• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

538 Excellent

About Terwin

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer
  1. SpaceX Discussion Thread

    I believe most of the costs for a majority of satellites and probes are related to designing the satellite/probe. If it is cheaper to improve reliability by making 3 of the same satellite/probe, there is no reason not to pursue that path. It is just less likely for that to be the case if you are mass constrained and the cost per launch is high. As an added benefit, if your redundant probes/satellites are spread across multiple launches, you also reduce the per launch risk to your project...
  2. SpaceX Discussion Thread

    If you can afford to double the weight of your satellite for extra fuel capacity, it seems likely that the satellite could have a lot more lee-way in where it is dropped off and still get to it's preferred orbit. Indeed the costs are astronomical, but not nearly as astronomical as everyone is currently paying to get anything into space. When everyone is accustomed to paying $60M+ to get something into space, if you can do it for <$10M, you can undercut everyone else at $50M and still have >400% profit/investment recoup per launch. Even if you are only launching something that would fit on a F9B3 with RTLS.(making those extra 100 double-weight star-link satellites basically free to get into LEO as a secondary, unless you already have a secondary which means even more profit per launch) Note: if/when someone else gets a smaller fully-reusable rocket working, SpaceX may well have a more limited clientele, but unless/until that happens, SpaceX will be basically printing money with every launch, and even after it happens, people will have had enough time to have designed bigger sattelites to make full use of the BFR capacity, so the market will probably not completely disappear(satellites are expensive to design and build($$B), so why not throw on an extra-large fuel tank if it makes it last that much longer in space, it will save money in the long run, especially if the marginal cost is trivial($$M))
  3. SpaceX Discussion Thread

    Why fewer launches when star-link will happily send up an extra 100-200(40t-80t) satellites as a secondary payload? How else will they get to 12K satellites in orbit? Even assuming a 10yr life-span on these VLEO satellites, that still means ~1200/year or ~100(~40t)/month of already booked secondary payloads(probably closer to 80t) And if they get the manned BFR working, that could be less than 150K per couple to honey-moon for a week in space($10M launch /75 couples=$133K)
  4. [1.3] - Modular Kolonization System (MKS)

    Thanks @Krakatoa, I'll try spamming fixed radiators and see if that works. Edit: about 50 radiators later(6 3m reactors needing 8 each and having a total of 10 to start with, plus a couple for each of the 4 modules with drills hanging off of them, plus a pair for the module between the drills and the reactors so the drills don't cause the reactors to shut down when coming out of time warp), and I can now safely go to 1000x without dangerous heating or losing reactor efficiency.(things start heating up at 10kx however) I must admit I did not realize I needed > 20% radiator panels(base now has 271 parts), hopefully this issue will be fixed in 1.4.
  5. [1.3] - Modular Kolonization System (MKS)

    I think I only had the one MPU on my large base(the one I switched to LFO and sent off with my resource drone), but if it is a general heating problem, would it not be reasonable to expect it to be present at all time-warp speeds, not just 1000+? I can go for days at 100x with nothing but radiators being warm, but 1000x seems to start changing the heat levels of my entire base within a couple of hours. I do not have any NFT reactors, and I removed the patch to make MKS reactors act like them, so ideally, NFT should not impact my system, I mostly listed it in case there is some additional conflict I am not aware of.
  6. [1.3] - Modular Kolonization System (MKS)

    I am running into an odd issue and I was wondering if any one else had experience with it. My MKS nuclear reactors will overheat and cause parts of my vessel to explode if I have them in the physics bubble when time-warping over 100x. (they are fine to run for days up to 100x with no appreciable heating other than the radiators, or when running months of catch-up, but as soon as I accelerate to 1000x the entire vessel starts turning yellow). I suspect it is a mod conflict, but I already deleted the MKS reactors patch from the near future electrical patches folder, is there more than one? GameData & versions: It is mostly an annoyance when building large parts with OSE, so not that big of a deal, but I thought I would check to see if anyone else has encountered this. Some things that may be related: My MKS reactors seem to be at least partially ignoring my Thermal Control Systems, even when directly attached to the reactor(landed and activated). With less than 1% usage they will quickly go over the ideal operating temperature without one or more attached radiator panels. (I have 3-4 TCS on the main base that has been slowly upgraded to now have 6 3.5m reactors, but this was a problem with a single 1.25m reactor attached directly to a TCS but still needing a panel or two. I also sent out a resource drone with one 3.5m reactor which has 4 large panels and a TCS but is slowly over-heating. Colony bonus: ~350%)
  7. [1.3.1] Ground Construction

    That should be easy to check, just look at the DIY kit before you deploy it, as it should list the total number of kits required, then check to see what it says in the 'Requires' field when you start building.
  8. [1.3] USI Life Support [0.5.0]

    If this is a problem for you, set the home altitude to 250km(or higher if you do a lot of slow braking burns) or include a probe core. Even the integrated antenna of a probe core should keep you flying at any altitude where you might consider a kerbal 'close to home.' It is not like the small ones weigh much or take much EC. (just the other day I landed a couple of delivery drones on Minmus where they would be disassembled for additional material kits for my new Minmus base. They were down to one bar, but still had full probe control out at Minmus orbit with no supplemental antennas)
  9. KSP: Making History Grand Discussion Thread

