Jump to content

georgTF

Members
  • Posts

    165
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

37 Excellent

Profile Information

  • About me
    Spacecraft Engineer
  1. I care not wheter it's called a planet or plant, i just wish it's historic significance were recognised. It shouldn't be reclassified because romantic notions cannot overrule scientific fact and proven falsehood. Also, what kind of mess would the classification system be if any planet were classified according to fact AND romanticised indulgencies. I am only sad that a representation of the solar system counts 8 planets and stops at Neptune because i am so used to there being a lonely and out of place ....ty little rock at the end of the list. Put a big asterisk next to it, refer to it by an insulting or silly classification, i don't care just put it back on the list. We no longer draw silly mermaids, giant squids or Lovecraftian monsters on maps of oceans and we certainly shouldn't but at the same time we killed off a little bit of romance and made the style way to factual and boring. We can't will ourselves to believe the Earth is flat nor should we make any special dispensation for the fact we believed it to be flat for so long and for the same reason we cannot include Pluto among the planets when it became obvious it doesn't meet the requirements of actually being one. But it has been at the tail end of every model of the solar system before it was demoted and there is no scientific, statistical, encyclopedic or whatever-elsic reason it cannot still occupy it's place especially since other small person planets are also included. And they should be, why make the thing less interesting. Voted no, still cling on the the "Classical 9 planets" model of the solar system even if one of them isn't a planet but is satan's droppings or something.
  2. The most dramatically apropriate outcome would be for the probe to malfunction right now. How is it possible to quote someone and still misquote them at the same time? ^^ I clearly wasn't serious anyway, but i also said right now and "right now" is timestamped at 29th June 2015, 08:35 I am only guilty of providing NASA with a plausible excuse, because what could be more plausible than "Well, we were clearly jinxed by some arse on the internet." Lol, anyway i do want to see close-ups of Pluto in my lifetime much like the rest of us. [edit] That said, i'll take the bashing if it helps. The cruel gods of space anomalies might be amused if i were tossed into a volcano or something. Heck even i would be amused.
  3. The most dramatically apropriate outcome would be for the probe to malfunction right now. All these questions, and no mission scheduled for another 20 something years. At least. Part of me wants to jinx the probe now. And think of the amount of bs that will be spewed out by idiots who will claim there are 'faces', alien pyramids, death stars, visitors, and if we're lucky maybe even a mass suicide cult. The potential is enormous! It's not often that i think science should shove off in the name of entertainment, but the more i think about it, the more my IQ seems to drop. Die New Horizons?
  4. Well i have been a user for several years now and in my experience the updates were allways slower. Never to the point where it upset me or took more than 1-2 days, but if a patch rolled out just as the folks who work there left office, it could obviously affect time it takes to roll out updated files. I suspect in this case the delay was caused by the 1.0.4 hotfix coming on the heels of the 1.0.3 update, but that's just a guess. I don't exactly know how KSP and it's updates fare in gog land because i update from the store. By downloading the entire game... Generally the update song and dance is similar across games these days. Steam is usually first, sometimes quicker than dev's own website or less clogged up. Other distributers such as Gog, HumbleStore or whatever are hours or up to a day or so behind.
  5. Gog is usually slow with updates and it usually takes 24h or more as they don't have people working round the clock or manpower/resources of Valve. Memories are short and people forget just how terrible Steam was for years and how long it took for it to become a very good client. Gog Galaxy has been in alpha for about 6 months and is currently beta with LOTS of features still missing or not working properly. Gog does provide updated installers for the standalone new version of a game and usually an upgrade patch that patches the game to the latest version. These are created manually and though it's not a terribly slow process by itself, there could be a queue of updates for multiple games each day. It also doesn't help if there's a patch followed quickly by a hotfix patch, which is kinda exactly what happened with the two updates of KSP they've had to deal with