Jump to content

Ultimate Steve

Members
  • Posts

    4,050
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ultimate Steve

  1. I think the falcon 1 fail was due to residual thrust from the first stage. Assuming raptor thrust is on a constant downward slope with no increases during shutdown, and that there is no active separation mechanism like in falcon 1, recontacting shouldn't be an issue. Performance impact shouldn't be much more than a couple seconds of burning above prograde, which they might need to do anyway depending on the flight profile to get the apo up. Unless of course they wait for one whole rotation to do ignition (I doubt it). Should be offset by a faster boostback and reduced mass, at least that is my intuition. I could still be completely wrong about this though. Ullage/prop settling for stage two ignition might be a concern with that rotation.
  2. When I heard that part, I was assuming the kick spin was for getting the booster pointed the right way for boostback. But now that I think about it, if aero loads are light enough, spinning slightly to release the upper stage with centrifugal "force" (yeah it's not a force but it's easier to say it that way) solves a lot of problems neatly. Performance impact should be minimal. It helps the booster get in the right direction for boostback quicker. It eliminates all the mass that a separation system would take up. And, it makes stacking way easier and turnaround faster because there is no separation system to reset, you just plop it right down on the booster.
  3. It is kind of like Minecraft in this respect. There are a few major milestones to aim for (survive a night, find diamonds, beat the dragon, beat the wither, etc. For Minecraft. Get to space, get to orbit, land on Mun, Jool 5, Eve return etc. for KSP). However you can keep doing whatever you want to even after all of these milestones are complete.
  4. Soyuz 1 is the only big one I can think of.
  5. I'd fly on both given the chance. Idk which one I'd choose given the choice assuming I was able to afford either. It would probably come down to who would be riding with me. They both have their pros and cons. NS: Likely safer Goes a bit higher Probably more zero G time (haven't counted but it seems intuitive) No asterisks Way bigger windows You get to be cool and walk down a crew access arm SS2: More windows (they are smaller but still a decent size) Allows you to look straight down Looks waaaayyy cooler In the future won't be limited to one launch site, so you can choose from a much more diverse selection of views than just "desert" (but both are just desert for now) More room to move around and do flips without accidentally hitting people A far longer experience Could be a pro or a con depending on who you talk to: One has higher Gs One feels more like a rocket, one feels more like a plane Outfits are about the same Webcasts are both subpar but in different ways
  6. I've been working on a medium scale Eve mission recently. The focus of this mission will be to explore a near sea level region of Eve and name a lot of islands. I have made four videos so far: Designing the ascent vehicle Launching a relay network Launching a scout plane to search for a good launch site Designing aircraft to explore Eve with Here is the playlist: Enjoy!
  7. Any word if this is standard for all passengers or just for testing?
  8. Hardcore or Iron Man aren't really the right words, but I don't really have a better word on hand. I'm looking to create a rule set for a more challenging and rewarding KSP experience. Normal KSP career has gotten a bit stale for me. When things go right I rarely get a sense of accomplishment. When things go wrong it is more of an annoyance or a frustration that I have to spend the time staring at loading screens than it is an actual learning experience. Additional background that you can skip: So basically, I'm taking suggestions from you, whether it be for mods or rules or added rules or whatnot, aimed at creating a more challenging, more rewarding KSP experience without adding a significant amount of grindiness or lag. In particular, I want: New things to play around with New places to explore (maybe) A distinct end goal because I have difficulty sticking with things for a long long time, but also the ability to play beyond it if I feel like it Restrictions to increase mission scale (like a minimum seat count per Kerbal on long missions or something, etc) Additional rules and restrictions in general A reason to have space stations? Maybe a milestone list I need to complete? Probably a tech tree revamp or restrictions creating the same effect Aim to fix the "you can get all the tech without leaving the Kerbin system" problem while also: Not making it a grind to get to orbit/The Mun (can happen with reduced science output) Not making it a grind to go interplanetary Stuff that will make me more attached to and invested in my missions and Kerbals Rules to make funding/reputation more engaging and not just a meter you pay no attention to unless it is near zero Lose conditions - No real threat of failure in normal KSP, want to change that Whatever else you can think of But while still keeping it relatively lightly modded and not very grindy. I've already decided on a few basic rules, namely no reverts or quickloads except for glitches, no crew respawn, and every crewmember needs to be named after someone I know. I'll probably pick and choose from what people send me, to try to make something I think I'll enjoy, but I'll also compile a list of everything (or at least everything compatible) for an extreme version.
  9. Last night I was anomaly hunting and found one Easter Egg that I believe has not been documented before but I'm not sure if it is one of the new ones or has just been there for a while without anyone finding it. It also might be Making History exclusive considering its location. Should we wait to post until we receive the hints to ensure its the right Easter egg? Is this thread just for the 5 specific Easter eggs or can we post anomalies in general here?
  10. !!! There has not been new easter eggs in a long time. Bring out the detective hats! If only I didn't have to go to bed right now.
  11. Imo looks closer to that guy from "my disappointment is immeasurable and my day is ruined" but people have also suggested Junk Cortez and Linus from LTT. I don't think there's a dominant consensus yet, we would need more pixels to tell.
  12. I would not be surprised if Rasputin could also survive a Saturn V launch given his track record. I would still give the edge to the rocket, but it will be close.
  13. Interesting. I would have thought that they would slip it in through the side instead of going through the top... VAB is monstrously tall.
  14. Wow, those are smaller than I expected.
  15. By association, the record for the richest person ever in space will probably not be broken for a long, long time.
  16. Good point. Keep forgetting that oil rig =/= boat. What if instead you had a line of launch sites? Or really it would work with just two. Launch some of the stuff prograde, and some of the stuff retrograde. Boosters hop back and forth along the line, always ASDSing. Of course you need retrograde payloads, which are rare, but if you are, say, launching a Mars fleet, no reason you can't launch half the fleet retrograde besides losing the equatorial boost and maybe added collision danger. I would imagine the average added payload from always ASDSing would be more than the average loss from launching retrograde half of the time (averages out to no equatorial boost at all) but I am not completely sure.
  17. I got terribly laughed at on a certain discord server for proposing this idea, and it is pretty absurd, but I don't see anything inherently wrong with it, so I figure I'd ask here too. If the time comes where we need a lot of starship launch sites and a lot of payload to orbit (eg large mars missions or something) would it make sense to position a few dozen launch/landing platforms in a circle around the Earth, and then land each super heavy booster on the next platform over after each launch? This would make essentially every launch an ASDS launch and permit more payload, but avoids the long boat trip back to the launch site because each booster is already at another launch site. Of course you would have to make each site big enough to hold multiple super heavies, or else you would have to launch every single one at once, which would be ridiculously cool but also not s good idea. Again, this is only practical with a high launch rate, but if we assume those conditions, are there any showstoppers?
  18. Methinks that they upgraded the camera equipment on this booster, as it is a new booster.
  19. I have heard 6, 7, and 8 sections. I'd tend to say 8.
  20. Real talk though, I wonder if KSP is going to become one of those franchises that keeps getting new major upgraded sequels every several years or so. Imagine KSP8 or whatever they will have in the second half of the century. By then I might be able to run KSP1 with an eternal green timer lol. Finding mod compatibility for older versions might start to be a nightmare though... Are there any mod archive projects going on?
  21. Got to hand it to them, they have a really nice looking spaceship.
  22. Gotta colonize mars somehow!
×
×
  • Create New...