Terwin

Members
  • Content Count

    1,223
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

820 Excellent

1 Follower

About Terwin

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I installed it in 1.9 without any problems, but I have not yet built any colonies as it is a new game. It is not expected for there to be any compatibility issues between 1.8 and 1.9, so unless/until a problem gets reported I'll assume that the 1.8 version of MKS is good on 1.9
  2. Star Theory will need something simple and robust or else their colonization will be dead in the water. I expect something along the lines of 'Task: set up a water-supply Reward: colony size cap raised from 10 to 50.' where the details are like one of 'Set up a facility able to refine X units of water/day' OR 'Build a facility on this planet with a Drill, water refinery, and pumping station' Possibly with a maximum range from the colony. This requires at-most colony-based missions. No background processing, no programming languages, no dv calculations, no on-going logistics, etc. It also meshes well with the Event based colony growth and 'some form of life-support' which have both already been announced. (This is basically the sort of thing I have been expecting since hearing about the 'some form of' life support and 'event based colony growth.' ) Anything with on-going logistics will also be a non-starter for interstellar flights because the time-warp to get to another star will cause anything with a chance of failure from neglect to fail. If interstellar flight requires an off-kerbin base, then that base will need to be self-sufficient over long time-spans if any interstellar flight is to ever arrive. I would expect orbital stations to have missions like 'designate a ground-base with at least X population and a launch facility to increase population cap from 5 to 10' or 'Enlarge designated ground base to produce X of resource A, Y of Resource B, and Z of resource C to allow assembly of a ship construction dock' Simple, easy to understand, easy to ignore before or after, and most importantly, no gotchas for inexperienced players. Even RoverDude's excellent MKS planetary warehouses functionality is too complex for inclusion in the base game because KSP is not a logistics game, KSP is a game about building and flying rocket-ships and accidentally learning about space as a by-product. Keep the game-focus simple, and put focus-changing modifications in mods and DLC for those that want it.
  3. No one who knows when KSP2 is allowed to say, but KSP 1 versions are being released on a 3 month(?) schedule, so 1.9 should be released about the same time after 1.8 that 1.8 was released after 1.7. I'm glad to hear that W.O.L.F is slated for release for 1.9, as I had not seen test builds for 1.8(and I can't find the shipping computer part in my 1.7 test build)
  4. To me that looks just like a wobble in KSP, except in the real world, rocket parts and connections are not incredibly strong and resilient to shearing forces, so it just blows up instead of continuing to wobble. Personally, if I have a rocket wobble uncontrollably in KSP, I will revert to VAB and add reinforcement to what is clearly a structurally unsound rocket.
  5. Did you look at that Proton rocket video around 1:20? That looks strongly like a wobbly rocket with three main components: booster section, 2nd stage, fairing. Sure it falls apart after only a couple seconds of wobble, but that is because KSP rocket parts are unrealistically strong(if your rocket is visibly wobbling, it should have already undergone RUD).
  6. Good: NASA needs man-rated rockets, as we do not currently have any. SLS is intended to be man-rated(manned on the first all-up launch even) Even if all of the commercial rockets under development go out of business tomorrow, SLS development will continue. Bad: The program seems to be designed primarily for the purpose of bringing money to congressional districts, with space exploration only a secondary concern By the time it flies, it will likely be both more expensive and less functional than other flying rockets(Starship, New Glen)
  7. This would be very nice, but it is not here yet, and might not be possible(but I hope it is). While I expect 80-85% recycling is probably fairly straight-forward(hydroponics or bacteria tank type set-up to recycle air and waste, but still needing some nutrients/vitamins and lots of spare parts), 100% recycling is not feasible(at a minimum you have gasses tunneling through bulk-heads and getting lost to space as well as parts wearing down and losing mass, even if you manage nearly 100% recycling of life-support), so I expect there will always be a need to harvest raw materials for any permanent or semi-permanent habitat(Asteroids are probably much more feasible then planets once we start getting good recycling however). That said, we do currently have the technical capacity to assemble a (low-speed)generation-ship today, it would just need a very large volume of supplies to account for expected losses over time.(it might not be much better than frozen MREs, water filters, and chemical reverse-candles, but it could be done) note: parker sun probe is ~68.8km/s relative to the sun, and is fastest human made craft relative to the sun. At this speed, it would take ~8500 years to get to Alpha Centari(~4.3 ly) A slow generation ship may not be practical, but we can at least be confident that it is possible.(and further developments will only make it more practical)
