GluttonyReaper

Members
  • Content count

    378
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

265 Excellent

1 Follower

About GluttonyReaper

  • Rank
    734

Recent Profile Visitors

2652 profile views
  1. Soo... what would happen if you turned off unbreakable joints partway through?
  2. Yup, that's the important bit - oxygen atoms have an atomic weight of 16, but oxygen comes in pairs in this case. As such, oxygen molecules have an atomic weight of 32, while water molecules (with only one oxygen atom) have an atomic weight of 18.
  3. Oxygen is heavier than both hydrogen and water - if you want thrust, you want more of it flying out the nozzle. At the sacrifice of some specific impulse, of course, but that's likely less of a certain for launch engines.
  4. No idea, never really followed them.
  5. Danny2462 is still around on places like Twitter, just not making videos at the moment.
  6. To my eyes, it looks pretty orthographic. Kinda like you're taking a picture from a long way away and zooming in, rather than taking picture up close. Not necessarily a bad thing, it's more a stylistic choice than anything
  7. Oh, I wouldn't do it either, but if you want to be efficient about it... I personally find stock station building a little unsatisfying, so I tend to use mods like Stock Station Expansion, just to add a bit more visual variety to things. I've also seen some pretty good looking toridial stations in the past that primarily use Mk2 parts, so there's definitely ways to utilize them outside of planes.
  8. It's also worth adding that two Mk1 crew cabins are actually even better than both in some regards - same weight as a Mk2 cabin, but just over a quarter of the price, with slightly lower temperature / crash tolerances. They don't even take up much more space either, if you put them side-by-side instead of end-to-end.
  9. Well, now I'm curious... what does 'terrain leveling system' mean exactly? A part that accounts for slope so things can be launched vertically from it? Or actual terrain altering? Or something else entirely? Either way, s'gonna be pretty interesting... Getting more excited about this DLC every week now! Keep up the good work!
  10. I don't know what your craft looks like, but I'm guessing the last point of the contract didn't complete because you didn't put the 'root' part of the craft in a sub-orbital trajectory - if you have a mothership as the main craft, the game wants you to use that to fulfill all aspects of the contract for whatever reason, so if you had a separate reentry pod, it might not have counted it. It may have also had something to do with going straight into an aerobrake... the game can be quite finicky about what it counts as 'suborbital' in regards to the atmosphere, although I don't have much experience in that regard, so someone else would be better to confirm that. You don't necessary have to do the whole thing again, though. If you press Alt+F12, you'll open the cheat menu up. In there, you can go to the 'contract' section, and manually set the contract as complete from there, and get the relevant rewards and such. It's something I do occasionally when I'm in these kinds of situations, where I disagree with the game over whether I've actually completed the contract or not - I put in all the work, it's a singleplayer game, so I don't feel particularly guilty about it. The way the 'newly launched vessel' works is that the contract wants a new vessel, not a unique vessel. Which means you can complete four separate satellite contracts with the same satellite, as long as launch it after you take the contracts.
  11. ...as well as the Mk1 Landercan, and an altered version of the Cupola command module from the same mod (I think the original is still floating around somewhere?). And potentially some other parts, although I can't remember any off the top of my head. All of the plane stuff was a mod originally too, with was then improved by another mod which also became stock. I mean, if you really want to split hairs about it, almost everything in KSP was done in mods before the base game. ISRU was done by Kethane/Karbonite (with the modder who created the latter going on to create the stock system, and is still a dev to this day). Career mode was done (in part) by... Mission Control, was it called? It's been a while, I don't exactly remember Wheels were done in mods, probes were done in mods, aerodynamics were done in mods, re-entry heating was done in mods... even docking was done in mods, kind of. So, quite a bit.
  12. No, yes and yes. As soon as there are more than 250 craft marked as 'Debris', the game deletes the oldest of those craft until there are only 250 again. It's functionally the same as clicking 'Abort' in the Tracking Station for those craft.
  13. I think this, perhaps, illustrates the biggest difference between ideal space tourism and adventure tourism. Climbing Mt. Everest, skydiving, high-altitude hiking... all of these are 'active' things. Even if there's someone guiding you along, it's ultimately you who makes the journey or whatever, and I think, psychologically, there's a massive difference. If you get to the top of Mt. Everest... you did that. You challenged yourself to do something and you achieved it. Perhaps you had a long road of personal and physically development to get there, which is likely a worthwhile and interesting story in of itself. If you pay to get in a rocket (and for the sake of example, assume just as risky), and make it all the way into space... you got lucky and managed not to die? Maybe it's satisfying for the engineers. The odds might be the same, but the effect and point is very different, making comparing the two and little difficult... the actual journey into space would be thrilling, sure, but it's not what people are paying for. In that sense, it's still much more like a holiday to an exotic location that an adventure holiday, but naturally far, far more expensive. A similar effect applies here - part of the reason people perceive airplanes as 'dangerous' and some people feel very uncomfortable flying in one is they have zero control over what happens on that journey. If something bad happens to the plane, none of the passengers have any ability to do anything about it, realistically. In a car... even if statistically they are much less safe (arguably criminally so, but that's another discussion entirely), the driver feels in control. If something goes wrong, it's their own fault, or another driver's fault, as far as they are concerned, and they can do something to prevent it. Even passengers likely understand how cars and driving works, and can tell the driver if they think they're being dangerous or doing it wrong. And it's much easier to apply the mentality of "I know what I'm doing, and so nothing bad will happen like it did to those other people," than on a plane where you just have to trust that the pilot knows they're doing. Rockets are even worse in this regard - it's not just another person flying it, it's a computer, that could be susceptible to all kinds of problems that you don't even know about. ...so clearly, the correct solution is to let tourists fly the rockets to space themselves, KSP style
  14. Another option would be to use relay antennas, although the extra weight penalty is pretty significant. Maybe you could orbit a relay just above the atmostphere, and use a 16-S to transmit data out? (Also, antennae or antennas?)
  15. Unless something's changed, it does work... the game will only technically dock with one pair out of the three, but the magnetic forces will hold the other two together with reasonable strength. As already mentioned though, you have to be pretty precise with docking to make sure all three connect at once. EDIT: You can also use autostruts to hold them together - the 'grandparent part' option would probably be good here.