Gaarst

Members
  • Content Count

    2,625
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3,028 Excellent

About Gaarst

  • Rank
    Librarian

Contact Methods

  • Twitter Alas poor Yorick!

Recent Profile Visitors

9,390 profile views
  1. You radiate heat back into space when you receive sunlight, eventually your temperature will move to an equilibrium where the heat you radiate is equal to the heat you receive from the Sun. At Earth/Kerbin (they have the same solar irradiance) the "worst case scenario", a surface that somehow only radiates towards the Sun (like something with terrible internal heat conduction) settles at 400 K, a long cylinder facing the Sun sideways stabilises around 300 K. I haven't actually tried this, but get a spacecraft at an orbit where it is always facing the Sun let it sit for a while (don't use a ton of parts if you don't want to wait for ages) and look at the temperature of the parts facing the Sun. You should get something between 300 and 400 K, if not then I'm probably an idiot and disregard what I'm saying. IRL, for a manned spacecraft anything over 300 K starts being a concern for the crew (and electronics at higher temperatures). In KSP neither your craft or Kerbals care about anything below 2000 K so having radiators is useless.
  2. Gaarst

    Races! Hot Laps

    More times! Abu Kerbi: 01:11.18 (UM-E2) Kolder: 01:00.82 (UM-E2); 00:43.04 (UM-08B) Monako: 00:43.32 (UM-08B) Ska: 00:51.40 (UM-08B) Nordring: I wish I had a time to show, but I can't complete a lap without either missing a gate or my tyres exploding. My current best is 01:24 incl. 10 secs of penalty because I missed the Finish gate (!!!) on that run. Album here: https://imgur.com/a/oob3Msg
  3. Gaarst

    Russian Launch and Mission Thread

    It depends on what is found. If it was a one time defect then Soyuz should be cleared for launch, if it's a symptom of a deeper quality/supply/assembly problem, it could take months before it can fly again. Unfortunately recent events make the second option more than likely (see Progress MS-04). Maybe MS-11 could be exceptionally cleared to launch if they found the source of the problem on the rocket even if the investigation is not finished. If Soyuz is not cleared to launch manned, it won't launch unmanned to bring down astronauts. Even if you eliminate the risk of a LOC at liftoff, in case of a failure you still have stranded astronauts on the ISS. Not going to happen. Leaving astronauts on the station without a way back down is a big no-no, even more so since Columbia. Even more not going to happen. In addition to leave the crew without a way down, this would mean you would bring astronauts down on a cargo spacecraft which, even though its architecture is common with a future manned craft, is not itself manrated and was never intended to be. Besides being pressurised, Dragon 1 has nothing to support a crew; the DIY part of this plan is ludicrous, it's not an Apollo 13 situation where they are on their way to outer space and their main vessel is severely damaged. Same cons as 4. The other expeditions can be delayed by one launch, so you don't have to pack Dragon 2 to the brim. An unproven to-be-manrated spacecraft is marginally better than a proven non-manrated spacecraft. It would make the flight home more comfortable for the astronauts, but they are not going to fly on an untested spacecraft. Same cons as 6, but worse since DM-1 is no longer only a contigency. Same cons as the few above, only adding the risks of a rushed manned program. Not happening. Soyuz is not designed to be refueled, in space engineering this means that it is impossible to refuel Soyuz. China is not part of the ISS collaboration; and even though the ports are similar to that which is similar to that which is similar to that, this amounts to them being completely different. Ripping the docking port and replacing it amounts to flying an untested upgrade of a spacecraft, so no again. An adapter could not be built and tested within the timeframe that this option could be possible. Untested spacecraft, non-manrated rocket, rushed assembly... Still nope. Same, except the rocket is even less ready, less tested, and putting an Orion on top of an FH amounts to creating a completely new rocket+spacecraft system. Same. CRS-16 is not designed to hold crew. Modifying it would take a lot of time and testing: either you're too late, or you might as well fire up MS-11 untested and without opening an investigation at all. I personally think the most feasible option, depending on the details brought up by the investigation, is to bring the ISS crew down with MS-09 as intended and leave the ISS unmanned for a while until MS-11 (or another mission if MS-11 is delayed by the investigation) gets there. If the investigation rules that MS-11 is safe to fly, they could maybe bring it forward a bit to overlap with the current crew, even for a day, if they really don't want to leave the ISS unmanned.
  4. Gaarst

    Races! Hot Laps

    I'll inaugurate the entries with a few of mine, using the UM-E2 (electric powered and no downforce) and the UM-08B (jet powered and many downforces). Kurburging: 01:40.32 (UM-E2); 01:11.20 (UM-08B) Hunkaroring: 01:33.56 (UM-E2); 01:06.98 (UM-08B) PaulKerman: 00:54.38 (UM-E2); 00:40.78 (UM-08B) Monako: 00:59.16 (UM-E2) Ska: 01:13.68 (UM-E2) Album with the screenshots as proof: https://imgur.com/a/aREH9HT
  5. Gaarst

    Coming Soon™ . . . Races!

