Blasty McBlastblast

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Blasty McBlastblast

  1. Flight One A humble beginning, just a quick flea ride up to 7,300m followed by a gentle water landing to collect mystery science! funds after flight - 117,533 science after flight - 45.2 technology researched - basic rocketry, engineering 101, survivability, stability buildings upgraded - none Flight Two Equipped with new science tests and bigger rockets, Jeb's first suborbital flight reached an altitude of 121km before landing safely 430km downrange funds after flight - 188,480 science after flight - 103.2 technology researched - basic science, aviation buildings upgraded - none
  2. This thread is a submission-in-progress for the No Contract Career Challenge by @5thHorseman made so as not to clutter up the challenge thread with ongoing updates... I expect this may take me some time to complete! My entry is a completely stock normal career, with only one adjustment to always allow action groups.
  3. here is a quick challenge idea: 70k Scramble This is a race from the launchpad (or runway) up to the Karmen Line (70,000m altitude) and then back to the surface. Once your craft touches down and stops moving/tumbling/exploding press F3 and snap a screenshot to show your mission time! Fastest time wins! must have at least one Kerbal on board (because Kerbal facial expressions are awesome!), otherwise no restrictions for parts, mass, etc... sandbox or career game, normal difficulty (no tampering with atmosphere settings!) no cheating (infinite fuel, no part breaking, etc..) entry must be one continuous flight, so no quick-saving for your official entry stock-alike mods are fine, however should probably get their own leader board. please list any mods you used, and try to keep the list short! no auto-pilots, pilot flight aides, or suicide burn helpers.... the craft needs to be controlled by the player you can land anywhere you like
  4. So this just happened: By "fortified" does BARIS mean under a slab? In over 2,000hrs of gameplay this is the first time Jeb has died while safe and sound at home!!
  5. hello! I'm having trouble with igniting the first stage at the launch pad, all of the launch clamps seem to be trying to target only a single engine, leaving many out of range! This happens for radial groups, or single engines alike Produced with a clean install: KSP 1.3.1 Engine Igniter Re-ignited Toolbar Controller Module Manager 3.0.1 output log file here
  6. Sometimes the stars align, and then sometimes the planets do too! nice work This could become a challenge: "threading the needle" how many un-powered flybys can you get!! (probably 6 unless you can increase the conic patch limit!)
  7. this hype train has been a long time in the coming... but i think i can hear the sound of a whistle in the distance!! i hope the ticket booth is still operating
  8. Before i back away from this completely (criticisms were invited by @CrazyJebGuy a page ago), in the spirit of helping: cockpit reaction wheels can be toggled on/off by right clicking the part > "toggle torque" any lights can be added or removed to the light action group by going to actions > light a third of anything is always going to be a recurring decimal imperial units are still silly, and ironically are defined by metric standards anyhow! i'm sure this will be quoted in it's entirety...
  9. @CrazyJebGuy since you have been critiquing entries recently, i thought it only fair to review your latest Firstly, on "GPPM" which is some kind of inverse "passenger miles per gallon", lower numbers are much better, meaning that the WTC SST-1 by @Joseph Kerman is (by your own math) pretty much the same as than the GAI Dublup S.S.T. Mk 1, but why are we using gallons and miles anyhow? (and is it survey miles, nautical miles, or country miles?) time to switch to metric, along with the 99% of the rest of the world! ps: the Blasty Systems BS -40 Super has a GPPM of 0.006 Onwards with the (unofficial) review! The craft entry division was unstated, but I'm assuming it goes into the supersonic division. First impressions were that the massively overpowered control surfaces, cockpit reaction wheel, and thrust vectoring make it very easy to destroy the craft or kill passengers with G-force loads, but also allowed for pilot assisted level flight with minimal trim adjustments. While in wet mode with 100% throttle set, cruising speed is vastly higher than stated (leading to dangerous engine overheating) cruising 4,000m @ 940m/s consumes 1.26 x 1,800LF for ~1,300km range (nearly half the range promised in the sales brochure!) However, toggling back to dry mode to reach the desired speed and altitude, cruising 4,000m @ 670m/s consumes 0.36 x 1,800LF for ~3,350km range. While still lower than advertised, this is does meet the requirements specified in the challenge, and raises the question “why did I spend extra for wet-mode?” (because dry mode wont get you supersonic...) Landings are extremely tricky with no way to reduce speed other than thrust-reverse, however with a determined long-and-low approach at under 90m/s it can be achieved, emergency splashdowns should be avoided but are possible by stalling just above the water. Some cons: All control surfaces are unnecessarily set to all control directions (roll, pitch, & yaw) Cockpit reaction wheels are enabled, contrary to rules Main landing gear steering is enabled, leading to some wild taxiing and a change of pants Cockpit lights have not been added to action groups, and so remain unlit Monopropellant carried for no reason Wing panels overlaps experience Z-fighting, and generally flex wildly in-flight with time acceleration And some pros: strong tail strike protection from extra landing gear! Overall, while cheap to buy, this aircraft will crash more often and cost more to operate than comparable supersonic solutions, also it does not come with a stair cart... !
