-
Posts
3,422 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Everything posted by Starhawk
-
Yet another way to answer this question is to consider Pythagorus/vector addition. If you expend 1m/s burning East and 1m/s burning South, you end up with a net change of 1.41m/s SE. But if you just burn 1.41m/s pointing SE you get the same result, saving you .59m/s. You don't get more energy out by burning more quickly. You do however spend less time fighting gravity, and therefore less energy fighting gravity. Happy landings!
-
The KSP Wiki contains many, many walls of text with extremely useful information. There is also the Tutorials Section of the forums which contains valuable learning tools on almost every aspect of the game. Hope you find this useful. Happy landings!
-
Thanks Vanamonde! I was finally starting to figure it out. Happy landings!
-
Devnote Tuesday: Experimental Improvements
Starhawk replied to SQUAD's topic in KSP1 The Daily Kerbal
Thanks for the devnotes. All kinds of excellent stuff in there. I think I'm actually starting to look forward to 1.0. Just kidding... I've actually been looking forward to it for months. Happy landings! -
I have tried it. But many threads I read do not have the 'Rate This Thread' tab visible. I was wondering what criteria defines whether or that tab/menu is available. Happy landings!
-
The Controls page of the wiki was one of my top five visited pages for the first three months I played. It's a very useful reference. Happy landings!
-
The Eve Rocks Challenge (v0.90 only)
Starhawk replied to Laie's topic in KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas
LOL. What can I say... Just lol. Happy landings! -
The Eve Rocks Challenge (v0.90 only)
Starhawk replied to Laie's topic in KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas
I hear little birds... It sounds like they're saying that thrust will continue to scale with pressures above one atmo. We shall see. Even then, if the ISP values were left as they are, that would simply force one into the all-aerospike solution. But that's boring, so I hope we see significant changes there. Happy landings! -
The Eve Rocks Challenge (v0.90 only)
Starhawk replied to Laie's topic in KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas
It depends a lot on the rebalancing they are doing. Sea level on Eve will be the place most affected by the aero changes. My understanding is that the aero changes will make the delta-v requirement much smaller. Whether thrust reductions are significant or not, this should make the requirements very different than they currently are. Laie once indicated to me that his hunch was that more realistic atmo will make Eve ascent much easier. We will see... Happy landings! -
The stock parts that you never ever ever use/hate.
Starhawk replied to ron1n1's topic in KSP1 Discussion
The original swept wings are among the most efficient lifting parts in stock. It might be shorter to list the parts I use rather than the ones I don't use. Among the stuff I don't use is engine nacelle/air intake parts, any nosecone (though that's about to change), most adapters (that too), shielded solar panels (that too, I hope), the RoveMate, and I've never found a use for the Clamp-o-tron Jr. or the huge rover wheels. Happy landings! -
I watched the Apollo 11 moon landing on TV. I am 51. Happy landings!
-
Yes it does. It adds distance between the radially attached members and whatever they're attached to. Completely unnecessary, however. With the offset gizmo, you can just use a single TT-38K decoupler and offset the attached part far enough away from the central part that they don't collide on decoupling. Even a single TT-70 is unnecessary (and they're twice as heavy as the TT-38K's). Happy landings!
-
Interesting. Only 7.55 since I've never done an ARM. A bit ironic considering I started playing in 0.23.5. This poll is definitely oriented toward exploration/piloting. It seems likely that that is one of the more common things for a playstyle to focus on. I've tried to imagine what an engineering/orbital construction skills poll might look like. Might be worth a try. Happy landings!
-
How Close are YOU to Your Next Reputation Rank?
Starhawk replied to michaelsteele3's topic in Kerbal Network
Way back in the '70's I used to play arcade video games. There was one called Starhawk that I thought was pretty cool at the time. Black and white vector graphics. I've used that as a gaming name for a long time. My avatar is an image taken from that game. Oh, yeah. I need 24 to get to the next level I think. Happy landings! -
How Close are YOU to Your Next Reputation Rank?
Starhawk replied to michaelsteele3's topic in Kerbal Network
You've got to be kidding! I didn't get a single point for mangling two stanzas of Lewis Carroll! I'll rep you just for your new avatar. Hoping you'll find something worthy to rep me for. Happy landings! -
That's cool. I finally understand why they want to add camera shake. For the longest time I kept thinking it was an April Fool's joke. Happy landings!
-
What defines whether or not we can rate a thread? Happy landings!
-
With the ability to abuse the offset gizmo, the TT-70 no longer offers an advantage over the TT-38K. Unless you hate the look of your radially attached tanks floating in the air next to the core of the craft. Happy landings!
-
One of the interesting things about this discussion to me is how ISP and thus thrust change with pressures above one atmosphere. If I understand correctly, ISP varies linearly with ambient pressure. If this relationship were modeled accurately, the 48-7S would have an ISP of 100 at Eve sea-level. This would give it a thrust of only 8.5 rather than 30. The LV-N would produce zero thrust and other engines would be nerfed similarly to the 48-7S, more or less. Except for the magical aerospike! Because it's ISP changes by almost nothing with one atmosphere of pressure, it would be practically unaffected by the pressure even at sea level on Eve. As was explained to me, in real life an aerospike engine is good, but in KSP the ISP stats are essentially 'magical'. I'm quite interested to see what the aero changes and part rebalance will mean in this area. Happy landings!
-
Very interesting thoughts! The 150 tonne mass of the upper section is much too heavy for the two turbojets alone, but you have provided some interesting food for thought. Happy landings!
-
Welcome, Shamus6200! Glad you decided to join. Learning and teaching are some of the best parts of this forum, largely due to a truly excellent community. Happy landings!
-
Thanks. I apologize for my impatience. Happy landings!