Jump to content

Kerbart

Members
  • Posts

    3,682
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Kerbart

  1. Doh. Those parts they'll image at night, obviously. Looking at the picture @StrandedonEarthposted I'd be more worried about bird droppings on the mirror!
  2. As a GTX-745 owner I luckily don't have to wonder about such things. As of advanced cards right now, only time will tell!
  3. Well, I’m not saying you can’t build big rockets, and surely large payloads require large rockets. But… my recommendation, based on your disclosure that you just started the game some weeks ago, is don’t go there yet. Build up some experience in constructing rockets. Learn to build lean, and get skilled at putting things into orbit,maneuvering them, and landing them. As your DV requirements to safely land on Mun shrink, so do your launch requirements (not to speak of what you need to get into orbit in the first place) . My advice to focus on getting the smallest craft possible to the surface of Mun and back will allow you to fail fast (a 30-part rocket takes less time to build than a 300 part), and learn quickly. Many missions will teach how much DV you really need. Finally, that refinery doesn’t have to be2.5m parts for starters either. The smaller parts are not as efficient, but neither is what you’re launching right now. Build a lot. Learn a lot. You’ll end up with 1/2 (or less) of the rocket to put your refinery on the Mun.
  4. I haven't had as much fun in ages reading this thread. When I checked the pictures my fist incline was are those side boosters using... Mammoths? Don't get me wrong, I'm not laughing at you. Creating monstrous rockets is part of the fun and, you, sir, do have a talent for that. However, a lot can be learned from a "smaller is better" approach, and I emphasized the "learn" word there because I don't mean it as "your aim should be to build tiny rockets" (dream big! build big!) but more that your KSP engineering skills will improve quicker when focusing on smaller rockets first. It's perfectly feasible to go Mun and Minmus using only 1.25m tanks and engines, and just by trying to cut down the weight and part count of a rocket (and launching it again and again and again) you'll develop a better feeling for what good TWR's are, what aerodynamically works and what doesn't, where to place struts, and so on. And once you've mastered that, gradually work your way up to landing bigger and bigger craft on the moon. And then post a picture of your successful mining/refining operation.
  5. I think that's given for any long duration NASA mission and I suspect it has mainly to do with budgeting. “We can't approve running this mission for 10 years, but we can put 5 years in the budget." Once the mission is on the way: "Oh, look, we built our rover much better/didn't need as much fuel" and by magic the mission suddenly lasts 2×-3× as long (it would be stupid to abandon a successful mission because it runs longer than budgeted for, after all). I don't have hard proof but seeing the pattern over and over again makes me really wonder.
  6. I'm not one to be overly optimistic when it comes to software release dates so when the initial date was pushed back to 2022 it didn't really shock me. I also think that the dev team is pretty open and transparent and would tell us about any delays pretty upfront; they haven't yet. But I also think that "2022" doesn't mean "January 1st" and that any release after January 1 means it's delayed.
  7. Surely I hope it gets releases before December 25th. I agree that January 1st is a wee bit optimistic and more likely it will be released much later, but December 25th is taking the 2022 release to a very cynical level.
  8. Totally different case: T2 reissues old games but has them refreshed and upgraded T2 totally botches this release Modders roll out their own upgrade basically saying "DoN't BuY tHaT CrAp RelEaSe GeT OuRs InStEaD." While all of the modders points might be true — It's not inconceivable the newly released game is riddled with bugs, and that the modders did reverse the source code without reusing IP — it's also clear that this undercuts T2 sales. Not just "even if all of the above is true" but especially if the above is true. A lawsuit might be bad publicity, allowing people to pick the free mod over the (probably indeed horrible) commercial release will certainly kill it. From a business point of view that makes the lawsuit pretty much a no-brainer. And yes, had they released a quality product that wouldn't have happened. Now consider mods for KSP2: Enhance the game without costing T2 extra developers Mods require a working copy of KSP2, enhancing sales There's a proven track record that popular mods provide a breeding ground for ideas that can be turned into DLC, generating more sales Whenever I see the word "suits" or "bean counters" it means that, nearly without exception, there is an expectation that the only reason these people go to work is to find ways to torpedo