• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

358 Excellent

About Zhetaan

  • Rank
    Curious George

Recent Profile Visitors

2135 profile views
  1. I installed a ceiling fan in my dining room and found a junction box with two white wires, both of which were hot. Had I connected it, that fan would have run really well for about five seconds .... I also cracked open a 3-phase panel serving a machine at work and found all green wires. The electrician we called (because I refused to touch it after that) looked as though he was about to be sick. There's nothing quite like low bid .... Given that Sanny's original story involves her going near-catatonic because of malfunctions relating to long-term cold-sleep, I wonder how many poltergeists are ones we create ourselves--though given how Sanny turned out, that may be a bit too meta. That was true before the crossover, though. In fact, that was true when she was still alive.
  2. Late game, how do you play it?

    It depends on the contract. Most often, the Kerbin system contracts that do arise are small scale and pay pennies, but as usual, there are mods for that. Field research is really more of a general contract pack, but Tourism Plus has some interesting late-game bits. Look at the picture in its first post and you'll see what I mean. You're right; there is always this idea that the more time you spend in time warp, the less you're doing around Kerbin ... but it's also true that going to Eeloo one day at a time because you insist on doing a Kerbin-system contract every day guarantees that you'll burn out long before you cross Jool's orbit. It isn't spoken of as such, but KSP has something of an unwritten leveling-up mechanic not unlike an RTS or base-building game: in the early game, you have to gather your resources one at a time because you don't have the good tech. Later on, you can have automated factories and drones and whatever that do it for you and let you focus on doing other things: while you could continue to gather resources one at a time, you're missing the point if you do. In KSP, it takes years to get to Eeloo. While you may have other things going on at the same time, no one expects you to have the same focus on the minute-by-minute of mission operations as you did when your entire space program consisted of a pod resting atop a barrel of boom and may or may not have included a parachute. Also remember that contracts are proposed missions: unless they have 'Challenge' in the name, they aren't challenges. Even then, you aren't required to take them and you're not even expected to take them all. If they aren't good missions or even if you simply don't want to do them, then don't be afraid to click the 'Decline' button. You lose one reputation for the refusal, but reputation is asymptotic anyway: you can't get a perfect reputation score, and in the late game, simply saying Hello in another planet's orbit can give you fifty reputation, so there's no point in hoarding it. Feel free to spend some of it in the pursuit of a good contract. If you want to have a Jool program, it is perfectly acceptable to refuse Dres contracts (or let them expire without declining them). KSP simulates your space program: you're not acting in the simulated public trust. Also also remember that the contract system is weighted based on what you accept and decline: if you keep taking Kerbin contracts, it will keep offering them, and a slot taken up by that offer is not taken up by the better outer-system contracts.
  3. @Louella: You do have to fly them, though I would recommend you not bother. A periapsis of 60+ km is going to be in the very thinnest part of the atmosphere and only for a minute, perhaps (unless the apoapsis is 70,001 m), but in any case, the amount of decay will be slight. Add to that the fact that timewarp goes to real-time when you enter an atmosphere and in-atmosphere warp is limited to 4x physical timewarp, and you get to spend many hours watching a piece of useless space rubbish going round in circles rather than doing something interesting, such as playing the game. If orbital decay is something you want to have so that you don't need to delete objects or because you think doing so is somewhat of a cheat, then there's a (slightly outdated) mod for that.
  4. Forgotten Space Program

