• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

619 Excellent

About Terwin

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Terwin

    [1.3] USI Life Support [0.5.0]

    Well, to start with the large inflatable hab-ring gives you ~500 kerbal months of habitation time, getting you most of the way there for Habitation. Add in a few observation copulas and a habitat or two and you should be good on that front. For Supplies you will want the 2.5m recycler ('Mobile Processing Lab' I think) supplemented by roughly 10 RT-500's(the surface-attach ones) to reduce consumption to 21% for 10 kerbals and an inline Nom-o-matic(which could support 2.6 kerbals without recyclers or ~12.5 kerbals with 79% recycling) To keep the in-line recycler fully stocked with ferilizer for 5 years would take ~5500 fertilizer, which could be supplied by 1 2.5m fertilizer tank and 2 1.25m fertilizer tanks. Fill up the supplies and fertilizer tanks in your nom-o-matic for extra margin(and because kerbals can't eat fertilizer so you need at least some supplies to start) Add in enough power to keep everything running, and that should keep your kerbals healthy for the duration you are after.
  2. Terwin

    2mm hole in ISS

    The part with the (patched) hole gets dropped before reentry, so the only real danger is (slow) loss of atmosphere should the patch come out before the module un-docks with the ISS(Astronauts need to pass through the patched part to get to the reentering part, so they can't just ignore it if it starts venting again).
  3. Terwin

    KSP Weekly: The Falcon

    dV is only a measure of total available acceleration. The major causes of dV being different in an atmosphere vs in space are 1) Relative combustion chamber pressure compared the the local environment(which is why dV is always higher in vacuum) and 2) Atmospheric engines generally need a high TWR, which limits how much you can optimize them for efficiency(which is why high-efficiency/low-thrust engines like the terrier and poodle are generally vacuum optimized) When launching, the greatest losses are due to gravity because you need to need to get off the ground and stay off the ground until you reach orbital velocities, and this means you must waste fuel on accelerating 'up' instead of just accelerating to orbital velocity. If you were on an airless body with infinite TWR, you could get to orbit with barely more dV than your final orbital velocity(And possibly less depending on the rotational speed of the body and if there were any obstacles preventing a horizontal launch.(you would need a circulation burn to avoid eventually hitting the surface again however)). For most rockets, Atmospheric drag only has a trivial effect on the amount of dV expended to get to orbit because having a lot of drag needs both high speed and high pressure, while rockets get higher(where there is less air to cause drag) as they accelerate. (Maximum dynamic pressure is related to drag and is a significant design constraint, but the actual losses to drag are trivial compared to gravity losses on all but the smallest of rockets) A 'perfect ascent' is primarily an issue of TWR and minimum altitude for a stable orbit(often with a nod to maximum survivable dynamic pressure in the real world, but any Max-Q down-throttle is usually pretty brief). The 'perfect ascent' for an airless Kerbin with mountains known to reach 70km along part of your orbital path would be virtually identical to a 'perfect ascent' on Kerbin, assuming the same TWR throughout the launch.(assuming both are 'rocket shaped')
  4. Terwin

    KSP Weekly: The Falcon

    Ok, but what is 'Basic DeltaV'? Sea-level? Vacuum? some intermediate value? Sea-level for the first 3km/s and then vacuum for the rest? Is it per-stage or total? If you have LFO, fuel cells, xenon, Ion engines, and verniers on one stage, how do you calculate the dV? Do solar panels change this calculation? How about if you add NFT nuclear reactors that produce small amounts of Xenon in addition to power?
  5. Terwin

    [1.4.5] Global Construction

    Is it missing from all Kerbals or just some? Do you have any other mods installed?
  6. Terwin

    [1.3] - Modular Kolonization System (MKS)

    From what I understand, they are produced, stored and used in the logistics module. Generally in a just-in-time type approach as they are fast to make but take lots of resources.
  7. If it gets cheap enough, it well could be... Imagine the advantages of a low-g retirement community.(although that may work better on the moon, unless maintenance is a lot cheaper on Mars). Of course that may require costs on-par with trans-Atlantic shipping(which seems questionable just from a crew cost perspective).
  8. Terwin

    KSP Weekly: The Falcon

    If it is on the nav-ball you can always calculate dV for the 'current environment', in the VAB/SPH that number is not nearly as useful as the most efficient vacuum engines are awful at the launch site. or you could just show the vacuum dV, but then you have people wondering why it is so inaccurate when they try to launch. What if they want the dV at 10km where their airplane will be cruising? Just being able to calculate the dV for the local environment is plenty for the nav-ball, but not enough in the VAB. If you have a highly intuitive, easy to use interface for this for the VAB/SPH that does not take too much screen space on small displays, I am sure SQUAD would be very interested, but remember, it needs to be intuitive not just in your culture/language, but for new players from around the world...
  9. People learn what they spend their time on, and they make use of what they have easily available. In the paleolithic people spent most of their time trying to survive, so most of the skills that were developed were survival skills(this plant is good to eat, that plant makes you sick, the leaves of that other plant will kill you, and the bark of this tree tastes bad but makes pain less, etc). People spent a lot of time hunting and gathering and were probably better at doing so in an uncontrolled environment than most modern humans would be. This would mostly be because that is what they spent all their time doing, so they learned to do it very well. If you grow up with sparse resources, you will find uses for just about anything you have in abundance, even if it is just using unusual bits for decoration, and you will have an abundance of any part of the animal which does not already have one or more uses(as the hunters will be collecting lots of them to feed the tribe on their meat). The less time people devote to survival skills, the less developed those skills will be. Personally, I have done some research on survival techniques, but would not want to stake my life on using them to survive long-term. On the other hand, I have spent a significant percentage of my life learning the ins and outs of computers and computer programming and practicing those skills, so I am able to do it quite well. While I will not argue against the fact that some people can't handle tools in a responsible manner(be this an inexperienced rider attempting to show manliness by attempting to ride a feral horse, or a phone-zombie stepping out into traffic without bothering to look), that is hardly the most common case, just a case that people tend to remember when it goes poorly(as it often does). The reason people are more extravagant with resource usage is that, through the use of tools, the opportunity cost of optimizing the use of things in our daily lives is often higher than the cost of wasting some of those resources and just replacing them.
  10. Terwin