the product. Meetings are about "how can we do the most damage to our sales." Based on the "predictions" I see time and time again on this forum, we can expect that KSP will have "Wing Commander physics" so it can be "dumbed down for the masses," every launch will cost $0.25 in micropayments and they game will be so full of DRM that it hardly runs. And yet... I don't get the impression that's the case with KSP2. The project managers seem to be passionate about the software, and the way they speak about implementation details suggests that it's more than just faking it. They also made clear that mods are a part of the game. And given that mods were instrumental in the evolution of KSP1, leading to its commercial success (selling for many years), why wouldn't it. So, unless KSP2 sucks monumentally, and someone reverse engineers the source code, and releases a mod for KSP1 that turns it into KSP2, I don't expect T2 to launch lawsuits against modders.
  9. No points for having a saboteur on board and spacing him?
  10. As long as they don't list a post for "refund processing senior team leader" I'm fine.
  11. I'm guessing, but... up to about 100 square feet?
  12. The ability to add struts alone is worth it. No more wobbly docked additions!
  13. Quantum target. It's when you're pointed towards the target and the anti-target at the same time. Killing the nyan-cat will disolve the quantum state.
  14. That’s a tough one. HL has a phenomenal story that needs a sequel. Portal 2 is a finished story that needs some convoluted “we need to go back” story to be even remotely believable. But then, P3 would actually get made while HL3 has a curse and will never be published. Having something is better than nothing. Rationally I’d go with Portal but my heart says Half Life.
  15. Surely congress would put an end to such waste of money if it’s pointless. Right? Right? [sound of crickets]
  16. The speed at which SpaceX develops things is incredible. Bezos is right with wanting to get in now. A year from now SpaceX is probably already landing on the moon. ULA has a "proven track record" argument to justify higher costs. BO has pretty much nothing. If you can't compete on price, or merit, go to court!
  17. And an EVA while in orbit of the sun. The flags will “only” get you to 23/4 stars.
  18. But fusion as a viable energy source is only 20 years away!! (of course it's always 20 years away, including 20 years from now...)
  19. But that seems to be the problem with large nuclear powerplants. The question then becomes: how do we take management, out of the equation all together? I'm hopeful about small thorium/salt reactors that can run autonomously and be buried underground without any need for intervention; the less can go wrong. The after-effects of those disasters are short-lived and impact a relative small area. The fallout from Chernobyl (see what I did there?) lasted over 20 years for farmers in Norway and Scotland with hundreds of thousands of sheep producing unusable milk and meat. In addition, if a chemical plant blows up, 90% of the damage is visible. Nuclear contamination is invisible and in the aftermath locals have to rely on government reports how safe things are; the same government that told them in the first place that everything was perfectly safe and nothing, absolutely nothing could happen. From a rational point of view it's hard to argue with nuclear energy but it's such an amazing PR disaster that makes it an incredible hard sell.
  20. But that argument works both ways. Yes, apparently it is possible to build and operate safe reactors, even in disaster-prone areas. But if they manage to get it wrong in a process-obsessed country like Japan, what are the chances that despite the best intentions, we do end up with unsafe plants? "While the nuclear industry is safe and clean, as a whole the possibility of a disaster with large area ramifications is a near-certainty" I'm not against nuclear power but it continues to amaze me that, as an industry, the total lack of understanding that saying "it's impossible for things to happen" when every decade or so something happens is not going to win the trust of the public. Too many engineers in charge is my guess.
  21. For one thing existing designs seem to be struggling with the extremer weather that comes with the changing climate, so those designs probably need to be upgraded as well. Seems like there's no silver bullet. https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/07/climate-events-are-the-leading-cause-of-nuclear-power-outages/
  22. That usually comes up as an argument. “CO2 levels have been that high in the past, so why worry” because it took millions of years to go down because it resulted in a climate that was seriously unpleasant
  23. Probably. I wonder how many of these power rigs there are. And how many servers google, microsoft and amazon employ that blow these limits completely out of the water, but those will not be regulated.
×
×
  • Create New...