AVaughan
-
Posts
621 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by AVaughan
-
-
On 4/20/2023 at 1:29 PM, tater said:
Yeah, I was assuming that a LSS has no need for 3.6 or 4mm steel. At 3mm, the 6 ring longer hull is ~42t. It needs no SL engines, so either 3 or 6 Rvacs (4.5t – 9t). Add 15t for fitting out, and we have a vehicle that is 63t – 66t. The props of just the 6 rings are ~450 – 510t, but some crew area could be eaten into to get the total props to that 1710t if needed (I didn't estimate the domes well). The 66t version just closes.
Obviously cargo is not much of an option, but that's what a cargo vehicle could be for (and at the lower mass end, it closes with 3t cargo)
Are you sure that they can afford thinner steel? Wouldn't the fuel tanks still be pressurised to the same pressure? Wouldn't the aerodynamic loads on launch likely be similar? (Admittedly aero loads might be lower with no flaps, but hoop stress for the tanks would be the same, if the internal pressure is the same).
Don't you still need at least one centre SL engine with it's gimbal for control during burns if one of the 3 vacuum engines fails? (With 6 vacuum engines, you could shutdown the opposite engine instead, but all the same I'm not sure SpaceX and NASA would choose to make design changes from a standard starship in a way that might reduce redundancy in the event of an engine failure on the Lunar lander).
Do you really want to make the lunar lander taller? Isn't the CoM already going to be uncomfortably high? (Yes that can be managed, but why would they choose to make the lander even taller)?I haven't done the maths, but wouldn't refuelling the lander in Lunar orbit (at/near gateway), then letting the fuel tanker aerobrake into Earth orbit, (or more likely re-enter directly from the Moon) be more fuel efficient than using fuel for the lunar lander to capture to LEO, especially given that under your proposal you need to land that fuel on the Moon, then launch it back into Lunar orbit? Can't one stretched tanker make an LEO to Lunar Gateway trip with enough fuel in lunar orbit to refuel the lunar orbiter, and still have enough fuel to return to earth. Possibly even with enough margin for a small cargo hold and some supplies/cargo. And doesn't refuelling at Gateway allow the option of significantly heavier payloads to the Lunar surface?
If you are going to do an in space cargo transfer or in space resupply/refurbishment, then I'm not sure that LEO is enough better than gateway to justify the disadvantages? Other than shorter round trip comms for any remote controlled operations controlled from Earth, what advantages does it have? Doesn't anything that needs to replaced still need to wait for a launch from Earth? (Ok yes, sending something to lunar orbit needs more than just a launch from Earth, but if you are already supporting Lunar Gateway with regular supply runs via starship, isn't it just some extra cargo next launch to Gateway)?
26 minutes ago, Motokid600 said:This concerns me.
@1:17:22 - It makes me wonder how the heck SpaceX plans to deal with this on Mars.
I'm sure SpaceX is aware. (In fact today was a pretty good reminder). Why do you think their Lunar lander proposal seems to have small landing engines mounted high up.
-
41 minutes ago, magnemoe said:
This gives your orientation, not your position unless you watch over time. However interplanetary space is not very crowded, yet. Orientation it the critical one for pointing solar panels and antennas.
But you can simply use earth stations and note how you and earth move.
Noting the location of a celestial body against the stars gives you more than orientation. Each such observation gives you a vector from that body to your position at that time. Two or more simultaneous observations of different celestial bodies in different areas of the sky should give you a point where the vectors intersect (or their closest approach to each other, since no measurement is error free).
-
23 minutes ago, magnemoe said:
Pretty sure that is for first launch, although raptor is more complex. On the other hand laugh at B 52 engine out capability.
At large air force exercises requesting priority landing with an engine out on a B-52 seen as is cutting ahead in queue. The dramatic 7 engines emergency landings as an F 16 pilot said.If an engine has failed for an unknown reason, all the other engines on the same aircraft might also be susceptible to the same issue. (What if the cause is fuel contamination, or something else that is common to all the engines on the same plane).
-
18 hours ago, Meecrob said:
What do you do between the GPS of Earth and the GPS of the Moon or Mars or any other destination in the solar system that we hypothetically set up a GPS around? Have a "Milky-Way Positioning System" out by the Oort cloud?
