NASAHireMe

Members
  • Content Count

    115
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

85 Excellent

About NASAHireMe

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Yup, agree with Vall for practicality. If you're gonna do mining/refueling, that seems like the logical place to do it. I play with RemoteTech so I've got a main station around Vall and a constellation of commsats throughout the Joolian system... it's quite complex. I've always liked Laythe stations though. Making a Laythe-capable SSTO is one of the most satisfying goals in KSP.
  2. Here's a thread on the topic. I had the same question and was wondering what Squad could do with extra science. Some people had some great discussions.
  3. Ever since updating to 1.0.2, I've found that MJ's delta-v calculations for asparagus staging longer works correctly in the VAB. It used to be: Stage 0: 2000 dV <-- 'payload'/interplanetary stage Stage 1: 1000 dV <-- upper stage to LKO; center stack of asparagus Stage 2: 3000 dV <-- launch stage; center stack + boosters Now when I'm playing, MechJeb displays this; Stage 0: 2000 dV Stage 1: 0 dV Stage 2: 3800 dV I'm still doing asparagus correctly: fuel lines inward, ejecting booster stages, etc. It's like MJ has forgotten how to calculate asparagus dV since the update. Anyone else has this happen to them? What am I doing wrong?
  4. As you may know, ascending from Eve's surface pretty much requires a staged rocket. The math of SSTO from Eve isn't absolute, but it's pretty clear that it's damn near impossible. So if I want a reusable Eve spacecraft that can land and takeoff from Eve multiple times, what's the best way to make a spacecraft that can re-attach boosters in Eve orbit? WITHOUT Kerbal Attachment System, if possible. Given the complexity of such a system, this is more of a challenge than a practical exercise. I am imagining a core rocket powered by LV-T30 "Reliant" or LV-T45 "Swivels", with boosters powered by Mainsails or Skippers. The boosters are attached to the central stack through docking ports, then action-key'd to detach as staging. Then when I get to orbit, I can attach new boosters from my orbiting "booster module supply station", refuel the central rocket, repack the chutes, and land on Eve again. Are the docking ports strong enough to do this sort of thing? Would claws be better? Is this possible?
  5. Let me answer this for you. It is not cheating. At least, 99.99% of players would not consider it cheating. It is a fundamental part of gameplay
  6. stibbons and Snark have answered the important bits for you: three or four satellites in 700km orbits, evenly spaced with Comm16 antennas and DTS-M1s will give you complete coverage of the near-Kerbin space, total coverage of the Mun (except its backside), and mostly-complete coverage of Minmus. Once you get to Minmus, the boatloads of science you can collect from it will be enough to unlock pretty much all of the other antennas. For these satellites, you only need one Comm16 per craft, which draws very little charge. The DTS-M1 draws more, but even with one Comm16 and two DTS-M1s, you only need eight or so OX-STATs to keep them running, and a few 400-charge batteries. If you want to the full RemoteTech planning shebang, check this planner out. Just make sure you arrange your solar panels so they will always receive light, including from above and behind! Angle your panels during construction in the VAB. And if you've unlocked the small docking port, stick one on. That way, you can dock more powerful antennas, batteries, and solar panels to these satellites as you unlock them in your tech tree. I've used the exact same four-satellite constellation in 700km orbit throughout the game. I just stuck new modules on when I unlocked those techs.
  7. No, not in the stock game. Nothing you unlock will give you a full-fledged 'mission planner' like the type you are probably envisioning. What you are unlocking are the various stock flight capabilities available automatically in sandbox, like maneuver nodes, seeing SOI changes, etc.
  8. Problem solved. User Matt77 posted a similar problem several months ago, but his had to do with ScanSat. RT stores flight computer commands in the save file, under Vessel= "Gilly Station" \\ FlightComputer Active Commands { command 1; command 2; etc }. I just deleted the commands in the brackets. I've got a science lab and a hitchhiker storage unit, neither of which counts as a crewed command pod. And yeah, the "Connected" message is normal when playing without signal delay. I never found the root cause of the problem. I tried reverting back to Signal Delay = True, but the queue was still frozen. Oh well.