    I rather figured the next ones would be called The Line and The Sinker to continue your theme of barb-in-cheek snarkiness between Thomlock and Albro. I will say that if you go back to feature the Kerbals at Edge of Infinity and call that one The Bobber instead, I will go from amused directly by bemused to invent the new emotion of cemused just to describe what it would do to my head.
  5. Nice! In that case, all you need to do is open that window and watch. The extremes of latitude variation give the inclination. It would probably be better to find those extremes for one spacecraft and then use that as an initial reference by which one zeroes the inclination of a second spacecraft, with checking using the scanner to ensure that one never deviates from the equatorial orbit. That made all of this rather a lot easier; thank you very much.
  6. The Coriolis force is only relevant when moving between points of varying displacement from the axis of a rotating frame of reference. The pole has rotation but the radial displacement is zero; to launch from the equator (high displacement) towards the pole (zero displacement) causes a great deal of drift. To launch from the pole (zero displacement) to the other pole (also zero displacement) gives no drift and no Coriolis force; in effect, by orbiting above the poles you leave the rotating frame of reference entirely and let the planet rotate under you--which of course is why polar orbits are so nice for surveys, but I digress. Consider: you launch from KSC and head due north. As the planet's surface curves towards the north pole, the radial distance from Kerbin's rotational axis decreases, so the surface velocity also decreases; you retain your equatorial eastward surface velocity, so as you move farther north, you also drift east. The end result is that if you set your heading to 0° on launch and never change it, you will end up in an inclined but not 90° polar orbit. In order to get 90°, you need to launch somewhat northwest in order to cancel that eastward surface velocity. Now consider: you launch from the north pole and head due south towards KSC. You have zero eastward surface velocity, but of course Kerbin's equator does not, so as you head south, KSC pulls to the east of you and you end up passing it somewhat to the west. As you continue heading south, however, that eastward surface velocity drops back to zero, and assuming that you held an exact 180° heading the entire time, you will pass directly over the south pole with no correction required. Naturally, you have a point about pilot error, hence the need for a stable rocket and heading. The reason to use the pole is because the pole makes achieving 90° inclination easier--that's not the same as saying it becomes easy. Actually, I imagine the task to be quite difficult. Additionally, since the navball does give a heading readout, deviation from that heading gives a means to detect, albeit not necessarily prevent, pilot error, provided that the character of the launch is such that no deviation is expected. This happens only in two conditions: launching from the equator to an equatorial orbit, and launching from the pole into a polar orbit. Everything else has to deal with the heading changes normally associated with great-circle navigation. There is no way to detect the equator in KSP, but the compass (which is admittedly some kind of alien spacemagic compass that always points to true north and doesn't depend on magnetic fields) does give a way to detect the poles. Finally, since you have repeated yourself twice and I have no desire to cause you the frustration of doing so a third time, you have my apologies for failing to answer your objection that I am not answering the question asked. The answer is that the fact that inclination is defined as an angle between the orbital plane and a reference plane means that if truly no reference exists, then neither does inclination: it is a null question of the same order as, 'How much is three added to?' However, given the context wherein the original poster mentioned that being able to use the Mun was 'cool' for Kerbin but wanted a general reference, I took the question as meaning, 'How to zero without a readout or an equatorially-aligned reference point?' in which case it is possible--albeit difficult--to construct one from the available tools because the poles can be found and do provide physical reference points from which the equatorial references can be derived.
  7. As I wrote, use a satellite in a polar orbit as a reference. Getting to that is, so far as I know, possible but tedious: you can use the compass to find the North Pole (find the place where every direction is 180° and you're there), which gives an exact 90° latitude reference. Launch a rocket from there at a 180° heading and so long as it is stable in flight and held at that heading, the resultant orbit will be exactly 90° inclination because launching from the pole eliminates effects of planetary rotation. Use a subsequent satellite to target the polar satellite and subtract 90° from the relative inclination to get orbital inclination. If you can get relative inclination while targeting a landed object, then it becomes easier; plant a flag at the pole and you don't need the polar satellite.
  8. I have a possible solution--possible because I have not tried it myself to verify it--that would take quite a lot of work, but may be able to supply you with a counter-reference. It requires you to take a rocket to a pole, set it up there, and launch it into a pure polar 90° orbit. Finding the pole can be done with precision (follow the compass north or south until it won't let you go north or south any more; also, there are usually easily-identified terrain discontinuities at the poles ... so perhaps you should avoid any cliffs), and the rotation of the planet there alters your delta-V (and therefore heading) by exactly zero. Eliminating the vector addition on account of planetary rotation makes a polar launch one where aiming along a heading of due north or south will result in an inclination of exactly 90° (or -90°); the only other way this can happen is in a launch due east or west from a point on the equator. Achieve polar orbit by holding the heading; any subsequent launches can get the inclination by taking the relative inclination to the polar rocket and subtracting 90°--or the next launch can use it to achieve zero inclination and then you can use that as a reference.
  9. Saving Richfal - Orbital Rendezvous