so far. Yes i'm defending them here, and it's true they should pickup the pace of updates, BUT the forgotten upshot here is that whereas Steam just steamrolls over your current version of the game, Gog allows you to download each version installer separately, back it up, install it unlimited times and play it whenever you like. This is the other side of the coin with games that are still getting frequent updates because often those bork mods or change gameplay. Steam is quick to update but unless you made manual backups, you're going to be playing the latest version wheter you like it or not. You also need internet access on every computer you wish to update your game on, whereas Gog's installers/patches allow for offline installs. Steam is definitely more convenient and easier to use, until it stops you from doing what you want like updating offline, disabling the client or playing an outdated version. Gog is slower but less likely to interfere with the customer playing the game they own in the way they want, which includes butchering and modding it. I don't think they're evil, in fact i kinda think they deserve some love. But if slow updates are a problem send them feedback that they can go to hell and wont see any of your money again until they improve the update process. It's an effective threat.
  6. I'm not alone in thinking that what i'm seeing here looks a bit like Minmus, am i? I know it's still too far away and pixellated/artificed, and maybe i'm seeing what i want to see, but that planet looks kinda lumpy.
  7. I'm a Gog user though i own KSP in the KSP store and update from there. I also use Steam. Gog tends to be a little slower with updates and it's not unusual for patches to arrive a day or two after release. This is partly because Gog doesn't have the resources of Valve and partly because they provide update packages. Not sure if this is the case for KSP but normal practise is to see an updated installer for the full game and a separate patch to avoid having to download and install the entire game. Gog Galaxy (Gog's new Steam-like client) should automatically update the game much like Steam would. The upside is that with Gog it's possible to install separate versions of KSP to separate folders and keep multiple versions running or play an outdated version. Something Steam normally prevents because the client insists on only allowing the updated game to start. Don't get me wrong, i like Steam a lot but this is one of the few things that can really get in the way of enjoying the game, latest version or not. Gog Galaxy is supposed to introduce a rollback feature and allow the user more control over which version to install. You can still use Gog's installers even if you let Galaxy manage the game and it's updates. Also handy for downloading patches/games on one machine then installing on another where there's no internet. So slow updates = bad, but more control = good. Depends how much you like to mod games or keep installers of previous versions.
  8. Call me lazy but when departing Minmus i just burn prograde or retrograde relative to Minmus' orbit and ignore the period businness altogether. The influence of it's gravity accounts for less than 100 m/s or thereabouts. It takes about a week to reach Minmus, and orbiting there can be painfully slow (and burning direct to target is not 100% accurate). Add in the whole business or constructing an orbital base and i certainly understand why it would be more complicated. Thing is, i like having a station there anyway. Plus fuel production is very cheap in terms of Dv lost to gravity, and there's a lab there analysing various types of icecream collected from the surface, and i enjoyed constructing a station from several bits.... In a way, since it's there anyway i like using it, but it's not THE way to do it. And using Minmus for departue can mess with ideal launch windows, i have to admit that.
  9. I had fun with sky cranes but eventually stopped bothering with them because they increase the complexity and workload. Most of the time it is more practical (it is a game afterall) to include self-landing capability when designing whatever surface vehicle/base/craft. Sky cranes are separate craft designed to de-orbit and safely land other craft, usually bases or surface facilities that will not take off or move anymore. Sky cranes are usually disposable though sometimes they can be recovered and refueled for use with another landing payload. Think of them as reverse lifters or semi-landers. The upside to dedicated sky cranes is that that are re-usable as long as they can be refuelled in orbit of whatever body they're used in. One other use of sky cranes is surface delivery of a lander that WILL takeoff and return to orbit but does not have enough fuel for both landing and takeoff.
