Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by paleorob

  1. I love how Nedgas Kerman appears to have a mustache in the OP.
  2. Me either. I was just concerned that perhaps chobit didn't understand the criticism leveled against him (her? - I don't know the gender of a chobit.). Not just Indian but the symbol also has deep roots with Native Americans as well. I have a Navajo rug from the 1920s with swastikas all over it. I think this misses the deeper point as well. BTW I know KSP isn't meant to portray America. I don't think anyone was suggesting it should be American. Chobit was suggesting people were mad because it was not American but I don't know of any posts that back this position up. I personally prefer my KSP fan art to be nation-less. It is one of the nice things about KSP is there isn't this whole "my nation is better than yours" that has caused a lot of problems in the real world. Anyway, my opinion is worth exactly as much as anyone else's on the matter.
  3. You shouldn't be concerned about what others want if you are doing something you like. If you like doing this series, continue it. Why does it matter if anonymous people on the internet want you to continue it. Do you honestly think that people are mad because your artwork doesn't depict American symbols or don't like anime-style art? That doesn't seem likely, especially since you yourself talk about the connections between your symbology and historical nations and systems of government. I think you are being purposely dense about the real deal. You seem like a Nazi sympathizer. Not someone who endorses Fascism (I haven't seen any Mussolini or Franco inspired images). You haven't endorsed a political ideology (like someone being a devout Communist); you have tied your work and words to a specific political party that many people associate with specific images and actions. This is all beside the point of what your personal beliefs actually are. My point is what you appear to be, what your online persona says about you (regardless of the high quality of your artwork). I think that is why some people may feel uncomfortable with you or your work, not because you draw kwaii Kerbals or the rockets lack an American flag. Hopefully you take my point in the spirit it is offered.
  4. I would think that we can look at modern IRL space programs to rank things. We have landed static landers and rovers on Mars. No manned capsule has been there. So manned lander with no rover>robotic rover. We have landed manned capsules on the moon, but people seem to think the later landings with rovers are the coolest. Therefore manned rover>manned lander. We have had several space stations in LEO. No one has built a multi-part ship in orbit yet, so I think MPS>station in real life. In KSP it is a bit easier to build a MPS than reality. I think building a station in Jool orbit is probably more impressive than a MPS built in LKO that flew to Jool. One thing I see missing from the ribbons is a solar escape ribbon/device. I mean, who here doesn't think the Voyager probes (among a few others) aren't cool? And it takes more dV to leave the sun's SOI than getting to Jool or Eeloo. Just a thought.
  5. Congrats on graduation! I'm grading term papers but I have plans on rescuing two stranded Kerbals and moving them over to my Mun base.
  6. Unless you end or being aerocaptured by Eve...but even then it will be a decaying orbit with a periapsis inside the atmosphere.
  7. The only space station equipped with landing gear?
  8. But are you actually getting thrust from the LV-N? I would think your LF end cap would block its thrust (like other parts seem to).
  9. I like how people watching the video focus on the water instead of the totally ridiculous and awesome kerbalized ejection seat.
  10. I don't know if the whole mod is (I doubt it) but it looks like those two things will be.
  11. 1st is the IVA for the KSPX (now to be stock) Panopticon. 2nd is the 1 man lander can (also from KSPX).
  12. I vote for that three lakes region on the right-hand archipelago. Scouting missions might find usable landing locations.
  13. I love the new rover parts. The only thing missing is external control seats, which are coming anyway.
  14. I believe the PongSat crew is using a balloon lifter to get their rocket to 100,000 feet before ignition. Not sure how tested it is, however.
  15. I would love to be able to do a "real" shuttle without a tank booster or odd horizontal engine somewhere. Most of my shuttle-like spaceplanes end up center-stack lifted on a traditional rocket (like the DreamChaser/DynaSoar).
