Jump to content

V7 Aerospace

Members
  • Content Count

    218
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by V7 Aerospace

  1. I'd imagine the main problem with using existing missiles to launch payloads on the moon is that being designed to work in atmosphere, the lack of air for control surfaces means that they'd be unable to stay on course. Unless the missile chosen already has some sort of thrust vectoring or such.
  2. So all that rocky debris from the burn poses no threat to any delicate components on the exterior of the spacecraft?
  3. Yeah, I agree. I just hate when I go to a theme park and see people screaming and enjoying themselves on rollercoasters, don't they know we've been operating rollercoasters for over 100 years? /s
  4. Calculate where it'll land, and if it's at sea, send out SpaceX's Mr. Steven to play catch...
  5. As well as the fact that all aircraft apparently have Jericho Trumpets when they do any sort of dive.
  6. It all depends. Obviously the 2950 metric ton Saturn V will not stand on 5 F1 Engines, but model rockets that only weigh a few kg will happily sit on their bells. Gravity as well is a large factor, if you built a strong enough engine bell on a descent stage for a light lunar landing craft, it may well be a suitable alternative to a separate landing gear system.
  7. From the looks of it, there's been some extensive fixes to some memory issues
  8. Well, yes. But I meant what company, group manufacturer etc? Do we know of them yet, or are they already known? but then again in probably giving it too much thought
  9. Fast travel? Accelerates time (equal to time taken to get there) and spawns the Kerbal at the destination.
  10. Who built the stock craft in KSP lore-wise? The space station core's description mentions that it is in the Kerlington craft catalog, but are there other contractors who built other craft? This space station core, assembled by Kerlington contains parts from various other manufacturers. How does this whole system work? I always thought the manufacturers only existed to supply parts for the space program, who would then do the job of constructing craft. But it seems they also provide their own craft, using parts from companies that they haven't collaborated with (at least not confirmed
  11. I'm all for wacky dances... as long as we can toggle them off.
  12. I mean even if they were, ground based observers wouldn't really be able to give much warning as it's very hard to spot them and they move so quickly. That's the job of radar, which in the 1940s was still being improved upon.
  13. Jet engines that can only operate under water. The deeper you go, the higher the thrust.
  14. I thought this was a thread for the impossible? After all, the Fulton Recovery System does exist
  15. To be honest, I think the solution to most problems here is just to have more variant textures available for most parts. The 1.25m fuel tanks are probably the best so far. 4 texture choices with each of them not being too far a step in any direction, I'd like to think that all other structural parts and fuel tanks will follow in that regard.
  16. Interesting stuff! Just a slight nitpick: "Bombers or attackers" would be more suitable here as missiles weren't around. Closest thing was flying bombs like the V1.
  17. Well, Mk.7 is a major improvement, the old blue nosed nose cone now fits the game's colour scheme, the advanced nose cones have just increased the contrast on the details, the NCS tip now has panels. I agree that some of the decisions are strange, too much detail can be a bad thing, but overall? we now have a far more coherent art style, and the removal of some of the older, more muddy-looking textures. But there is room for improvement, and time before the update arrives for improvements to be made.
  18. It's quite firm in how it points the craft, unlike modern SAS which thinks that only half gimbal is appropriate for a Learstar spinning out of control.
  19. I don't think they'd drop it from it's current 412s down to the Poodle level of 350s. I'm guessing around 380-400. Though all of this is still speculation, remember. They might not even touch it's ISP. Edit: worst case scenario, can't you just change the cfg. back to it's current values in the case the update changes it?
  20. It's likely that if it does receive an ISP change, it won't go too far below 400. I'm sure your craft should still be capable enough. @klgraham1013 you make a good point. It would be nice if there was more included about bugs in KSP Loading. This recent bug tracking push does show some sort of recognition of the issues on SQUAD's behalf, let's just hope it continues further than this and we can actually start rooting out some of the games longer standing issues.
  21. You have to admit, it was an engine with very few downsides. I don't like the idea of something in the mid tech tree (in the same node as the completely inferior Poodle, no less) making basically every other chemical vacuum engine obsolete. As well as that, it's to early too see how it's changed. Who knows? The changes could be minimal.
  22. From what I can remember, while SQUAD has always mentioned bugfixing in update plans and patch notes, they've never been massively transparent about what exactly has been fixed or what has been done (correct me if I'm wrong, been away from KSP for quite a while). I think we're seeing improvement, albeit slowly, with the recent upvote system for bug tracking and I agree we do have quite a ways to go. As you mentioned, from a business standpoint, what's more likely to bring in new players, shiny new stuff, or behind the scenes improvements? From that point it's hard to tell if anything will ever
×
×
  • Create New...