  10. I build satellites that have a free node on top so that i can attach another satellite there. Alt+left (IIRC) click allows you to "pickup" a collection of parts so you can grab the entire sat as a copy, then stack it on top of the first one. Repeat as needed. - It may be neccesary to change the root part to make it possible to pickup the entire sat, sometimes VAB/SPH can be a bit silly. In this example, the stack separator + satellite can be stacked indefinitely. Or as long as the fairing allows.
  11. For me Minmus is the takeoff point for interplanetary flights, not LKO. I lift things with less than full tanks, reach Minmus, refuel and away we go. Having a mining operation in LKO strikes me as fairly pointless since Kerbin is itself a source of fuel. It's true that lifting that fuel costs cash in droptanks and fuel used but i what i usually do is take a lifter without payload into LKO and leave it there for spaceplanes and such to use, then deorbit and recover what is possible. A nuclear tug can easily move larger bits to Minmus for assembly or refuelling. I know LKO offers a bonus from the Oberth effect, but Minmus has almost no gravity to interfere with either mining or launching interplanetary flights. Maybe i just prefer it.
  12. There are lifting engnies, airbreathers, tiny/ion engines and then there are orbital engines. Those are usually not very powerfull but are economical and the nuke is extremly economical so it's often the engine that gets the best range. 909, aerospikes and poodles are all very good engines and are often picked over nukes when the craft is very light, or needs a high thrust engine. Landers need to burn very quickly sometimes for example. Nukes are also terrible for orbital insertion burns when there's no chance of airbraking. They're also very heavy and the craft needs heat management. I don't think it's hype per se, it's just that it's damn hard to find a reason not to use them simply because of the glorious range they offer. Since spaceplanes use LF tanks and are usually not too heavy they are very well suited for nukes, and SSTOs are very popular so there's some hype there. Tugs or fuel tankes also also ideal craft for nukes. Basically any craft that isn't too light or too heavy, or doesn't need to be thrifty with fuel or high Dv burns done in very little time, is better off using the nuke than anything else. The fact that is't heavy, bulky and hot is for balance and to give other engines a purpose. They're far from underpowered. They're pretty balanced with their problems, otherwise they'd be OP.
  13. In fairness real engines and tanks are much more efficient than those in KSP. Since KSP has a smaller planetary system the real engines would have been overkill. Probably the main reason would be to not risk the return vehicle getting damaged on the Moon. It was a first landing afterall and nobody knew for sure if they'd land safely or return after landing so in the worst case at least someone would make it back. Someone close enough to help understand what went wrong. Reliability and crew safety are comically ignored by KSP. I don't mean that as a knock on KSP, just saying it's something our flights never have to factor in.
  14. It's not just the engines themselves, it's the rest of the craft that plays a large role in heat distribution. For example i've cobbled together a nice SSTO with two nukes that can burn in excess of 10, maybe even 15 minutes without overheating (partly in athmosphere though). The heat distributes across small LF tanks and then into Mk2 LF tanks, then wings and other bits. On the other hand when i pushed 6 nearly empty orange tanks using 4 nukes (it was part of a space station assembly), the engines threatened to explode before completing the Kerbin LKO - Minmus transfer. That was only 2-3 minutes... In that case nukes were attached to converters and orange tanks, and i suspect the orange tanks, despite being good heat insulators were also guilty of not dissipating heat to the rest of the craft quickly enough, so the heat accumulated in the engines themselves. Pictured: SSTO after Mun takeoff. Heat overlay showing heat distribution. Station module in the VAB; I don't have a screenshot of it overheating but it is atrocious. Heat management is a thing now that nukes produce so much heat, and it's a fair trade. They're already beating almost every engine out there in vacuum performance, they need some weakness/downside.
  15. I'm not 100% sure this is true. I still occasionally get 'science from space around Kerbin' type contracts, even after orbiting Eve (and i get NO science from EVE...). It does make sense that docking contracts would dissapear though as they are more of a milestone than a source of income/research. For the record, i have seen the contract but can't remembe if i've taken one. I was mostly busy rescruiting, to invent a new word...
×
×
  • Create New...