• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About DrRansom

  • Rank
    Bottle Rocketeer

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Will we be able to piece together rockets using parts built in the VAB and Hanger? E.g. - will it be straightforward to build a plane in the Hanger and then attach that plane to a rocket designed in the VAB?
  2. Thanks! It sounds like they expect players to do several base-building missions - which puts a premium on pin-point landing accuracy. Is there going to be a revamped waypoint system and in-atmosphere trajectory prediction to facilitate that? (I'd imaging that mods will get on those tasks right away, though)
  3. For anyone there, was there any discussion about Aerodynamics? As in, are they going to keep the current structure or try and move towards a FAR-like volume based approach.
  4. That list sounds really good. I really like the VAB improvements - especially the ability to build individual stages for a rocket. That would radically simplify constructing Space-Shuttle like vehicles.
  5. I would think those lessons would be relatively easy to transfer to a new program. Start Theory has access to Squad and to Squad's code, so they can ask people about those lessons. The harder part would be the lessons which weren't documented, but fixed in some hidden corner of the code. Wheels are an interesting topic, because I think the trailer all but states that Star Theory has solved the wheel problem.
  6. Huh - I was pretty sure (and from experience and observation) thought it was the other way around. (Doing more research leads to the answer: rewrite vs. refactor -- it depends on how bad things are). In the case of Kerbal, a rewrite is basically mandatory because the original structure is limited. But yes, now that you describe it, I agree there will be far more bugs in KSP v2.0. I am curious about the numerics; I get why they were a problem for the original team. (Going from a rocket simulation to a solar-system simulation jumps numerical requirements by quite a bit). But if a team knows what they're getting into, the numerical implementation should be relatively straightforward. Astrodynamic and high-precision trajectory simulations are topics of active research and they should be able to copy the numerical stuff from them.
  7. With software, it seems to be the case that it is easier and better to throw everything out and start over than to refactor existing code. Basically, by the time you finish a project you realize all the ways you could have architectured it better - that better architecture usually requires a complete rebuild. This is certainly the case with KSP2, the entire game has been rebuilt from scratch by a professional development team. It will be better for that.
  8. Ahahaha that's so true. Colonization - and especially self-sustaining life support - is basically space-magic already. I wonder if Metallic Hydrogen was conceived as necessary for interstellar travel. It serves as a high DeltaV / Mass fuel, which can be carried on interstellar ships and carry colony supplies from orbit to the surface. That way, the developers can constrain the power of interstellar ships to something reasonable, say <0.3c to avoid any special relativity effects, and still give players enough fuel to make a reasonable landing attempt.
  9. That is exactly the issue: any interstellar colonization would be basically all but impossible using technology we can reasonable extrapolate from existing science. The developers basically have to invent magic science to make interstellar flight reasonable. From the interviews, the developers want to keep the essential features: in-orbit construction; very long travel time relative to inter-system travel; ships are basically on a one-way mission, so they must bring enough supplies for a whole colony. In a way, the magic tech is more realistic than anything. Interstellar flight is science fiction unless we get a science fiction level technology breakthrough.
  10. I was interested in using Infernal Robotics for a swing-wing aircraft. But it looks like getting the wings to rotate isn't working right now. Is it possible to create a rotator part with very high load capabilities?
  11. That's going to be very helpful. Thanks. Though I do like the idea of paying a RCS penalty for station keeping.
  12. Would it be possible to release the station-keeping mod without the atmospheric decay? This would help prevent low level drift from imprecisely placed orbits...
  13. I was considering combining FAR with a Infernal Robotics moving part to make a variable geometry plane, would FAR support the change in craft aerodynamic shape?