  16. Brake check! And then I F5 instead of F9. Only 2.5 km from my destination. DOH!
  17. My Mun rover encountered a problem only 2.5km away from Lonely Outpost. I didn't want to deal with it, so I decided to build a interplanetary ship in HKO. The Pueblo Bonito with orbital maneuvering stage still attached. I've never tried to launch a full orange tank before. I heard horror stories. But if Pueblo Bonito is to be able to cruise the solar system I'll need to give it more gas. So here we go. Still had some gas in the center stack. Didn't nearly use all of the fuel in the OMS either. I guess I can gas up on the two mostly full OMS stages now in HKO later. Docking went smooth as can be. Most balanced RCS placement I've ever done in fact. Thank goodness I saved the craft. I will be using it again. Pueblo Bonito fueled and awaiting a crew and lander. I managed to bust the top docking port off while jettisoning the OMS. Sucks, since that's where I wanted to put the lander. Oh well, I've got another port on the bottom of the Auxiliary Orange Tank to Orbit (AOTtO) I can use. Crew will come up with the to-be-designed lander. I want the crew to be able to get back to Kerbin...but I don't have a firm destination in mind yet. Maybe Eeloo? It's the only body who's SoI I haven't visited.
  18. Yes, yes. The hand-waving explanation works for now since it is unfinished - and I accept that (I must have taken a real deep breath after my resource chart rant). I do hope that in the final version though there are enough tools to allow us to work out solutions to these problems, though. It doesn't have to be fed to us (because the majority of users wouldn't care) but don't leave the science geeks hanging. These questions can be answered or made answerable. It will flesh out the game and give it more depth, in my opinion.
  19. This gets back to my (old) rant about the resource chart. If things are as described objectively by the instruments in-game and by what we experience in-orbit (as Brotoro has stated) we cannot really view the Kerbal universe as using a slightly fudged version of real-universe physics. Too many little things are "wrong" to be explained by the scaling difference between us and KSP. It can sometimes be frustrating for some players (like myself) since we (being the Kerbals in-game) are using advanced materials and technology to get into orbit and yet know less about the material makeup of "our" planets than Lyell and Owen did in the 1800s. It is hard to reconcile this advanced stage of technology (interplanetary crewed rocketry, compact nuclear reactors) with a pre-Victorian level of understanding of the chemistry, biology, and (some of the) physics. It seems like the only physical laws the KSP universe obeys are basic Newtonian (and, apparently, nuclear physics: LV-N). Okay, it is a game. We don't really need to know if plate tectonics and planetary radiation belts exist in order to fly silly rockets around a solar system. True enough. I think that this debate over the amount of radiation a moon of a gas giant underscores the limitations that the game currently has. We have buggy instruments and a limited suite at that. We don't have Geiger counters, mass spectrometers, or even pH meters (to list just a few). Unlike our ancestors in the real world we can't really invent these new instruments in-game. All we can do is guess and deduce based on our incomplete (and potentially wrong) data. Is Laythe habitable? Based on the data we have at hand it has to be. Kerbals sent there don't die. Unless something else comes along to change this we can only go with the data that is presented. Kerbals that go into the sun die. Kerbals that go into Jool die (usually). Kerbals subjected to blunt trauma can die. Kerbals on Laythe don't die so therefore in KSP it must be habitable. tl; dr version: How can Kerbals build nuclear reactors but have no basic chemical data sampling? Also - Laythe is okay for Kerbals because no Kerbals randomly die when on Laythe.
  20. This is something I faced when I was trying to figure out how to dock (and many thanks to the forum for helping me get there) is that I didn't know enough about what I was doing wrong. Someone who doesn't know where they need help can't tell you where they are going wrong. Pictures help people who do know get to the root of the problem (sometimes) because they can diagnose things with experience that the less-experienced player isn't skilled enough to pick out. This isn't a bash on anyone learning. It is just a statement of fact. I was in that same "I can't do this *^*% mode as well."
  21. As a IRL scientist I'd volunteer my efforts for anything sciencey.
  • Create New...