    Not really no, I kinda ran out. I'll try to think of something. A challenge thread instead of a "coming soon" preparation thread may get more people interested. So once the details are sorted out, make a thread for the challenge proper, give a deadline before which people have to sign up and hope for the best?
  6. Gaarst

    Coming Soon™ . . . Races!

    Ah too bad. I saw that on the pic yeah, in hindsight it makes more sense considering the width of the "road" at the bridge. This also means that going out of R&D is now effectively a straight line, probably makes this track more balanced (in terms of speed vs. cornering). Edit: not sure if you caught my ideas on the rules & categories in the post where I posted my 3 latest circuits, a heads-up in case you missed it.
  7. Gaarst

    Coming Soon™ . . . Races!

    It literally just follows the outline of the KSC, didn't put that much thought into it, but glad you like it. Can you add gates in the middle of the track? So far I've had to remove all the gates from the end up to the one I want to add since I can't figure out how to add a gate somewhere else than at the end of the track.
  8. Gaarst

    Coming Soon™ . . . Races!

    The day there is a hill on the KSC I'll make an Eau Rouge.
  9. Gaarst

    Coming Soon™ . . . Races!

    I've just updated Ska and Hunkaroring, redownload them if you already had them.
  10. Gaarst

    Coming Soon™ . . . Races!

    I've come up with 3 new tracks: Ska, because if you look from very far it has a somewhat similar shape as Spa: It may be a good idea to add a gate between gate 9 (above the R&D dome) and the kink at gate 10 and 11 since right now you can pretty much go from gate 9 to 12 by cutting corners a bit. Edit: I've just done this, redownload the track if you already had it. Hunkaroring, the straight looks the same as the real one (a bit): (I haven't driven through that one yet, the straight can be extended if you feel it is too short) Edit: I've made the straight just a bit longer, redownload the track if you already had it. Paul Kerman, I ran out of excuses for names at that point: For categories I'd suggest "wheel-driven cars" and "reaction-powered cars", stock only. Wheel-driven is everything that uses electric wheels as the only source of propulsion, it doesn't matter where the electricity comes from (RTG, fuel cell, solar panels...), reaction-powered is everything that uses something else to make the car go forward, ie: jets and rocket engines, rover wheels still allowed in that category. There can be a single separate modded category, it's going to be very hard to balance anyway since there are so many mods that could give someone an advantage. Maybe no aero in the wheel-driven category to keep things simple, but stick as much wings as you want in your jet car (which it will need since they will be faster). I'm not sure about only 4 wheels, on one hand having people racing 20-wheelers for a greater PWR is a bit ridiculous, on the other the P34 was a thing; maybe maximum 4 driven wheels? (and it'd be fun to see 3-wheelers) As I've said earlier, I'd be in favour of banning SAS and active aero (except for braking) for both categories, basically have only your wheels turning you; and maybe limiting either mass or thrust.
  11. Gaarst

    Coming Soon™ . . . Races!

    I'll be looking into making new tracks as well, gotta get the 12 of them.
  12. Gaarst

    Coming Soon™ . . . Races!

    I don't think I ever build up enough speed that airbrakes could make a big difference, but I'll definitely give it a try. If you feel like it makes it easier for people to find their way around, then go for it. It's a bit hard for me to judge since I've made the course. I think fastest laps and race time in different categories is a good idea. What we could do is a small championship with a points system and ranking based on the total time and add bonus points for the drive who has the fastest lap. If we get 12 tracks then 12 GPs is good I guess. It may be a lot for newcomers but if we keep separate leaderboards for individual tracks then people can just race around a single track. I like the negative camber idea, I may steal that one! I think a "public" starting car for everyone to try is a good idea, it may get people in the challenge if they don't initially want to spend the time designing their own.
  13. Gaarst

    Coming Soon™ . . . Races!

    I've designed an electric-driven car (though it uses a fuel cell for EC production, hope that's OK), the UM-E1 which did a time of 0:51:98 around Kerbal One:
  14. Gaarst

    Coming Soon™ . . . Races!

    I think that active aero could be allowed for braking, mostly because there isn't really a way to improve braking beyond increasing the brakes slider to the max. I've never actually used airbrakes on my car because I've always thought that aero surfaces deploy too slowly to make a difference at high speeds when they are needed. I'm using the M1 wheels which have quite a lot of suspension travel, so I've set the spring and dampener to the max to have the most rigid suspension possible, and even then the car rolls quite noticeably in turns so I'm not sure I can lower them too far.
  15. Gaarst

    Coming Soon™ . . . Races!

    Count me in for separate categories, but I still think there needs to be some regulations, especially for the jet category since there is virtually no power limit, and concerning electric and wings. (I'm also in favour of banning SAS and active aero but that's really because I've built my car without those.) To some extent I think regulations can encourage innovative design if we have to make do with limited resources. I have been racing around the LAB Test Track 3; it's a cool circuit with lots of low- and high-speed cornering (I've never used my brakes so much) and I enjoy going around it. My only pet peeve is these invisible boundaries between the different KSC zones, that for some reason I seem to hit more on that course, popping my tyres every time. I'm also interested in the electric category and may come up with an electric conversion of my car to give Triop a run for his money on fairer grounds! Edit: BTW, 0:50:10 on LAB TT3