• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6695 Excellent

About Snark

  • Rank
    E Pluribus Boojum

Recent Profile Visitors

8286 profile views
  1. Can't asparagus anymore -- what gives?

    Ah. Now there is what looks to me like a smoking gun. If decoupling isn't working as expected, it means you've got your decouplers set up wrong. And since those decouplers are what you're counting on to interrupt fuel flow, it's not surprising if you've got problems there. My guess would be that you've got a tank stuck to another tank, rather than being on the decoupler. BTW, I just now had a chance to test asparagus staging, and it works just fine. Here's a very simple ship that has just two boosters, asparagused to the central stack: ...This ship has crossfeed turned off for the decouplers (i.e. the default), and then as you can see, it has fuel ducts connecting the outer tanks to the inner one. (The ducts go from the outer tanks to the center tank-- direction's not visible in the screenshot, just trust me that I got the direction correct.) Result? All three engines fire. The outer tanks drain first, as the inner tank is untouched. When the outer tanks run out of fuel, the outer engines go dead and the center engine starts draining the center tank. So, everything exactly as expected. (Note that with the new crossfeed options available since 1.2, it's also possible to build this ship without fuel ducts-- just turn on crossfeed on the decouplers. The one drawback in that case is that when the outer tanks run dry, the outer engines will keep firing, using the inner tank. So in that case, you have to actually watch the fuel content of the tank in order to know when to jettison the boosters; you can't just watch for the radial engines to die.)
  2. EVE Online Skyboxes converted for KSP

    Hello @kpolar, and welcome to the forums! I'm sorry, but we've had to remove the download links from your post, due to licensing problems. Please review the add-on posting rules. Specific problems that need fixing: When you post a mod, you must plainly state what your license is. (You don't have a license, here.) If you include any content that's not your own, you need to provide that content's license. (You don't, here.) that content's license has to be one that allows you to include it (i.e. you can't break that content's license) that content's license has to be compatible with your own In the current case, you're including content from EVE Online. I don't know what the license is for that, but I suspect it's not public domain. So you can't just put it in your mod for download without resolving that issue. I followed the link you provided, for where you got the textures from. That was another KSP forum post which, itself, simply provided an upload of EVE Online textures without any proof of being allowed to do so. Therefore, I've snipped the link in that post, too. Basically, here's what you need to do in order to be able to post this mod: Find out what the license is for the EVE Online content. It has to be something provable, that you can provide a link to. Unfortunately, the place you cite as having gotten the textures from doesn't provide that info either, so this may be difficult for you to do. Once you've determined what the license is, make sure it's one that allows you to bundle it into your mod. For example, if it turns out to be something very restrictive that doesn't allow redistribution, such as "all rights reserved" or similar, then you're just out of luck and can't post your mod at all. If you can successfully pass #1 and #2 above, then you need to pick a license for your own mod that is compatible with the included content's license. Then you need to state in your forum post above what your license is. I'm sorry to have to shoot you down, right on your first post in the forums. It looks like a cool mod you've made, and you've clearly put work into it and would love to share it. However, there are certain rules that have to be followed, because lawyers and such.
  3. Can't asparagus anymore -- what gives?

    Thanks for the screenshot, @herbal space program, but it's such a complex ship that it's hard to see anything at all-- just a jumbled mess (not your fault, it's just that it's hard to glean detailed 3D info from a single screenshot sometimes). I'm not at a KSP computer at the moment, so I can't test this myself right now. I'd love to see a really simple example you have that doesn't work, like this: Center stack that has 1 fuel tank with 1 engine under it Two (no more!) radial boosters, attached by radial decouplers that have crossfeed turned off Radial booster is 1 fuel tank with 1 engine under it, and a fuel duct running from the radial tank inwards to the central tank That seems to me like it ought to work exactly as you want and expect: the radial boosters should drain completely before the central stack is touched at all, and the radial-booster engines should go dead as soon as their respective fuel tanks go dry. If that's not what's happening for you, then something odd is going on here.
  4. Technically true, in the sense that you can't slow to a halt in midair with drag alone. However, I don't think that's what the OP was asking. What he was asking is, can you slow enough with drag so that you can land undamaged without parachutes. And that's definitely doable. With a lightweight, high-drag ship, it's easy to get the terminal velocity down to just a few dozen m/s. And it's possible to build an impact-resistant ship that can withstand a "landing" at those speeds. Sure you can. Just attach some heavy-duty landing gear to the capsule (as I describe above), and it can fall out of the sky and land unharmed. How is it "out of context"? Seems to me that it's perfectly in context-- the OP wants to know "how can I survive landing without parachutes", and that's exactly perfectly a thing that enables that. Quite a bit faster than that, actually. Pretty much, yeah. But the question wasn't "is it elegant" or "is it an 'exploit'", but rather "is it possible". And the answer to that question is "yes". Not that fast, no. But it's pretty easy to build a ship with a terminal velocity well under 100 m/s, and that's plenty slow enough for a landing-gear landing, if the gear's beefed up enough.
  5. Nervs of steel

