Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Terwin

  1. While this *should* be less of an issue now that we may have the final version o KSP 1, it has generally been considered unwise to install mods onto the steam install directory. KSP does not have any copy protection, so you can just copy your steam KSP directory to a different location and use that for your working directory(presumably leaving the steam version unmodded). My un-modded 1.12 KSP install only has 2 directories in the GameData folder: "Squad" and "SquadExpansion" You should be able to remove all installed mods by removing everything else from your GameData folder. (Note: I have both DLCs installed, so you may not have a SquadExpansion folder if you do not) But that will hopefully not be needed if you just remove and reinstall the mods giving you problems(usually by deleting one or more directories then copying a fresh version of the directory from the mod zip file) If installing USI mods individually, be aware that they are mostly installed under the GameData\UmbraSpaceIndustries folder (like GameData\UmbraSpaceIndustries\MKS or GameData\UmbraSpaceIndustries\LifeSupport), so do not delete this parent directory when uninstalling one of these mods unless you intend to remove all currently installed USI mods.
  2. When handling mods, you want to be careful about removing all files for the old version of the mod before installing the new version, or else you will usually run into problems. If you are installing mods and you get *any* notifications of a file already existing(except Module Manager which is a common file to many mods), then you have messed up and will probably have issues until you go back and completely clean out and re-install the affected mods. If you frequently ran into 'file already exists' messages when installing mods in the past, you may need to start with a fresh KSP install to get rid of all of the problems. (save files are easy to copy over) Note: Even with module manager, you want to make sure you only have one instance of the file/mod, usually the latest version.
  3. When your livelihood depends on something being true, it is very difficult to find the opposite. While petroleum companies can expand into other areas(like wind and solar), it would still cause them serious financial harm to cease all petroleum operations. On the same token, if you want to make money studying the climate, you can either struggle for one of the few dozen jobs world wide helping to make the weather forecast more accurate, or you can support the climate change crisis which requires lots of climatologists to make sure we do not accidentally wipe all life from this planet. If you are either a mediocre climatologist, or want to be a hero, the choice is obvious. (we would not even have an IPCC if not for 'alarming' claims made by climatologists after all, so if the first report was 'nothing to worry about, all is good' would the IPCC receive any funding for the 30 years since that report?) When both sides have easy to understand reasons to lie(like $$$), that makes it much harder to believe either one. 'Do what we say, not what we do' from politicians trying to ride the band-wagon does not help much either. Personally, I'll find the climate change 'crisis' more believable when the activists are fast-tracking nuclear power plants so as to more quickly decommission coal fired power plants. (as opposed to shutting down nukes and replacing them with coal/natural gas)
  4. Oxygen was originally a toxin/waste-product: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reducing_atmosphere Nitrogen is not a relevant portion of the atmosphere for most organisms, it is just filler. ('nitrogen fixing' organisms help to enrich the soil by taking it out of the atmosphere, but I am not aware of any other direct uses). If anything, it helps provide more mass for radiation shielding, but anything could provide that.
  5. I don't know about you, but I could survive indefinitely with very little equipment over large swaths of this planet. If we found that somewhere that does not take a generation ship, we would already be colonizing it. If we could terraform any part of another planet to be as good as the least desirable parts of earth(like the Arctic or Antarctic), that would be amazingly good. Regardless of what anyone is saying about 'destroying the environment', Earth is still amazingly supportive and nurturing compared to anything else we have been able to verify.
  6. The *only* value of an Orion style drive is allowing the use of a super-dense energy medium(nuclear bonds) using the most primitive technology possible. The *only* reason to use a pusher-plate is if the minimum energy release of your fuel is too high to be able to contain it in a combustion chamber(like the need for a fission fuel to go super-critical). While nuclear would indeed provide much better isp than modern rocket engines, that is not the only option. For something currently under development that may provide a much higher ISP, take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_detonation_engine Right now, we are heating up the exhaust and then letting it expand through a rocket nozzle to get thrust. Detonations allow expelling exhaust at super-sonic speeds which is not possible with normal expansion engines, and thus allow a higher theoretical maximum ISP per fuel(which may or may not even be a thing with detonations instead of conflagrations)
  7. If you have arbitrarily large amounts of power, just use photons for reaction mass, as those can be generated directly and you no longer need to carry reaction mass...