    @MajorMushroom: You're doing everything correctly so far. A one-kilometre separation at orbital distances and speeds is very much a bulls-eye. However, the problem you describe sounds very much as though you are altering your orbital velocity rather than your relative velocity. @vetrox is correct in that you need to switch to target mode on the navball; do it by clicking on the speed readout until it says 'Target'. If it says 'Orbital', one click will make it read 'Surface' and the next will make it read 'Target'. If it goes from 'Surface' back to 'Orbital' then it means you haven't made Richfal your target yet, but since you mention getting good encounters, I assume you have set him as the target--you may want to check to see whether you accidentally dropped target lock, though. When you get the navball to 'Target' mode, the prograde/retrograde readouts cease to relate to your orbital velocity and begin to describe your velocity relative to the target. To add on to @vetrox's answer, you usually want to burn retrograde to zero first because this kills your drift velocity relative to the target. However, once you do, the difference between your orbits will cause that drift to begin to increase immediately, so it is important to act relatively quickly to close distance and re-zero. Do this by aiming at the target marker () and burning for it: 50 m/s closing velocity is good for a kilometre out, but you will definitely want to slow as you close. When separation is at one hundred metres, you will be well-served to have it down to 10 m/s or even lower. Expect drift to have you coming in slightly inaccurately; it cannot be avoided, and it means that when you do get close enough, you need to burn retrograde (), not anti-target (). Do this until relative velocity is zero and you will have completely matched orbits. You do need to EVA Richfal to your ship: use the square bracket keys ([ or ]) to switch to him once you're within range and your ship is relatively motionless.
  10. Staging focuses on used stage

    @KerbalisticMissile: @Bluastrid has it right. These sorts of issues are almost universally a root part problem. The re-rooting tool available in the editor makes fixing this very straightforward; if you've never used it, it's the rightmost in the bank of four tools (going from left to right: place, offset, rotate, root). Click it, click your rocket, and click the part that you want to be the root part. That part ought to be the probe core or whatever the control unit is for the warhead. You will probably need to redo your staging one more time after re-rooting, but hopefully that will fix it. I'm not entirely certain what you mean when you say that removing a part with staging messes up the other parts except perhaps that you mean to say it messes up the order of stages, but that is usually caused by root-part problems, as well.
  11. You can always take extra fuel and say, 'Why wait for a window when I can kick in the door?' In your case, the issue is what the issue always is: weight. In stock KSP, it's best to wait at Duna (or wherever) for the most fuel-efficient window because fuel is the only thing you have to budget. When you play with a life-support mod, you have to budget supplies for this trip too, but they also have mass. Take more supplies and go on a longer mission, but you also have to take more fuel to lift that rocket and send it on that mission. If you take enough supplies, you can use those same minimum-fuel transfers, but the sheer mass of the craft will put the minimum very high. Take fewer supplies, and perhaps the amount of fuel you save by doing that is more than the amount you lose by needing to use a faster transfer. Remember, the tyranny of the rocket equation is that the amount of fuel needed increases exponentially with the mass. If you take twice the fuel you do not get twice the delta-V. However, life support tends to increase time available for the mission only linearly with the mass: if you take twice the LS supplies, you can go for twice as much time. This means that overall, fuel concerns will still win out over LS concerns unless there's another mechanic such as habitation or recyclers involved. Even then, habitation only increases the minimum size of your rocket, making it a weight problem, and recyclers decrease the mass of LS resources you must take and replaces that mass with the recycler and the power generators to run it, which still puts the trade-off in terms of weight.
  12. Here, then. I think you'll like this. It's from just after v1.0 and the new aerodynamics came out, and people were re-learning how to fly. I'll tell you what rockets do fly well now ...
  13. Increase Delta-V of rocket