    KSP Weekly: The Moon Race

    It has been said more than once that the '3 month' release cycle is slower than the historical release rate, so you should be happy that they are trying to take a more measured approach. How are 'starting progression levels' any different than the existing career options? As far as I can tell, the primary difference is that the player has a finer level of control over just how many science points and how much funding they should start with, and what research they want to spend that starting science on. Just because some of the science is already 'gone'? Could that not be emulated by just not collecting that science? How about you start a game where you just see how much science/funding you can get from Kerbin and the Mun, then for future games you just give yourself that amount of science/funding and refuse to collect anymore data from Kerbin/Mun? You could even do the initial game in Stock, and then just copy that save into each new version and resume from that point. There are lots of options for salving your conscience that take exactly as much effort as you think they should, and Squad has already provided the tools to let you choose whichever option suits you best. Indeed, and Oracle is an abject failure as they have not been able to get a 'finished' database working for 38+ years('Oracle v2' was released in '79 and 18c was released this year), or if you are only concerned about games, then clearly NetHack is a complete mess having been released over 30 years ago and being under development(first released in '87 and version 3.6.1 was announced in April) References: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_Database https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NetHack
  11. Terwin

    [1.3] USI Life Support [0.5.0]

    If you have MKS installed(and the parts unlocked) you can readily do all of that. Water purifiers which dramatically cut supply usage(so long as you have a steady supply of water to consume), Greenhouses supplying either supplying supplies directly from minerals+fertilizer or producing bulk organics for further processing into luxuries(which maintain crew happiness/reverse the habitation clock when consumed through a colonization module), etc. I think it is generally along the lines of: Just supplies: snacks for a short trip Supplies+recyclers: short-term endurance Nom-o-Matic: longer endurance missions (at this point primary concern is cabin fever) Full base with 50+ year habitation(stops habitation clock) and Fertilizer harvesting: bare-bones long term colony Base with 50+ years habitation and Production/consumption of Colony supplies: Long term colony/vacation spot where kerbals would bring or bring up families(yes MKS can add 'baby' colonists over time)
  12. Terwin

    [1.3] USI Life Support [0.5.0]

    I remember a lot of USI-LS being configurable, is the daily resource consumption not one of the configurable values? I know that time per seat is configurable, but I don't think per-kerbal EC usage is. Perhaps instead of asking to change the value for everyone, you should ask for per-kerbal supply usage to have a slider bar or some-such allowing adjustment to taste for those who find the default too easy or difficult. Have you tried adding fertilizer and a nom-o-matic? I have made many trips to Duna and do not remember ever needing that much in the say of supplies. The fertilizer -> supplies ratio is 1(+10 mulch)->11 so even with no recyclers you would still only need 1 bin of 4500 fertilizer.(and that small recycler pod is really very weight-efficient for the benefits it gives, so any extended trip should have enough of those to cover the crew)
  13. Terwin

    KSP Weekly: The Falcon

    I strongly suspect that the improved burn time indicator was done the way it was because side-steps the biggest problem with a dV indicator in the VAB/SPH: which environment do you want the calculation for? (it also provides a highly intuitive indicator about how much of your remaining fuel you will need to use, as anyone who is watching it will quickly notice that they must stage when they get to a line) If you have a burn-node for a specific vehicle in a specific environment, then calculating the dV is much more straight-forward then trying to calculate dV off the launch-pad/air-strip for a vehicle that has an engine that has awful atmospheric performance such as a terrier or poodle. Any 'per environment' control that does not take up far too much screen-space will be missed by large numbers of users, and no calculator will provide 100% accurate dV information for a given vehicle when it comes to getting to orbit, because so much of that will depend on the launch profile and which altitude you are at when you stage. I strongly suspect this is more of a 'we will give you what we can, but we are not going to add information that will primarily serve to confuse new players' than a change in attitude about providing dV in the assembly buildings.
  14. Terwin

    We live inside a black hole

    Hmm, makes me wonder about Black Hole pair Lagrange points, how useful would they likely be?
  15. Terwin

    KSP Weekly: Space Junk

    If most joystick/game-pad users are blocking the statistics like you are, then that could be part of the reason that joystick support is such a low priority. They can only use the information that they have, so if you are part of a group that specifically excludes themselves from usage statistics, you should not be surprised when your group gets less attention/resources than you should be getting, as you are 'flying under the radar' and being ignored is part of that. Those are just the statistics we have had a chance to see. I am pretty confident that T2I has the numbers for the number of distinct accounts on each of Steam, GOG, and the KSP store that have downloaded the different versions of the game. And if you do not have an account where you purchased and downloaded the game, you do not count as you are not a customer. Let's see, if say 1% of purchasers have ever downloaded a Linux version, and 75% of those block usage statistics, then even if 100% of Linux users use Joysticks, T2I will only see 25% of those, or 0.25% of the user-base as Joystick using Linux players. Looks like your security-conscious behaviors are working directly *against* your goal of getting a fix for Joysticks on Linux as a cost-effective use of developer time. Getting your data scooped up and sold by unscrupulous corporations sucks, but so does getting ignored when you have problems. You just got to pick your poison I guess.