russian. Thank you for your understanding.