  9. I've encountered a bug or something with RemoteTech. Pictured here is a mission to Gilly, currently inbound to an Eve aerobrake/aerocapture. My Flight Computer has stopped working. When I issue a command, it is sent to the Flight Computer's queue. However, the actions are never executed, and my attempts to cancel the commands just pile onto the queue and sit there. I would just ignore the Flight Computer and play it manually, but the Flight Computer is preventing me from using timewarp. When I try to increase timewarp, it automatically and immediately throttles the timewarp back to 1x in order to execute the next (instantaneous) command from the queue, but the command does nothing. I suspect it may have something to do with the fact that I recently switched over from playing with time-delay to playing without time delay. Is there a way to delete the Flight Computer's queue for this vessel in some config file somewhere? I looked around a bit, but I can't find where RemoteTech stores current Flight Computer commands. Or is there some other way to clear the queue?
  10. I've encountered a bug or something with RemoteTech. Pictured here is a mission to Gilly, currently inbound to an Eve aerobrake/aerocapture. My Flight Computer has stopped working. When I issue a command, it is sent to the Flight Computer's queue. However, the actions are never executed, and my attempts to cancel the commands just pile onto the queue and sit there. I would just ignore the Flight Computer and play it manually, but the Flight Computer is preventing me from using timewarp. When I try to increase timewarp, it automatically and immediately throttles the timewarp back to 1x in order to execute the next (instantaneous) command from the queue, but the command does nothing. I suspect it may have something to do with the fact that I recently switched over from playing with time-delay to playing without time delay. Is there a way to delete the Flight Computer's queue for this vessel in some config file somewhere? I looked around a bit, but I can't find where RemoteTech stores current Flight Computer commands. Or is there some other way to clear the queue?
  11. If you want the latest dV chart for 1.0.2, the go-to now is metaphor's updated chart. It's posted here.
  12. Can you point me to the proof of this? I believe you, but is there a longer explanation for why this is? - - - Updated - - - The answer you are looking for is in this thread: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/69659-Apoapsis-plane-change-manoeuvre-%CE%94v?p=971064&viewfull=1#post971064 "In summary, for less than 38.9 degrees, don't raise apoapsis. For 60 degrees or more, raise it as much as possible. In between those, raise it as given by the second equation. If aerobraking, these angles become 19.2 degrees and 28.96 degrees respectively, and in between use the third equation."
  13. It's definitely possible to build cheaper rockets, but that's definitely a good price range to be in. Looking at my fleet of three Mun crafts, they range from 58k to 99k, but they also vary quite a bit in size and capability. From one KSPer to another, don't worry too much about going below 70k. You'll waste a lot of time and effort optimizing a design. On the other hand, no mission should ever cost more than a few hundred k. If you're exceeding 300k, you're doing something wrong.
  14. Yeah, you'll find many of these tips (and many, many more) in this compiled compendium of tips and tricks. I condensed 18+ pages of tips and tricks into one (rather long, I admit) list. So read away! I update the list when I can, and will definitely include any tips from this thread if they aren't already on the list.
  15. I worked in the space industry as recently as last year (the politics/legal/budgeting side, not the technical side). Umbral's kinda right, in that we OUGHT to view NASA vs. SpaceX as apples-and-oranges. But let me tell you, almost everyone, both regular citizens and people in gov't and industry, compare the two. And right now, SpaceX has a huge lead. Actually, you can tell just by asking yourself, "Where do the hotshot young engineers want to work for?". And right now, it's SpaceX, and there's pretty much no other competition (not Lockheed, not Boeing, not NASA). They're helped by a charismatic CEO, an underdog story, good marketing, and a media world that absolutely loves everything Musk or SpaceX does. But let me provide a counterpoint. When I studied abroad in Ecuador a couple of years ago and talked with Ecuadorians about the US, they all revere NASA. It definitely surprised me. When I wore a cheap NASA shirt (not a real NASA shirt, just a souvenir one) to class, I got peppered with questions. I have to admit that probably this reputation is really just a legacy of the NASA glory days, but still. It was enough to make kids in another continent basically bow down to me when I told them I had some experience 'doing space stuff'. I thought that was funny. And also, compared to the rest of the federal government, NASA is ALWAYS ranked as the best, most-loved, and most-respected organization. There's no doubt within gov't that NASA is still top-dog. I've sat in meetings with ppl from other big agencies like Defense or FBI or FAA or whatnot, and I haven't ever met someone who doesn't think NASA personnel are excellent. I think it's that durability of reputation that matters. So on a scale from Kerbol to Eeloo, NASA still ranks as a Jool.