Orc

Members
  • Content Count

    77
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

44 Excellent

About Orc

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast

Profile Information

  • Location Array
  • Interests Array

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Greetings all, If a computer upgrade is required then KSP2 will not be on my wish list. The current version of KSP seems to be running comfortably but a (large) number of newer games are demanding 8GB of RAM and more Video Memory (I think 4GB). Regards Orc
  2. Hi all Moach wrote You are one of those annoying people with oral bacteria that doesn't produce folic (I think!) acid, which is what damages tooth enamel. You do realize you just got 99.99% of the people on Earth (and probably a few million Kerbals too), extremely annoyed with you. Some, perhaps, even hatefully annoyed. My random fact about my teeth, I had an extra one. When my adult teeth sprouted I got an extra canine (I think that is the proper term) on the upper left quadrant. By the time I was 17 it had to go because it (1) becoming painful, and (2) getting in the way of my tongue, making it sound like I had a speech impediment. Random KSP related fact about me: I've only EVER managed to land on the runway at KSC ONCE. And it was relatively recently, after hundreds of hours of play and dozens of landings in all sorts of crazy terrain (I once managed to 'land' an aircraft with some science experiments on the top of the mountains near KSC - it was a good landing in that Val got to walk away from it - it was not a very good landing because the cockpit and the science experiments were about all that survived the landing ;-) . Anyway, take care. Orc
  3. Hi all, 90%-ish peroxide was a discussed oxidizer in the mid-90s. Some of us got particularly excited about the Black Horse / Black Colt / Pathfinder, which alas came to nothing. See: http://astronautix.com/craft/blahorse.htm http://www.im.lcs.mit.edu/bh/analog.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Horse_(rocket) There was also a proposal (at around the same time, I think) for kerosene+peroxide SRB-replacements for the Shuttle (which would have fold out wings and would fly back to a ultra long runway at the Cape). I think this is the original proposal: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228581282_High_density_liquid_rocket_boosters_for_the_space_shuttle The advantages of peroxide is that it is liquid in pretty much the same temperature / pressure range as the denser carbon-based fuels (no cryogenic cooling required). It is also hypergolic with carbon-based fuels so it auto combusts as soon as the fuel and peroxide touch in the combustion chamber. And siphoning off a bit of the peroxide through a silver mess generates hot steam and some O2 that can drive your turbo-pumps. That said peroxide is horribly dangerous stuff. The ultra-high purity stuff (like over 97%) is sensitive to shock, and might just decide to decompose from any vibration or contaminant. Filling up an SRB sized monster with this stuff would be... interesting. Despite this a number of respectable people in the American space community still thought high purity peroxide might be easier to handle than LOX. In 93 I briefly worked in a dye-house where 50% peroxide was used for bleaching. Even diluted down it was still horribly dangerous stuff, able to erase your finger (and palm) prints in a second, and capable of setting the cotton dust on the floor alight if spilled. Despite the otherwise, relatively haphazard approach to safety in the plant the peroxide was treated with respect, and the people who handled it did so by the book. Anyway, this is making me feel old. Regards Orc
  4. Hi all, It is embarrassing to admit it but my first Kerbal was killed as a direct result of me not sorting out the staging order of a 'first flight' rocket consisting of a Mk16 chute, a Mk1 Capsule and a Flea booster. This was back when I was using the 1.0 Demo because I couldn't afford the game. The Flea shredded the chute and when the fuel ran out the whole thing plunged back to Kerbin. Since then Jeb has died repeatedly in so many different and obscure ways. Regards Orc
  5. Hi all and farmerben in particular, Would you say that docking with the JR is harder than with the regular port? Why I ask is I recently did a "Rendezvous and Dock in Kerbol" mission. Because it was still relatively early in a career game I was using Mk1 Capsule and Jr clamp-o-trons. Getting within 3 meters was easier than I remembered it. Staying within 3 meters not so much..., getting the silly clamp-o-trons to clamp... well, much less fun. I do not remember having this much trouble last time I did a docking, which was with a pair of SRs joining essentially a large fuel tank to a Duna explorer craft using the three-kerbal capsule. Regards Orc
  6. Greetings, I am pretty sure I can do the Satellite and Kerbal to LKO. But the Fly-by-Mun-and-Safe-Return, is that even possible? Can you cram enough Delta-V into less than 7000 funds? As for landing... well... I don't think I can even think about. I look forward to seeing what people come up with. Regards Orc
  7. Hi all I can't say when exactly I did my first successful docking but it definitely took some time and a lot of patience to get right. My first "proper docking" (with docking ports and stuff) was preceded by a number of rescue missions where I literally rammed the target with a KLAW equipped vehicle. Hey, it worked! Before that I managed to kill several Kerbal crews because my aim was perfect but the relative velocity was, regrettably, much too high. While the earlier docking tutorials (version 1.0.1) were OK, I think the best advice (and encouragement) I got was from the people on these forums. Regards Orc
  8. Hi all Nuke Posted yesterday at 02:15 AM (edited) there probably is a kerbal plushie on the iss right now. If there isn't (a Kerbal plushie on ISS) we need to start a campaign right now. Send Jeb, Bob, Val and... oh... oh dear... I can't remember the 4th starting Kerbal Astronaut's name. Something must be really, really wrong with me. I need a stat dose of KSP right now. Regards Orc