  8. As it is a LMG designed to fire over 500 rounds per minute, it would stand to reason that it is intended to be used in scenarios where firing several hundred rounds per minute would be useful. (if you only expect to need to fire a few dozen rounds, an assault rifle is a much lighter and more portable weapon than a liquid-cooled, belt-fed LMG) As the LMGs are belt-fed, it would make sense if they are used in scenarios where extended sustained fire is desirable(I believe that this is one of the primary benefits of using a belt-feed). Putting those together, and it would stand to reason that these weapons(liquid-cooled LMGs) would be deployed in positions/scenarios where it is expected that firing over a thousand rounds every couple of minutes could be desirable, making the need to stop and perform maintenance every thousand rounds something of a design flaw. It is from 2013, but this is a PDF with a lot of information about cased vs caseless ammunition(including a 'the good, the bad, and the ugly' section) https://www.forgottenweapons.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Caseless-Ammunition-Small-Arms.pdf including: * No expendable cartridge case No expendable cartridge case “heat sink heat sink” (@ 10%) to eject (@ 10%) to eject from the weapon from the weapon * 210 rounds 210 rounds – Maximum cook off rate from Maximum cook off rate from a single a single-chamber mechanism. Multiple chamber mechanism. Multiplechamber mechanism required for high chamber mechanism required for high sustained rate of fire employment (LMG sustained rate of fire employment (LMG’s, AR’s). (I would guess that '210 rounds per chamber' is closely related to the 'expendable cartridge' mentioned above. Looks like they made almost a 5x improvement over the last 8 years)
  9. No idea what weapon the picture was of, so after a search for a caseless belt-fed MG, I found: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSAT_light_machine_gun That weapon lists a firing rate of 650 rpm. Assuming the weapon you are talking about is reasonably similar in rate of fire, that means you get a highly reliable weapon(few moving parts) that you must stop firing every few minutes so that you can swap out the combustion chamber. I am hardly a gun expert, but that sounds like a very bad idea if you are in the middle of a fire-fight.
  10. One of the advantages of the brass is that it collects a lot of the heat from the charge, allowing you to eject that heat in a very dense package. That MG has attachments for water cooling, so that helps mitigate the accumulation of all that waste heat. I expect that a caseless MG requires a lot more cooling than one fed with cased ammo. The brass also helps seal the barrel, so to get the same oomph from caseless ammo as you get from cased ammo, you need much tighter tolerances in the weapon, tolerances that might get loosened from repeated firings, as the firing pin and other internals are now taking the full back-blast of the round, instead of letting the case handle that. There are good reasons the adoption of caseless ammo is so slow. There are enough reasons that caseless ammo might only be deployed for special cases in the long term.
  11. It looks to me like the 120t plane has less unused space compared to the 100t and 111t planes. If you were to cram in as many smaller containers as you could fit around the larger containers, that might make the total mass of each size much closer.
  12. I would not be surprised if they were obeying the same law....
  13. This is the thread where you could read back and find out all about it(just search each page for 'WOLF' and you should find out lots about it) Summary: WOLF is an approach to add infrastructure outside of the part-based simulation of the game. (ie no more kraken-bait bases that need to be visited every few days for catch-up processing so it can supply your main base) Functionalities include: mining manufacturing inter-base transportation of both resources and kerbals Pulling resources or manufactured goods out of WOLF and into the active simulation using hoppers note: once something is added to WOLF it cannot be pulled back out. This includes Kerbals(which are converted to points based on the number of stars they have(engineer points, kolonist points, mechanic points, etc)) Most WOLF parts are near the end of the stock and community tech trees.
  14. Unfortunately, MKS does not implement 'just in time' manufacturing, so each material will need a storage/staging area or else it can not be either produced or consumed.