    The issue isn't dV. It's TWR, as several people have pointed out. LV-N's aren't impossible to land with... but it's very challenging, because they only barely have enough TWR to be able to land there at all. Tylo has a surface gravity of 7.85 m/s2. That means it's physically impossible to land unless you have more than 7.85 kN of engine thrust per ton of ship. An LV-N has a thrust of only 60 kN. That means that if you have an LV-N-powered lander coming down on Tylo, the absolute highest mass it can have is 7.64 tons per LV-N. Since the LV-N itself is 3 tons, that leaves 4.64 tons per LV-N for the rest of the ship. And note that realistically, your "mass budget" will be lower than that, since that's the absolute limit at which you can't actually decelerate when descending, but can only descend at constant speed. For example, consider the lander that @steuben proposes above. A Mk1-2 pod, four LV-Ns, and five Mk1 tanks would have a total mass of over 27 tons, even without taking into account other paraphernalia such as landing legs etc. Let's be super optimistic and assume that you can bring the entire thing in at only 28 tons even. It would have an acceleration of 8.57 m/s2. Since Tylo is 7.85 m/s2 at the surface, that only leaves you only 0.72 m/s2 of "excess" TWR that you can use to actually decelerate as you approach the surface. With such wretchedly tiny deceleration, it means you'll have to spend a loooooooong time decelerating in the latter part of your burn, meaning you will pile up a lot of gravity losses (and likely cosine losses as well-- I expect a straightforward -all-the-way landing will be impractical, with such a low TWR). Yes, by the time you get down to the vertical-descent part of your landing, you will have burned away a fair amount of fuel and thereby given yourself a little more TWR to play with, but it's still a tough challenge. Does this mean it's impossible? No. You can land on Tylo with nukes, people do it. But it does mean that the ship would be really really inefficient at landing: the savings you get from the LV-N's high Isp tend to be more than thrown away by the inefficiencies of gravity and cosine losses. So yes, you can do it... but it's hard, and takes a lot of attention to design, and the margin is very thin. A side note, however: I could totally see someone going with a "hybrid" approach, and spending a little bit of mass for a high-TWR "bump" at the end. For example, the Spark is lightweight and fairly high TWR. Three Sparks would mass only 0.3 tons, but have as much thrust as an LV-N. So you could put a few Sparks (or similar) on there, with a small LFO tank to supply them just enough dV to cushion that last, mostly-vertical part of the descent. (And ascent, if you plan on going back to orbit again.) @AeroGav has kindly provided an example of this, above, though his design has a bigger investment in LFO (with a Poodle and a full 8 tons of fuel).
  6. Can't asparagus anymore -- what gives?

    Screenshot please? Hard to diagnose what you're doing wrong when we can't see what you're doing. I can tell you that asparagus works just fine. Always has, and still does in 1.3; I use it from time to time. The only changes I've noticed lately are that the new fuel-flow options actually make it easier to build asparagus, in some ways (it's possible to make a functioning asparagus-staged vehicle without any fuel ducts at all, just using crossflow-enabled decouplers and setting the tanks' fuel flow priorities). In any case: yes, asparagus works just fine, so if you're having problems, either there's some devil in the details of how you've built your ship, or else (less likely) there might be some mod that's getting in the way. A screenshot of your ship, showing how it's put together, would really help to diagnose whatever it is that you're (presumably) doing wrong.
  7. Yes, absolutely! It's not even all that difficult. The key is, 1. have a lightweight, high-drag craft (so its terminal velocity isn't too high), and 2. have something really heavy-duty and impact-resistant to land on. For example: The larger aircraft landing gear have a ridiculously high impact-speed tolerance, and also strong shock-absorbing springs. This assertion may sound counterintuitive to people who've gotten frustrated with "why do my landing gear keep exploding when I try to land." But what's killing the gear in that case isn't the speed touching the ground-- it's the the plane's inertia crushing the gear, because the gear is too small for the vessel. If you do it the other way around-- i.e. put landing gear on the craft that's way too big for the craft-- you'd be astonished with what you can get away with. For example: Try making a small lightweight vehicle, built around a Mk1 command pod or lander can. Then, instead of landing legs, give it 3 or 4 of the largest-size aircraft landing gear attached around it with radial symmetry. Drop it out of the sky without parachutes, but with the landing gear deployed. As long as it lands with the gear facing downwards, it'll do just fine. (You may need to tinker with the spring/damper settings on the gear to prevent bouncing.) So all you need to do is for your craft to be reasonably lightweight and high-drag and it's easy to do. I have also heard (though haven't tested it myself) that undeployed fairings are also freakishly impact-resistant, so if you can build a craft that hits the ground fairing-first, I hear that can work well, too.
  8. Electric Propeller Stops Running