  9. Hi all, The answer to the question depends on what your priorities are. Hunt down a copy of Robert Zubrin's Case for Mars. It clearly outlines why a Mars-First program is the only one that is going to lead to a sustainable program and one that yields real amounts of useful science. The arguments are (and I am paraphrasing from stuff I haven't read in a decade): (a) Mars is the safest place in the inner solar system. The Moon's surface might as well have a bull-eye painted on it when considering solar storms. LEO is only safe because of the Earth's magnetic field, and the opinion for crews to abandon their space station before any really big solar storms hit. (b) Mars has the biggest bundle of resources that can be used relatively easily. Mars atmosphere and regolith contains practically all the minerals and elements we need to build a permanent civilization, including water, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, phosphorus, iron, aluminium, carbon, silicon and uranium. The Moon has diddly-squat. The ice in the polar craters is quite inadequate for supporting a growing civilization (though it might do for a short term science base). The grand scheme to use the polar ice as fuel (H2 and O2 or as ALICE) would deplete the resource even faster than a growing colony.The rest of the moon is basically iron and aluminium with some trace contaminants. (c) Mars has gravity that is much closer to Earth's (about 40%). Humans can probably live healthy lives there without resorting to multi-hour workouts each day, and exotic pharmacology. The Moon has only 16.6% Earth gravity. LEO has nothing, unless you plan to use artificial gravity. (d) Because Mars has an atmosphere (for aero-braking and aero-capture) it is actually CLOSER to Earth in terms of delta-V than the Moon (not by much but it is). That means the same vehicle can deliver more mass to the surface of Mars. (e) Mars has a variety of energy sources, including 12 hours a day of sunshine, geo-thermal, and wind. On the moon you have 14 days of sunlight out of every 28. For the rest of the 28 days you had better hope your batteries hold out. (f) Mars is a whole new world of geography to explore and research. The Moon is just an overgrown asteroid with about enough geological interest as a square kilometer of the Grand Canyon National Park. Of cause if your goal is not to establish a meaningful long term program, and instead go for another Flags&Footprints Photo-op then none of the above matters. The Moon is a resource sink for politicians forwarding the interests of their constituents (which mostly don't including the humans that voted for them but rather the corporations that paid for their campaigns). If your motivation for Space travel is not creating the next stage of human civilization then you are in the wrong business and wasting your time and other people's money. Regards Orc
  10. Greets all DDE wrote: > Hold the water, I prefer the lOx slurry. You don’t need the hydrogen and get some use for the oxygen extracted from > alumina... once you reclaim your graphite. Not a bad looking idea. A couple of issues might arise: 1) LOX. LOX seldom remains LOX anywhere in the universe for very long, unless you are actively cooling it. Water is mostly solid and occasionally liquid or gaseous through most of the universe. 2) Graphite. Refining CO2 back into graphite is not easy. It's got its own energy burden. The only process I remember involves CO2 + H2 + lots of thermal energy. I think there might also be a reaction that uses CO and CH4 but I'm not sure. Still, cool. Regards Orc
  11. Greetings all Aluminium is super expensive to refine in the first place. If I remember my numbers right about 20 kwh of electricity per kg, which is why aluminium smelters are always next to big hydroelectric dams or have their own coal or gas burning power station. Aluminium's value is derived from its lightness (for a given strength) and its recycling cost. Recycling used aluminium (still aluminium metal, not oxides) is super cheap. This leads me to believe that the process described above is at least snake oil, and at worst out-right fraud attempting to part fools with their money. If you want an example of aluminium and water yielding a lot of energy look up ALICE (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALICE_(propellant). I am sure this is something Kerbals would do. Regards Orc
  12. Hi all, Forgive me if it has already been mentioned but I'd like to see: a few of prop engines, starting with some anemic .625 m one to ultra powerful 2.5 meter, in between a couple of 1 m engines. Large fuel carrying wings that are not swept. Cylindrical or semi-cylindrical 2.5 meter aircraft fuselage and fuel tank parts, And a 2.5 m aircraft glass cockpit (yes I want to build a B-29 Superfortress and do a Bell X-1 supersonic flight). (I know most of this is covered in the Airplane Mod) A Klockwork Kerbal, an early pre-Mk1 Capsule 'probe core' that allows you to launch staged rokkets using the Flea and Hammer engines, before you risk your pilots. Each Klockwork Kerbal would be able to manage three staging events, and the Player would set the time for each event before the vehicle leaves the VAB. Given the limited amount of control options available at such a low tech level the KK is not expected to actually fly the rokket in any meaningful direction except, hopefully, up. A pure eye-candy addition would be a Memorial Garden at KSC, where a little (Kerbal Heght) Black Obelisk for each fallen (permanently dead) Kerbal appears. Back in Version 1.0 when all (AFAIK) Kerbal deaths were permanent I used to get his comrades to plant a flag at the Astronaut center or Admin building with the fallen Kerbal's name, date and mission on it. But if you still have to upgrade the facility you have to remove the flags. Another eye-candy feature that I would not mind seeing are landing lights for the runway and 'search light'' style beam lighting for the launch pad, to make your night time launches and landing more visually dramatic. I expect there probably is already a mod for this. Anyway, happy launches all, Regards Orc
  13. Orc