  8. Even if you have a 100% recyclable system, you will still need energy inputs, and interstellar space in not a great place for sonar panels, so your vessel will have a finite duration unless you have some new sort of inexhaustible energy(ie a perpetual motion machine). If you have a finite duration, then you can have a less than 100% recyclable life-support system, you just need to bring replacements/supplies to replace the losses for the expected duration. (This is true even for a 0% recyclable life support system). You will still probably want access to news and entertainment from your home-base and/or destination, and this will help maintain cultural familiarity, even if not similarity. Also, some vessels will be making round trips(you can't expect the first crews to alpha-centari to just die if there is not an immediately habitable planet for example), so while the cultures may well drift apart, they will also have the opportunity to drift back together(although ships that only need to be viable for 1-2 generations before returning home could probably get away with half a dozen or less crew, and at that point you don't have a lot in the way of your own culture compared to the hundred+ channels of media being streamed to you from earth)
  9. Generation ships are the only means we currently know for certain is possible for base-line humans. Cryo-sleep is a cool idea, but we have no idea if it will ever be possible(and even if it is, if it can be managed on a spaceship). FTL travel is even cooler, but as of yet we don't even have any good ideas on how to attempt it. A large ship with lots of supplies, a small crew, and a plan to procreate for future crew-members is technically feasible right now(but economically prohibitive and ethically questionable; but economics and ethics change much more readily than Physics and Biology). Sure a sustainable closed-ecosystem would cut down on the volume of supplies needed, but that is not a requirement, just a nice-to-have.
  10. As far as I am aware, the only things that have been confirmed are: Events will grow population Colonies will eventually be able to build and launch rockets And while I expect that being able to build and launch rockets will depend on certain events(like building a launch pad), I have not seen any reason to expect that there will be a direct link between colony size and rocket building capability. (it makes sense to me that there might be a minimum population size/production capability to build the launch pad, but nothing specific has been mentioned, as far as I know)
  11. Hopefully we'll have fairly permanent 'anchor' parts and plenty of struts. Extra mass probably helps a building and probably only costs raw materials for simple struts/banked earth.
  12. Building a plane I can easily land is a challenge, and I am not at all patient with planetary transfers(or even transfers between the Mun and Minus), so I tend to have long flight times and high dv usage. (this could be why I am so fond of ISRU with high efficiency engines(like nerva or the lithium fueled engines from near future). Usually starting departure burns with nearly full fuel/ore tanks and landing on Ike to refuel before landing for example)
  13. You still have a point of closest approach, even if you are not in orbit. The pe is just used as short-hand for 'point of trajectory that is deepest inside the gravity well', with regards to Oberth, and any time you pass a body you will still have that, even if it has a different name.(and with a wonky-enough gravity map, it might not even be the pe in all cases)
  14. While SLS is likely to be obsolete in the near future, it is not yet obsolete as neither New Glen nor Starship have finished development. (ie successful launch to orbit) There is legitimate value in NASA continuing to fund a rocket that they know will not be cancelled(so long as they keep paying) until there is at least one(and preferably more than one) existing commercial alternative. While the costs for SLS may boggle the mind, it is directed spending and NASA has little say over the matter. I personally hope that both Starship and New Glen launch soon so that SLS can be set aside as no longer worth-while, but for the time being, it is still better for the space program than the federal budget ear-marks that are likely to replace it.
  15. I expect that if either SpaceX's Starship or Blue Origin's New Glen works as claimed, then there will be a lot of larger and lower priced missions proposed to ride on them. I can see why there might be a bit of a lull in mission designs with such a large jump in capability on the horizon. Planners are probably just waiting to make proposals based on the demonstrated capabilities of the first low-cost heavy launch vehicle to market. Delta heavy gets you 28.8t to LEO for $14/kg Falcon 9 gets you 15t to LEO for $4/kg (FT in operation since December 2015) Falcon Heavy gets you 64t to LEO for $3/kg (since Feb 2018) Space Ship is supposed to get you 100-150t to LEO for < $0.62/kg (possibly as soon as 2020) So it seems plausible that there might be a few up-coming proposals using Falcon 9 FT by the end of the year, but with the launch of the Falcon Heavy and development of Starship, it seems plausible that those are all still being re-worked to take advantage of the lower cost launch options that are now(and perhaps soon) available.