Fearless Son

Members
  • Content Count

    753
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

691 Excellent

About Fearless Son

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer

Profile Information

  • Location Seattle, WA

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. That was @NovaSilisko's original intent, as I understand it:
  2. Fearless Son

    Gilly's Base Spacecraft

    Magnificent! So little wasted mass in this.
  3. Fearless Son

    Are batteries too light?

    I am assuming that Kerbin has a different ratio of metallic elements than Earth, and that is why their batteries tend to be lighter: easier access to different materials with which to store a charge. I mean, the planet is about the same gravity as Earth while only a fraction of the size, it would have to be composed of different elements.
  4. Fearless Son

    Science for a flyby

    Two recommendations: The Negative Gravioli Detector - Works over different biomes and different altitudes, so it should give give you plenty of new readings to store and take back home with you. Your own crew. Seriously, having a crew member get out of the craft and take an EVA report. EVA reports also have different responses at different altitudes and over different biomes, so again you get plenty of different reports. As a bonus, you can transmit them when you get back in the craft and because they are only crew recordings you can transmit them back to Kerbin with no loss in science value. You would need to leave the ship anyway to nab the data from the Negative Gravioli Detector anyway, so you might as well take an EVA report while you are at it. Though, uh, for obvious reasons you shouldn't send your crew out during the actual burn itself. But there will be plenty of unpowered flyby time near the planet before and after your burn.
  5. Fearless Son

    Slow orbit with mun

    Nice! I wasn't sure from your initial post what your apoapsis and inclination was, and whether that would (eventually) be affected the the Mun's sphere of influence. Glad you made that work.
  6. With special equipment, like say a cup and a small vacuum board. I've had similar ideas, like putting little passenger cabins or hitchhiker containers on the end of several structural tubes. Allow them to rotate freely inside in a custom built hinge with some extendable docking ports that mate with the main hull to allow them to be fixed in place. Maybe put some wheels internally to accelerate them up to speed, that way they don't need their own internal electricity supply. Yes, time warp will cancel their rotation, but at least we can pretend. Or, you could just go simple and make the beams fixed and set the entire ship rotating. I mean, if it's not a continuous thrust design (and unless you are using ion engines and willing to wait years of play time, then it's not) then you don't need an elaborate rotational mechanism when the whole ship can just spin indefinitely, needing only power for initial spin up after finishing the transfer burn and power for spin down before the breaking burn. Should keep the crew healthy enough during the journey.
  7. I need justification for that too, but since I can't really justify it, I dodge the question by adopting a self-imposed challenge of making my crew accommodations much greater than is technically necessary for game mechanics. So like, short trips to the Mun or Minmus, I leave them with small seats. They're only going to be like that for a few weeks, they can train for that kind of journey, like real astronauts, it's fine. But for interplanetary travel, I find that entirely insufficient to keep my mind from wandering strange places. So I over-engineer for that purpose. I'll put in Mk. 2 passenger modules that can accommodate four Kerbals and use them as a sleeping cabin for two crew. I'll then attach those to a Hitchhiker module and use it as a shared space. Probably add a Mobile Science Lab just to give them something to do and more space to stretch out. Add unnecessary copula modules so they don't feel so trapped in a big aluminium cylinder. Yes, the extra volume and mass of these accommodations makes interplanetary missions harder to perform, but I justify it as the extra mass being essential to making that journey (got to bring enough snacks and board games to make it there, along with enough lead foil to insulate the cabins against radiation.) And that extra effort in turn lets me justify how Kerbals can make the journey.
  8. Geosynch orbiting communication satellites is often undesirable, depending on the planet one is orbiting them around. For example, trying to orbit Duna at geosynchronous altitude will virtually inevitably have an encounter with Ike, the gravity of which will slingshot one or more of them out of their orbital positions. In other places, the gravity of the body is sufficiently small that geosynchronous altitude would be greater than their sphere of influence, negating the orbit entirely (not realistic but some concessions have to be made to a reasonably performing simulation.) Generally, it's a better idea to have satellites that are equidistant on the same orbit at a stable altitude (which may or may not be geosynchronous.) Ideally three, since each one of them will be able to trace a direct (and fixed) line of sight to the other two, and between the three of them they can see every point on the surface of the body they orbit.
  9. As others have said, probably limited control due to not being able to communicate clearly with Kerbin. If you want to control any probe on the far side of any extra-Kerbin celestial body, you are going to need some form of relay to bounce the signal around. Alternatively, a crewed ship with a pilot which has line of sight with the probe can also remotely guide the probe, even if neither can communicate with Kerbin. In your case, you probably just need to wait until your probe orbits back around Minmus so it can see your ground-based radio dishes again, you should have control back at that point. Then it's just a matter of timing right to rendezvous with your rescue target. Once the Kerbal is on-board, you should be good to go even if the probe goes to the far side again.
  10. I tend to start a new save anytime there is a major change to gameplay. Now if it is just some quality of life tweaks or part updates, I generally persist. But when a new mechanic is added, it's back to the beginning for me.
  11. Fearless Son

