• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,732 Excellent


About DerekL1963

Recent Profile Visitors

4,108 profile views
  1. Version: Dev #1008 Bug: In the Maneuver Planner, "Tolerance" can (accidentally or intentionally) be set to be blank. This leads to all kinds of problems as it means that burns never terminate and must be terminated manually. (Among other things, this screws up the Rendezvous Autopilot.) Suggest: If "Tolerance" is set to blank, the default 0.1m/s should be restored. I *think* this is present in the current release build as well, ISTR upgrading to a Dev build to cure the "problem".
  2. It doesn't matter how many there are at launch, what matters is how many there are when you're trying to circularize. How many are there are circularization, and are you certain you have enough power? (Open the resources tab and double check.)
  3. You may not have enough reaction wheels, or enough electrical power to keep 'em spinning.
  4. You mention career mode, and sandbox mode... But those aren't the only modes. Your experience is why I play Science mode. I still have the challenge of climbing the tech tree and the cleverness that can require - but I never, ever have to grind for cash. I can do what I want, when I want, bound only by the current state of the tech tree and interplanetary launch windows.
  5. He said "installer", not "in the install folder". Different words meaning entirely different things. I downloaded the Making History installer from the KSP store - and it's a .exe file. There is a world beyond Steam.
  6. If you propulsively brake into low Eve orbit, it's astonishingly easy to land on. Sure, sure, it's got killer gravity - but it's also got a very thick (read: draggy) atmosphere. You don't even really need to land, you can get quite a bit of science from the upper and lower atmosphere. Ike is an easy destination for high/low orbit science. Once you brake into low Duna orbit, it doesn't take much to transfer to Ike orbit. Even with only stock instruments and standard settings, there's enough science out there that you don't need to sweat returning to complete the tech tree.
  7. Do you mean the MK1 fuselage? That holds Liquid Fuel, a Xenon engine needs a Xenon tank. And a battery isn't going to provide near enough power, the Xenon engine will suck it dry in relatively short order. You'll need solar panels and/or a PB-NUK. Also, a Xenon engine isn't strong enough to launch from anywhere except maybe Pol or Bop - you'll need to put it into orbit first.
  8. There's two potential causes: 1) Your lander has poor center of gravity and requires a redesign. 2) Your lander has poor aerodynamics and either requires a redesign or a different flight path. When I did I Jool-5, I found that the best way to maintain aerodynamic control was to fly an extremely lofted trajectory - basically straight up and then performing my gravity turn in the upper atmosphere. Pictures would help diagnose any problems.
  9. Well, no. In the beginning, it was the same trajectory that Ranger and Surveyor (and many non-lunar missions used) used - right from the pad to the moon. The name (which comes from orbital mechanics) persisted even as technology/capabilities increased to the point where a parking orbit was feasible to plan for. (You need restartable engines, more battery capacity, ullage engines and attitude control, a guidance system that will be stable enough long enough, etc... etc..)
  10. Direct Ascent means going directly from one body to another without an interim stop in parking orbit. Nothing more, nothing less.
  11. Not really, no. The political environment of the 1950's-early 1960's was radically different from today. Rockets were growing by leaps and bounds, and a huge engine with no current requirement seemed like a prudent investment in the future. The F-1 wasn't the only such speculative project... Just one of the few that eventually saw the light of day. In some ways, the Apollo CSM itself (in it's earliest incarnations) can be seen as equally speculative... A general purpose earth orbiter, when no clear requirement for such existed. Later, a lunar lander when NASA had no significant funding for such a venture and only the vaguest intention of going to the Moon sometime in the future. ("Possibly in time for the country's 200th birthday" according to some early documents.)