Assuming you have a decent clock and decent optics, then measuring the position of the Earth/Moon/Venus/Mars/Jupiter/Saturn against the stars should be enough to triangulate your position. (You can also cross-check and calibrate your IGU's orientation against the stars the same way).
-
Just watching the livestream now. One quick takeaway. https://youtu.be/L5QXreqOrTA?t=953
QuoteFor todays test starship does not have its landing legs attached
So looks like it is still possible that some early starships might still get landing legs, rather than SpaceX attempting to catch them. (Worth mentioning that 30 seconds earlier he was talking about landing on the Moon/Mars, and so maybe he was referring to Lunar/Martian versions).
-
I think you miss understood what I was saying.
12 hours ago, LeroyJenkins said:You are forgetting the impact to the TWR.
A piece of my post you didn't quote.
12 hours ago, AVaughan said:If the tanks were twice as long, then you only need half as many tanks for the same amount of fuel.
I am suggesting that proc tanks enable you to replace multiple smaller tanks with a small number of larger tanks. That can be done without changing the amount of fuel, or the TWR (assuming that tank mass scales with tank volume, which is true for KSP 1 tanks, and not considering the impact of possibly adding an engine plate).
-
6 minutes ago, The Aziz said:
And the semi proc tanks would ONLY reduce the size of part list. Part counts would stay the same because there still would be upper length limit, so after making one long you'd still have to add a second one when needed.
Assuming that semi-proc parts let you build longer/bigger tanks than are available in stock, then part counts for many large rockets would shrink. (If the tanks were twice as long, then you only need half as many tanks for the same amount of fuel. If they are twice the diameter and twice as long, then potentially you could cut tanks by up to a factor of 8).
Optionally you could also add optional switchable nose cones and engine plates as part of the tanks, further reducing both part count and unity joints. If the optional nose cones were the same as the existing nose-cones, then you can actually retain most of the lego style rocket building.
Yes there will be cases where the part count remains the same. Some of that will be because players are building curved structures from the existing parts, and a simple semi-proc tank implementation probably isn't going to help with curved structures. There are potentially also players who will build as big a rocket as they can, perhaps limited by the performance they are willing to tolerate. -
16 hours ago, Mitokandria said:
I wanted to play RO+RSS, but it wasn't compatible with my mod list. So I'm using JNSQ 10x as a replacement for RO+RSS.
If you like a challenge or a more realistic KSP then I can highly recommend playing RSS+RO+RP-1. It is virtually a complete game overhaul, and as such it is incompatible with many mods made for stock, but it adds so much more to my KSP experience.
-
I'm not sure how the install works on linux, but no possibility you are running out of disk space somewhere? Possibly in some tmp directory where it tries to unpack everything?
-
So I still prefer A as something to look at. But it is your project, so pick whatever you prefer.
-
I prefer the first one. (With the disclaimer that I am just from viewing the full scale images. I'm not sure whether/how much the rescale to 50x50 would affect that).
But ultimately it is your project Arrowstar, so pick whichever one you think is better.
-
2 hours ago, Krazy1 said:
Different topic - BG surface features don't seem to work. It was discussed back here for KSP 1.7.3:
Atm there is some discussion on the Kopernicus thread about recent Kopernicus versions breaking BG surface features.
-
I'm not associated with restock development, but the tutorials tend to break with mods, so don't use mods until after you have done the tutorials.
-
Is Kerbin still the same distance form the Sun?
I wonder if that is calculated automatically to keep a Kerbin year at the same number of days? (Is it 400 days for a stock Kerbin year? I'm not sure. I almost never play stock). -
I'm fairly sure that sputnik is a science core. That mean it only allows partial control. It can stage, turn the engine throttle on or off, activate things like science instruments etc, but it cannot control craft attitude and has no SAS support. Think of it as following a crude level of pre-programming and/or radio control.
For fully controllable avionics use procedural avionics, and choose near earth avionics, and set the controllable mass appropriately. Whilst near the earth they will give you full SAS control. (Often players use multiple avionics units, so they can drop heavy first stage avionics when they drop the stage).
As you research new techs, you will be able to unlock higher avionic tech levels and build lighter avionics units, and deep space avionics, which give full control even when you aren't near the earth and can hibernate to save EC.