    Best way to prevent part amount creep?

    I do still find struts useful for some very specific kinds of functionality. For example, I like to arrange discarding boosters such that their attachment point is high up along the booster's body. I then use a strut to fix the bottom of the booster in place so it doesn't "wiggle" from the top. Add a little winglet to the bottom of the booster, then when it detaches the explosive bolts in the separation part push the top of the booster away from the craft, causing it to peal neatly away from the body of the lifter. If I auto-strut the boosters, the auto-strut would calculate from the center of the booster part's mass, which would limit the leveraging forces during detachment. But in general, yeah, the auto-strut system has drastically reduced my part count overall. Same. I do a tiny bit of clipping for aesthetic reasons, such as making fixed solar panels more flush with surfaces, or pushing something partly inside of a structural part that can fit it ("Cut-and-weld" is how I like to think of them fitting together.) But I avoid clipping if I thought it would plausibly interfere with the functionality of the thing.
  12. I want to emphasize @eddiew's point here: part count on a single vessel is a huge factor. KSP actually runs pretty well on most machines provided you don't try to explode the part count, and if you do go overboard on parts it is going to eventually grind to a crawl no matter how powerful your machine is. The factors the simulation needs to calculate at once can go up exponentially as you add parts, and you quickly hit diminishing returns for system power versus performance gain. It's not too terribly restrictive, so long as you use some moderation in your design. [EDIT]: I should mention, I am talking about the stock game here. Once you start adding mods, you are going off the map as far as performance goals are concerned, "Here There Be Space Krakens" and all that. Mods can be great, but as far as performance impact goes you are assuming your own risk.
  13. You are a newbie on the forum, so I don't have any other posts you made to extrapolate intent from, but if you were a forum regular, I would swear this was a humble-brag. You're computer will run KSP just fine.
  14. Fearless Son

    Rovers on other planets/moons

    So long as it doesn't get the chance to accelerate more than a few meters per second on it's way to the ground, it should be fine. You can generally just drop it from a lander. The biggest worry is if the rover gets stuck on some piece of lander geometry when it detaches. Like if it fell out of a vertically oriented cargo bay and flipped over, or something like that. If it can get wheels down on the Munar regolith, you are good to roam.
  15. Fearless Son

    Best way to prevent part amount creep?

    I have found benefit from using larger parts as substitutions for many smaller parts. For example, using larger wing sections instead of smaller structural wing components. The Making History expansion has also done a lot to add multi-functional parts which can use a single part to take the place of several others. For example, the Munar Excursion Module combines the functionality of a command module with a small built-in fuel tank, monopropellant tank, battery, control wheel, and RCS system, with enough space for two crew. Similarly, the Kerbodyne Engine Cluster Adapter Tank lets me stick lots of engines on without needing to use Cubic Octagonal Struts or Aerodynamic Nose Cones onto a short fuel tank.