    @100055: Drop the 1.25m boosters and add either Kickbacks or 2.5m boosters. Generally (with the sometimes exception of solid rocket boosters such as the Kickback), you want your stages to go for about two minutes before you need to start the next one: you have this for your core but not for the side boosters. Thirty seconds of burn is nigh-useless for a liquid-fuelled booster stage. Also, your TWR for each of your booster stages increases by .01; the boosters are carrying themselves and not really doing much else. That's not to say that they don't help at all: if they're asparagus-staged then you do get the benefit of essentially starting with a fully-fuelled core stage that already has some speed and altitude, which is probably why you see less delta-V if you take those boosters away. But that's all the help you're getting from them; they're worthless otherwise. For boosters, you always want to add net thrust--this means that you need the boosters to have higher thrust-to-weight than the core. Usually, the 1.25m engines are weaker than the 2.5m types (the exceptions are the Vector and Dart, which you don't have yet), so for a comparable fuel load, you end up losing delta-V if you use them against a 2.5m core. You're only managing because you have three FL-T800 fuel tanks stacked on each one, so it's a more-than-comparable fuel load. However, that larger fuel load is also at the limit of what the basic 1.25m engines can lift: less fuel gives more TWR but an even more pathetic burn time, and more fuel leaves you on the pad, unable to lift at all. To put it in other words, your design has reached the point of diminishing returns; this rocket is as good as this rocket will ever be. If you want a better rocket, then you need a new rocket. Add a few of the tall 2.5m tanks with Skippers--I doubt you're at a point where you need Mainsails yet, except maybe on the bottom of your core stage. Perhaps I'm wrong: play with the design a bit and see what works. You unlocked Heavier Rocketry; you may as well use some of the things you find there. In any case, you ought to have no trouble getting 10km/s by improving this design.
  14. Platypus is Greek; the correct plural in that case would be platypodes. Of course, the word has been thoroughly borrowed into English so the actual correct plural is platypuses. It's something akin to the problem of the word virus; though virus is Latin, it is not so much a foreign word as it is a word that has been borrowed into English and remade into an English word thereby, so the correct plural is viruses. Actually, in that case, it's necessary; the Latin virus is an uncountable mass noun (it refers to the concept of an overarching, all-consuming pestilence) along the same lines as knowledge (you can have knowledge, and you can have a lot of knowledge, but can you have six knowledges?), so trying to pluralise it as viri or some other hideous construction is incorrect, even in Latin: one may consider that the word belongs to a hypothetical sixth declension or some such, but it definitely does not belong to the second (which is the one that has singular -us and plural -i; viz. radius becomes radii). There are complications wrought of the fact that Latin borrowed a lot of Greek words, as well, but generally speaking, one does not mix one's Latin and Greek. It's not lunology (and it's definitely not moonology!); it's selenology. When we get to studying Venus in earnest, we'll have aphrodisiologists. Of course, they may choose to call themselves planetologists (a minor inconsistency given that the word has already been taken up in the field of ecology) just to avoid all of the office jokes. Anyway, speaking of hideous construction ... @Just Jim, how is it that you have so many great-looking craft? You've been writing this story for nearly two years and I have yet to see a miss from you. Do you have some kind of vetting process, or is it just raw talent? I never would have thought of using the dishes on the tips of the raptor wings, for example, but the little touches like that really sell it for me. ETA: @Torgo, it appears that we need to work out a schedule of rotation lest we inflict some form of grammar overload on these poor people.
  15. Hangar extension mod? Also: stock helicopters? I don't believe it. I remember reading your initial post telling us about how three of twenty passed the test, and of the three, two played KSP--and my first thought was, and the other seventeen used Hyperedit. Jokes aside, now that you're there, the only thing I can say is congratulations, LT. I hope having your desk feet away from a helicopter doesn't make paperwork too difficult. Have you gotten your callsign yet, or does that wait until flight school?