Rusty6899

Members
  • Content Count

    221
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

18 Good

About Rusty6899

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer
  1. I've been thinking this would be a great idea for a while. The way I see it you have the following criteria. Mass Thrust Isp (Vac) Isp (Atm) Gimbal Fuel type Radial Size Each of these criteria could be controlled with slider bars. Scientific advances could lead to a greater range in the sliders. The cost of the engine would be determined by its stats, to avoid making any engines too OP. If this was a node at the end of the tech tree it would work fairly well, as it would provide a need for science after the end of the tech tree has been reached. It would work similarly to the "Future Tech" Technology in Civilization, although it may be better if you could specify what research you wanted to do e.g. "Ultra-High Thrust Engines", "Superlightweight Materials" etc.
  2. They didn't open until after my engines had burnt out, I hit my apoapsis and then semi deployed on descent. They burnt up as soon as they semi deployed. It was probably to do with my trajectory but I wasn't sure if that it could have been avoided. Obviously a couple of back up parachutes would have helped.
  3. I accepted 2 contracts, 1. Test Mk16 parachute between 17000 and 25000m @ 400 - 800 m/s 2. Test Radial Parachute between 19000 and 24000 @ 500 - 1000 m/s I thought the best thing to do was to run the two tests at once by aiming for 19km - 24km @ 500 - 800 m/s. Basically, the parachutes ended up overheating on deployment and Jeb died. I had decided to test the parachutes on the way up as I felt that that gave me a better control over speed. I also separated my engines in the same stage so I couldn't shut them down and my speed went to about 1200m/s. My question is; was the test contract doomed to failure or was it my piloting? In a way, I can understand why there would be a mechanic to allow certain parts not to stand up to the tests that they are faced with (that is probably the point of having a test). It does seem a bit unreasonable to the player though.
  4. My ascent was probably a little bit steeper than that, I probably got to about 60 degrees by 10km and I only managed to get to about 20 degrees by the time my apoapsis reached 80km. I'm sure that it can be done a bit better, maybe a few hundred m/s could be saved.
  5. I was wondering if anyone has a reasonable estimate of the delta-v needed to get to LKO now the new aerodynamics model is in place. It cost me around 3700m/s to get to an 80km orbit (there may be some VAB rounding errors for mass/mistakes in assumptions about variable Isp etc.) my ascent seemed fairly efficient, although I hadn't got quite as much horizontal velocity as I would have liked during my gravity turn. Is that roughly what everyone is getting or am I wasting fuel?
  6. I played it for a few hours last night and noticed a couple of issues. I'm going to wait until I have logged a few dozen hours until I give an overall opinion. I think that valid criticism is good for the game. Obviously I love the game as I'm sure most people on the forum do, the point is whether there are features that could be better and I'm willing to guess there are.
  7. I found SAS to be really poor in 1.0. The rocket would be wobbling about when I was burning with it on and had to turn it off to fly straight.
  8. I think all KSP music is Kevin McCleod music. It's free to use so it is quite popular for games. - - - Updated - - - Beat me to it.
  9. Jeb died recently in a freak climbing accident. Both of the deaths that have occurred in my career have been during survey contracts. The first was Jeb, who was trying to rush down a mountain too quickly. Next was a some other pilot, who forgot to turn on the SAS on take off in a jet and careered off the runway. I have to say I felt pretty sketchy when I immediately went back to the SPH and shoved another rookie pilot in the same aircraft design after he had surely just witnessed his colleague being blown apart by a malfunctioning aircraft.
  10. I've made a Mk2 shutlle, but not a Mk3 one. I may look to make one soon. I think some dedicated parts would make it much easier. The fact that it is so uneconomical doesn't help. Maybe if the fuel tanks cost a lot less, it would become more feasible.
  11. you should be able to control your pitch with your throttle level. More thrust will tip it forward, less to tip backwards. The real problem comes when you release your SRBs, as you will no longer be able to control your thrust vector with the throttle and you will lose control as your COM changes. One way to remedy this is to constantly alter your thrust limiter on the central Mainsail, but it's a bit of a hassle. I think there is a mod that has shuttle engines with better gimbal ranges etc, but I haven't used it yet, so don't know how strongly to recommend it. Also can't remember what it's called ðŸ˜Â. Personally I found making a mk2 shuttle fairly challenging but doable, but I couldn't get a mk3 one to work, so maybe trying a mk2 one first would be a good idea.
  12. I had it explode when I forgot check my staging and the launch clamps released before my engines were burning. Actually, that's probably not the game's fault.
  13. It's the fuel tanks that are extortionate. Empty fuel tanks are often much more expensive than the engines that they sit above.
  14. I'd say that the multi-kerbal cans have to come down in mass. It makes no sense to have the mass/capacity increasing with capacity and if the 1 man cans get much bigger, probes will become so much more efficient than kerbals that you'd be crazy not to use them. Maybe 1.2t for 2 man 1.25m pod and 1.7t for a 3 man 1.25-2.5m pod. Considering that a 4 man mk2 crew cabin weighs 2 tonnes, and a 16 man mk3 cabin weighs 6.5t I don't think that's so unreasonably low.
  15. You're welcome to your own opinions, although I think you line of argument was fairly fallacious.