  15. I am not on the latest version, but on an earlier version and from what I have heard from RD, refueling should allow reducing the TC cost to zero for single stage vessels. I suspect the loss of transport capacity due to docking to refuel would be a bug, but I am not an authority on this.
  16. If you are able to restore your vessel to 100+% of it's Launch Mass(1) then your transport-credit cost will be zero I generally do this with fuel depots in orbit(but be sure not to set your departure depot when docked or else your costs will be based on the total docked mass), or ISRU when landed. Note: I am not on the development version, but RD said that this is a desired behavior if you have the infrastructure in place to handle refueling at your destination. This also supports solar powered rovers between landed biomes. (1) The vessel mass when you set your departure depot. I believe that there is a very small margin (0.1 or 0.01 tons) below which differences are ignored.
  17. If an object is moving away from earth, then it has a red-shift, if it is moving towards earth, it has blue-shift. Higher velocities relative to earth have larger shifts. *Only* the total velocity matters, for example, a rotating galaxy that is moving away from us a 100kps with a max rotational velocity of 40 kps at the edges will have some bits with a 60kps red-shift on the 'towards us' side, grading up to 100kps of red-shift in the middle, then up to 140kps of red-shift on the 'away from us' side.
  18. SSTO+Orbital refueling depot. I over-use ISRU, so I usually drop off plenty of fuel/ore at my orbital depot, making topping off a SSTO transport a trivial matter, thus giving me a nice discount on WOLF launch costs.
  19. That is what happens when you shave off every excess ounce of mass instead of using battleship armor plates to make your fuel tanks.
  20. Between the ocean and the water table, that tunnel will take a lot of effort to keep dry. I wonder if a 2-lane tunnel or 2 1-lane tunnels would be easier. How long would the tunnel need to be to allow unrestricted usage during flight operations?
  21. That is one option, but you can also just have a large mass that gets extended a shorter distance upwards, this makes the 'up' part of the elevator much less expensive, as you only need to keep the center of mass the same, not mirror everything 100%
  22. This may even be a boon for SpaceX, as now the dead-lines are pushed-back by 9 months, giving them more lee-way for unexpected delays. As payments are based on performance, and not schedules, only payments for mile-posts passed during the actual review would be delayed. So, as long as SpaceX still has the contract in the end, they may well end up better off than if there was no challenge.
  23. When the stated and contractually obligated goal is to dock with the ISS and your can't even get into a high enough orbit to do so, it is hard to call that a success, especially when you spend huge amounts of money on each launch. When launching a new rocket that is already out of date with a publicly stated goal of 'clearing the launch tower', then the entire stack exploding at MECO is a success by the stated objective of the launch. Just like if the CEO of Ford says they will make $1.2B in profit this year, then they only manage to make $900M, then that is a failure, even if they only made $800M last year. and Tesla saying they will make $10M in profit this year, then just squeaking by at $10.2M would be a success. When an appropriate authority figure publicly states the goal of a launch and that goal is achieved, then that is clearly a success, even if said goals are not what we might wish them to be. Unless you want to call Apollo 8 a failure for not landing on the moon when their mission objective was just to enter lunar orbit and return safely? SpaceX can have such low goals because they repeatedly state that they are taking a 'fail-fast' approach with rapid iterations, and it is easy to see that they are pumping out new rockets and engines at a break-neck speed(even faster than they can get permissions to launch them, such that unneeded rockets need to be scrapped so that they don't take up too much space)
  24. The stock KSP solar system *requires* less dV than the real solar system. As a result, various components have been adjusted to provide a more reasonable challenge to players. One of the methods chosen is to make fuel tanks much heavier so that the fuel fraction is lower and you can't accidentally make a SSTO with a huge cargo margin as one of your first rockets. Real vs KSP system Examples: LKO is ~2km/s LEO is ~10km/s Pe of Eeloo is 66,687,927 km while the Ap of Mercury is 69,816,900 km, putting part of the orbit of the most distant KSP planet inside part of the orbit of mercury The Moon orbits around 360-400 Mm(5.1% inclined), while The Mun orbits at 12Mm(0% inclined) with Minmus at 47Mm(6% inclined)
  • Create New...