    At the very least the DLC will act as a parts pack mod for career, so all the new pods should become possibilities for rescues, and the parts should be come possibilities for 'recover part X' contracts. Also, the parts were mentioned as going into the tech tree, but I do not recall any mention of if there will be new nodes for them or not.
  10. If you just throttle down to zero, can you throttle back up after time warp? I do not know if your control scheme makes it feasible to leave the engine active but throttled to zero or not, but I believe that to be a more common approach than turning it on and off after the initial staging which turns it on.
  11. [1.3] - Modular Kolonization System (MKS)

    Two previously reported causes: Did not see them: did you check all the categories? you may need to scroll down to see all of the part categories Bad install: Did you use CKAN or another tool to install? try uninstalling and installing manually, this often fixes missing parts.(even if you installed manually, it dies not hurt to delete the old folder and install it again. If it is installed correctly you should see '000_USITools' and 'UmbraSpaceIndustries' in your ksp\GameData folder) If neither of those work, try posting a picture of the contents of your GameData folder and see if anyone can spot the problem
  12. [1.3] - Modular Kolonization System (MKS)

    KSP will happily strand kerbals in anything with a seat. This may help if you do not want the added difficulty of some times needing a klaw for rescues:
  13. KSP Weekly: A Shuttle to Remember

    When creating games, there are two primary paths: copy something old and create something new. If you took a doom engine, added some maps and image resources, a solo developer could create a new game in a few weeks. But this would be just another 2.5d fps, with nothing novel about it. Every time you add something 'new' you need to not only create the functionality, but also test it against existing functionality and verify it works in the expected usage scenarios. Here is a list of some of the 'new' things in KSP that I have never seen put together in other games: * Building arbitrary craft out of roughly 300 distinct lego-like piece types(with mod support increasing that number by thousands) * Physics engine capable of handling arbitrary rocket launches realistically and mod support(have you seen any of the rockets Whackjob has made??) * physics engine that handles super-sonic flight for arbitrary vessels and mod support. * physics engine that handles sub-sonic flight for arbitrary vessels and mod support. * physics engine that handles orbital mechanics for arbitrary vessels and mod support. * Physics engine that handles submarines using stock parts * Physics engine that handles rendezvous and docking at orbital speeds * Support for functional asymmetric craft, both in flight and in space * over 30 distinct engines using at least 6 different fuel/thrust mechanics, and support for any other engines you might like(including the ability to make working propellers from stock parts) * Scale-able reentry heating effects. * Interplanetary navigation, including sling-shots and aero-breaking * ISRU * A Sand-box environment where it is easy to get to wack-job levels of craft complexity if you want to do so, having no hard limits beyond whatever your computer can handle. * A larger accessible environment than just about any other game(Almost any of the planetary surfaces is larger than most games, and there are 15 of them in the game(not counting the skies of Jool), all hanging in the vastness of space in a mini-solar system I am sure I have missed several, but that is a lot of new stuff that no one else has tried to put together, and every new thing needs to work with every previously added thing, making the amount of effort for each new thing even larger than the effort for the thing before it. Sure Unity provides some tools for lighting and common game mechanics, but that only provides a starting-point for games with many novel mechanics. In short, making Joe Madden football 2017 is trivial because it is just a spreadsheet and some image resources different from Joe Madden Football 2016, but making Kerbal Space Program is hard because nothing even close to it has ever existed before.(Orbiter is the closest I have heard of, but that only lets you do a fraction of what you can do in KSP)
  14. KSP Weekly: A Shuttle to Remember

    I have heard lots of people asking for a story behind campaign mode. Well, Squad is not only providing one or more short campaigns with stories(the making history mission(s)), but also providing the tools for the player community, which has already demonstrated a great deal of creativity, to make their own story-campaigns(called missions). I for one, am quite looking forward to some of the epic missions/campaigns that will be created by this community once the mission editor has been released. I would suspect that as Blitworks is handling the actual code, and Squad(with additional QA resources from Take Two) is apparently handling second(or third) round QA, that the time investment from Squad is probably not much more than the time needed to add an additional language or two to the PC game, and probably brings in a similar amount of funds for future development(you don't want them to just stop and leave KSP as is do you?). While it is easy to blame Squad for the decision to start with FTE due to their lack of experience(both at squad and FTE) , Blitworks has a long history of successful ports, and at most squad is responsible for not finding some of the bugs that users are encountering. So long as they are continuing to invest resources in trying to fix the bugs in the console versions without asking for any additional money, I consider Squad and Blitworks to be working in good faith. It is reasonable to keep in mind both that Squad is inexperienced in the gaming market and that KSP is nothing like most of the games that are available on consoles. Either one of these can expose a lot of surface area for bugs to creep in, or even to find problems with the consoles themselves that have never come to light because those consoles have never been asked to do the sorts of things they need to do for KSP to work correctly.
  15. For an actual bug yes, but this particular scenario is something I believe to be a UI design decision('I can't find X!' 'That is because X is hidden by default but becomes visible when you click on Y')