  10. I agree that "big is beautiful", however many airports will need expansion to accommodate them! I recall last year doing the "polar charter challenge" with craft approaching the 1,300 (adjusted) passengers and pretty much everything had to launch and land from the grass The Blasty Systems fleet meet (and exceed in places) the specs requested, are simple and robust, have forgiving flight characteristics (low speed take off and landing, stable without pilot assistance), and for a limited time come with a free stair cart!!
  11. @CrazyJebGuy yeah it's a lot, but they don't really have to judge it if they don't want too. I had a lot of fun doing this challenge quietly on my own (like i do with most challenges) and so thought for a change I'd actually post a submission! Hopefully there is no sea-sickness for the judges, most of these planes fly very easily and smoothly, and are available at rock-bottom-prices....
  12. I'd like to make an entry; presenting the Blasty Systems Fleet!! clockwise from bottom left: Seaplane: BS - 16 splashy cruising 4,000m @ 155m/s consumes 0.06 x 280LF ~700km range for $16,077,000 Turboprop: BS - 24 turbo cruising 4,000m @ 155m/s consumes 0.06 x 400LF ~1,000km range for $15,523,000 Turboprop Variant: BS - 32 turbo cruising 4,000m @ 155m/s consumes 0.06 x 400LF ~1,000km range for $16,373,000 Medium Regional Jet: BS - 72 medium cruising 5,500m @ 265m/s consumes 0.31 x 2,650LF ~2,200km range for $60,457,000 Jumbo Jet: BS - 168 jumbo cruising 8,000m @ 245m/s consumes 0.33 x 5,600LF ~4,200km range for $110,145,000 Supersonic Jet: BS - 40 super cruising 23,000m @ 900m/s consumes 0.21 x 880LF ~3,700km range for $30,475,000 Small Regional Jet Variant: BS - 40 regional cruising 7,000m @ 300m/s gets 0.19 x 900LF ~1,400km range for $19,883,000 Small Regional Jet: BS - 32 regional cruising 7,000m @ 310m/s gets 0.19 x 700LF ~1,100km range for $18,633,000 All planes share common features and construction techniques (T tails, ground level engines, etc..) to the delight of mechanics and dismay of parking attendants everywhere! Passengers comfort is enhanced by better in-flight entertainment (batteries and antenna), and a door (much better than climbing through the usual gaping holes found in the fuselage after landing). Flight controls are standardised across the fleet (4 toggles flaps, 6 toggles thrust reverse) and limited for passenger comfort, although barrel rolls are still possible according to Jeb. Some glory pics:
  13. My tip is to always test-assemble any bases on the space centre lawn before launch, then assemble at site secure in the knowledge that everything will fit... (usually!) There are heaps of ways to deliver your base to site, the following video (not mine) is probably the greatest KSP build I've ever seen!
  14. There are at least 6 people (that we know of) living outside of the earth right now, so i say yes Also I'm confident that with enough time humans will spread life all over the place, either biological or mechanical
  15. @Swacer squad has nothing left to repay its customers, for me (at least) i've received far more than i ever payed for! appreciation that game devs CAN make accurate simulators fun, and can continue to grow a project they obviously love (without resorting to milking it for every cent like some other companies..) an unexpected lesson in orbital mechanics an introduction to, and deeper understanding of, aerodynamics (still cant decide if newton beats bernoulli for lift though..) a keen interest in the history of space flight (from horseback to the moon in only a lifetime?! wow!) rekindled passion for physics and the sciences of space hope for the greater future for mankind (thanks Elon!) Even if the hamburger that squad serves up is a little messy from time to time, it still tastes great
  16. started a new modded career game, and rediscovered the joys of early tech flights!
  17. Can't wait to be able to support Squad by purchasing the upcoming DLC Compared to the vast sums spent over the years on other games (via subscriptions, premium accounts, monocles, and fancy hats), KSP is by far the best value game I've ever played, costing overall only a fraction of a cent per hour to play!
  18. I find myself constantly restarting careers, mostly for the following reasons: extra design challenge imposed by having restrictions for mass, parts count, and availability of parts. role-playing the development of rocket technology (once I get too far up the tech tree things can feel a little easy!) second install to attempt a challenge, which leads too... spent too long away from career game, forgot what i was doing.. start over! (also happens when real life keeps me away from gaming) one time, after (stupidly) killing a whole bunch of kermen I felt so bad that I started over, rather than have to inform the families... mod it 'till it breaks... then start over! (lol also installing a clean copy of ksp feels great, like smelling freshly opened stationary!) squad drops a new version, breaking everything... (see point 6) One day I'll get around to sticking-with and "completing" a career that does it all and goes everywhere, but I may be waiting until retirement to get enough free time! Actually i think i might start a fresh game right now to do this!!
  19. henceforth the Specific Impulse of any liquid waste ejection system should be written as Ispee a separate annotation may be needed for "number 2 stage jettison"
  20. Also forward effects! It's interesting to try to think about how the liquid in a partially filled tank might be directed to a pump suction port while in micro gravity, without using ullage motors or otherwise changing course. Perhaps the craft could spin the fuel to the outer edge of the tank, or maybe some cleverly shaped channels and baffles could use surface tension to draw the liquid to where it's needed. I wonder how (or if) it's done in real life?
  21. *bzzzrrt* *gggggaaaa* the mouse pad jams in the coin slot, and you receive a warning to use legitimate currency only (or fish of a prehistoric nature!!) hopefully inserts a gogonasus....