Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Person012345

  1. [quote name='Red Iron Crown']It's like throwing a tennis ball at the front of a moving semi truck, some momentum is transferred from the truck to the ball but only the ball's speed changes significantly. In KSP the planet's infinitesimal loss of momentum is rounded down to zero.[/QUOTE] I very much doubt it's calculated at all. I don't think planets are physics bodies, I don't think they're subject to tidal deceleration or anything of that sort either, I believe that their orbits are simply fixed and there's no way to change that. I could be wrong but that's the impression I am under.
  2. If you can't slow down fast enough on approach, begin approach from further away, cut the engines earlier etc. when you come in to land you should have a very shallow trajectory, you shouldn't be nosing down (you should be going slow enough with low enough thrust that the plane is going losing altitude with the nose flat or slightly in the air) and you should be using your thrust and minor attitude changes to regulate your speed and altitude to around 70 m/s until you're ready to land at which point you can cut the engines and touch down at around 60 m/s. Or else you can use the methods listed above. Additionally, shoving a parachute on the back is also an option.
  3. Well this poll is fairly conclusive. As with everyone else I spell it, ksp as a word sounds ridiculous.
  4. I thought this was a pretty picture: [img]http://puu.sh/lrwjX.jpg[/img]
  5. [quote name='cantab']My usual approach is one burn from low Mun orbit, in the right position, to put my Kerbin periapsis at my chosen value for re-entry. This should take 270-310 m/s or so, depending on how high your Mun orbit is. Of course this method is hard without trajectory predictions and manoeuvre nodes.[/QUOTE] This. I simply burn from mun orbit and drop my kerbin periapsis down into the atmosphere then freefall the rest of the way home. I don't know if this is the most efficient but I've never had any problems with it, the delta-V requirements for it tend to be negligable and afterwards I don't have to worry.
  6. I haven't experienced this behaviour. Mine tend to be fine especially if I come in at a shallow angle. I haven't done many re-entries with just a heatshield and a pod though so that may be why. I did notice that heatshield were buggy for me a couple of versions ago and it made me stop playing for a while (the ablator didn't ablate and the heatshield just ended up exploding, followed by the capsule).
  7. [img]http://puu.sh/lqGRL.jpg[/img] [img]http://puu.sh/lqGTD.jpg[/img] What am I doing wrong?
  8. [quote name='disembodied']Look at the moving dots around the orbit. Is your craft traveling in the same direction as they are? If not, there's your problem.[/QUOTE] This is something I definitely overlooked and now you mention it, that is probably the issue. I'll go check. Yup, looks like I'm going the wrong way, thanks. [COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR] [quote name='Right']Yeah that should be plenty close. Check the inclination required for the mission, and your inclination through Kerbal Engineer Redux or MechJeb, you might be traveling in the wrong direction. If you don't have or want to download those, flip infinite fuel on and reverse your direction.[/QUOTE] I have enough fuel to reverse direction, it's only the mun. ;) Alright, it completed, thanks again!
  9. Maybe it's just because I'm a scrub but I would say this is within reasonable deviation of the assigned orbit: [img]http://puu.sh/lof9G.jpg[/img] [img]http://puu.sh/lofhb.jpg[/img] As you can see my probe meets the requirements (I have the contract displayed in the top right): [img]http://puu.sh/lofbR.jpg[/img] What's going on here, why won't this thing complete?
  10. Sub-orbital flights are ones that go into space but don't complete a full orbit.
  11. I've done this and my heatshield just explodes. What's up with that?
  12. Hi. The OP implies there are supposed to be 3.5m (and bigger?) fairing bases, but I can't find them. I'm in sandbox mode. I can only see three standard size fairing bases. What am I missing?
  13. The ARM update announcement says that all I have to do is arm the grapple, approach an object and it'll grab it and this can be done with anything, even kerbals. I tested on a small probe, but it wouldn't grab it. I was bumping it into the centre of the grapple and it still wouldn't do anything with it. How do I get it to work?
  14. Yes Yes, probably Yes. Well it has an entire section on potential problems which specifically addresses one of your questions and I don't think you'd be the first person ever to question whether the structure could hold together so the fact that it's not mentioned is an answer by itself. Nuclear bombs are not magical all-destroying bringers of doom. Although bear in mind, it's all theoretical because we've never actually built one.
  15. Here's a crazy idea, let me just throw it out there: If you don't like the new parts, don't use them. I know, I'm insane right?
  16. You can get good gaming laptops. But they cost. As people have said they're expensive for what they are. It depends on where exactly you get them from but you're looking at maybe 2x, 3x the price of an equivalent tower. And they're non-upgradeable. As said above, check the graphics card. If the graphics card says "intel", run for the hills.
  17. For $19.99 I would think so, but their website would probably know better than us. Edit: It is kind of unclear. I think from what they're saying that you do (and that the second tier will get you a boxed copy on top) although I couldn't say for certain. It may be that there is only a boxed release at final? I doubt that they wouldn't offer a basic tier that didn't include the final game.
  18. Which was also already mentioned
  19. If you can climb the learning cliff aurora is a great time sink. Here's a review/explanation of what it is.
  20. And importantly, by extension, doesn't "exist" within that system (the system in this case being the universe). Although K^2 is probably right also.
  21. FYI, "nothing" is lighter than air. So what K^2 said.
  22. It's not that it should pass through. Each of the colonies should grow and start sending out it's own spaceships. The entire galaxy should be colonized by now. We have a habitable planet and they should theoretically have come to have a look as it would be a candidate for colonization.
  23. I think the answer to the fermi paradox is that they simply never bothered, for the same reasons we haven't bothered yet and by the time they were under cataclysmic threat it was too late. Maybe. Though it is a hard one.
  • Create New...