    1.0

    Hi all I still have Version 1.0 on my laptop, as well as the demo. I don't run it very often because (a) I don't use the laptop nearly as much as I used to and (b) KSP doesn't run very well on the laptop limited resources. About 5 to 10 minutes between crashes, much less if I try to launch a 600 part mega-dreadnought SSTO. This is better than the desktop system I was using at the time, which crashed after almost every mission. The demo was LOTS of FUN, it completely sold me on the idea of spending real money on getting the full game, something that hasn't really happened since... maybe the late 90s. As I didn't have disposable income at the time I had to wait six months and ask family not to give me Christmas and birthday presents, to give me the cash instead. Anyway, Regards Orc
  14. Hi all I've played a bit, perhaps hoping to recapture the glorious memories of Elite on SpectraVideo 328. I don't know if it is the different between being 14 and ... er much, much older than 14, but I really suck at OOlite. Is it much harder than the original or am I just so much slower. Flip side: I still rock at docking with the space stations. That skill set hasn't gone away. Regards Orc
  15. For a limited definition of fun. Confession time: I have NEVER managed to land anything on the runway at KSC without it turning into a fireworks display. The flat area around KSC is much better. Heck the not so flat desert to the south western edge of the same continent as KSC is easier to land on. I've botched a couple of landings following extremely long (atmospheric) flights because of sheer physical fatigue (me, personally, not the Kerbals). And you can't (AFAIK) save during in-atmosphere flights. The botched landings tend to lead to a total loss of the vehicle and usually the crew as well. Since these are typically long range science gathering missions, coupled with multiple contract missions on the opposite side of Kerban the flight is long, the science is valuable and the aircraft is expensive. Maybe now that Kerbals have parachutes, and all Science onboard can be stored in a couple of the science containers (can't remember what they're called) I could build the plane so that I can jettison the Science for a safe parachute landing and then abandon the aircraft and let the pilot float down on his / her chute. Failing that, pack enough chutes on the actual aircraft to do a parachute landing. Cut the engines over KSC, circle a bit until your velocity is below 250 m/s and then pop open a dozen Radial mounted Mk16s. If that can't get you safely on the ground then your airframe was too big to start with. Anyway, most of the time I'd rather be landing on Minmus. Or salvaging some abandoned part in Munar orbit. Regards Orc