    Have no clue myself, but this sounds like a job for... @Azimech perhaps?
  9. KSP Mod Repository Client

    Moving to Add-on Discussions. (And folks, if you see a thread that seems to you to be in the wrong place... just report it, please, with an appropriate note. That'll get the moderators' attention so we can take any appropriate action. Please don't tell people, in-thread, "this should be in <place>." That's unhelpful, because it doesn't get the moderators' attention. Also, publicly telling other people what to do rarely ends well.)
  10. BUGS & KRAKEN compilation

    Moving to Fan Works.
  11. Yeah, I know, I saw from your staging display that you'd already got that contingency covered. I just found the idea of "craft that can completely disintegrate at the touch of a button" oddly appealing, in a Mission: Impossible sort of way. Go on, put all the "deploy fairing" actions in the Abort action group, I dare ya. Yep, completely open-ended, no deadline.
  12. Also, please note that this thread is an ancient one, years old, before it just now got revived. So if you're thinking of responding to a post in this thread, it's worth checking "how old is the post I'm responding to?" and considering whether it actually needs a response at this point.
  13. Okay, people. I'm sorry, but we had to close the thread and prune out a huge chunk of posts that were 1. completely derailing the thread, and 2. violating multiple forum rules. It's all cleaned up now, but before I re-open this thread, I'd like to clarify a few points that apparently are a little fuzzy to some folks. I know you've all read the forum rules (right?), because you're happy to have this great KSP online community where everyone can have fun and exchange ideas. But a quick refresher appears to be in order: Be considerate to others. For example, if you're in the release thread for a mod (such as is the case here): This is a thing that someone worked a lot of really hard hours, unpaid, to give you a shiny toy for free. They owe you absolutely nothing. You owe them a debt of gratitude. So, kindly be mindful of that. It's not appropriate to criticize mod authors in their own threads. It's fine to offer suggestions, as long as you're not complaining or demanding. Do not use profanity, even if you mask it with # or * or whatever. It's against the rules, specifically 2.2.c. This is a family forum, there are young people here, and the rule is to keep it clean. So, kindly do so. Do not respond to fire with fire. When someone says something that aggravates you, don't fire back. Don't call them names, don't try to address their behavior. That never ends well; all you get is a flamewar that derails the thread and makes everyone uncomfortable. This is not what the KSP forums are about. Instead, simply don't respond. Just ignore them and pretend that they're not there. If someone is behaving so inappropriately that you believe they are breaking forum rules... just report the post. That will get the moderator team's attention, and we can deal with anything that needs dealing with. It's what we're for. Please don't try to "handle it" yourself. Do not "backseat moderate". That is, do not take it upon yourself to tell another user what to do, or what not to do. Or tell someone that that they are breaking a rule. Or tell them that you're reporting them. Why? Because you are not a moderator and it's not your place to judge. Not only does this never end well, it's also against the rules (3.2). So, again: just report the post and then let us handle the matter. It's what we're for. Yes, the rules apply to you, personally. Just because a particular rule seems silly, futile, or counterproductive to you, doesn't mean you can ignore it. The forum rules are how they are because we've found that this is what leads to a smoothly running forum that everyone can enjoy. You agreed to all the rules when you created an account, so you do need to follow them even if you don't agree with them. If you have a concern about a particular rule, you're welcome to reach out to us privately about the matter. I would also beg your patience in awaiting moderator action if you see something inappropriate and have reported it. We do try to be as prompt as possible about these things (if nothing else, it means less cleanup for us to do.) However, please understand that we're not genies who pop out of a lamp-- there are only just so many of us, we're not in every single time zone, and we have day jobs and such just like the rest of you; moderating is our hobby, not our job. So occasionally, this may mean that it takes a little while before one of us responds. Please rest assured that we will respond, and at the earliest possible opportunity. And also that when we do, we will take care of cleaning up anything that needs cleaning up, so it'll all come out in the wash. We're sorry for the delay, and for any inconvenience that this causes to innocent bystanders who just want to read about their favorite mod. Okay, opening the thread now. I trust we can all comport ourselves like adults, and discuss matters in civil fashion. Thank you for your understanding.
  14. Thanks to @adsii1970 and @qzgy for their entries! Leaderboard updated. (qzgy, I used your stats from after your glider was stabilized-- the other ones are still stabilizing and over 8%, which means the numbers aren't settled yet) Neat idea for using a fairing as an aircraft body... that hadn't occurred to me. (I'm picturing what happens if Val accidentally presses the wrong button...)
  15. Another Earthquake - SQUAD members okay?

    Yes, there's already a thread for this: Feel free to share thoughts and well-wishes there. (TL;DR: Squad folks are all safe. Pretty busy though, there's a lot of damage to their neighborhood.)