If you want to use Sputnik for you final stage, then typically you will point in the appropriate direction, then spin up the rocket before decoupling the last controllable avionics unit and activating the final stage engine. -
My standard comment about games crashing Windows, is that nothing a non-privileged game or application does should be able to crash the operating system. So that suggests an operating system/driver bug or a hardware issue. Assuming you aren't running KSP with elevated privileges, then Linux should be the same. Modulo operating system bugs/hardware issues, nothing a regular program does should be capable of crashing the PC.
-
I'm excited for the new colony career mode.
-
One thing I don't recall mentioned anywhere is robotic parts (servos, hinges etc). Are those on the roadmap anywhere? Or does it look like they might be reserved for future dlc?
-
@king of nowhere Assuming you are installing manually, https://github.com/Kerbalism/Kerbalism lists the required dependencies, and even includes links to download them. But in general I recommend using ckan to install mods, as that will automatically install the dependencies for you.
Regarding the first post, Sir Mortimer hasn't logged into the forums for over a year, so probably isn't around to update the first post. -
9 hours ago, nrum7366 said:
Hello everyone -
Does anyone know if this works with Real antennas, nothing is mentioned in the list.
Real Antennas and Kerbalism are used together in RO/RP-1. However I have no idea if that needs additional configs over what the Real Antennas and Kerbalism include.
-
Quote
Each bridge crane can lift 150t, so due to the increased mass of the completed Superheavy Booster, they must conduct a tandem lift in order to lift it.
Any idea why it is heavier? Or is it simply heavier than an incomplete booster? (Also was a dual lift always the plan, or did SpaceX somehow underestimate how much a booster would weigh?)
-
4 hours ago, whytho said:
Thanks for the info, but what do you do after you install RO/RSS?
I generally play an RP-1 career (which has custom contracts and is different and more challenging that a normal stock career). other people prefer to play around in sandbox, some of them build historical re-creations. There is a number of wiki articles on getting started in RO/RP-1 on the wiki. (Some of the individual mods also have wiki pages).
-
7 hours ago, whytho said:
The entire reason i got into ksp was the realism overhaul and realistic solar system, but downloading it on my mac doesn't seem to work. I try to extract the zip file and keep the RO folder in ksp but i'm not sure what to do after that and it doesn't seem to show any results. Can any experienced player with a macbook(or PC i don't care) tell me how to download the realism overhaul on a macbook thanks.
The recommended way to install RO https://github.com/KSP-RO/RP-0/wiki/RO-&-RP-1-Express-Installation-for-1.12.3 . Those instructions probably still apply to Macs, although details of how to do individual steps might be slightly different. There is also at least one Mac user active on discord, so you might be able to get better answers for Mac specific questions there. https://discord.gg/VdsxK9p7QC
-
That image looks off to me, (and those orbit lines also did when I watched the video). That is still true even if you assume the rocket is orbiting in a plane inclined relative to the camera lens.
KSP 2 copy protection
in KSP2 Discussion
Posted · Edited by AVaughan
So the science update seems to finally get KSP 2 to a state where I'm considering buying it. Before I do, I just want to double check what sort of copy protection KSP 2 has, and whether there is any difference between Steam and Epic Game Store version. I haven't been paying much attention to KSP 2 after the disappointing state of the game at early access launch.
One of the things I like about KSP is the fact that it will run without internet access, and without needing Steam to be started first. It will also run if I copy the KSP install outside of the the steam directory, and run it from there. This has advantages for modded playthroughs (no risk of KSP updates breaking mods in the middle of a playthrough), and also means the game is playable even when I'm without internet access. (Note that when they added the launcher to KSP about 12 months ago the launcher itself wouldn't run properly without internet access, but it was still easy enough to just start KSP.exe directly, so I don't consider that a problem).
So does KSP 2 work if you copy it outside the Steam/EGS install directory? Does it work without needing Steam or EGS to be started first? Does it work without internet access? (Bypassing a launcher by launching the game directly is fine, and what I would normally do when starting KSP anyway).
How are mods installed in KSP 2? Is there something equivalent to CKAN, or are they hosted on Steam workshop or some other service?
Also are there any differences between the Steam and Epic versions that affect any of the above, or that might affect which store I might wish to purchase from?