• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

876 Excellent

1 Follower

About Alchemist

  • Rank
    PowerTech Chief Engineer
  1. What did you do in KSP today?

    Could be a thermal system kraken - it might just melt on its own heat
  2. At least Sanny didn't forget to grab a chute. After this long as a ghost, such details could seem not so obvious
  3. There aren't too much restrictions on usage of mods, apart from atmosphere alterations and straight cheating (and also exact limits on autopilot use are somewhat discussable). The only thing is that anything affecting flight performance (like modded propulsion or airframe) puts you in modded category (other things like information mods or additional payload components - if not interfering with mission requirements - are usually OK for stock category)
  4. To be fair, there may be more levels to that: Concept of somebody getting hurt due to some actions (or lack of thereof) involving advanced technology - something they have to understand quite well to avoid unfortunate accidents at this tech level Concept of taking intentional actions that are likely to cause harm to others or severe property damage - even if the current generation tends to dismiss the very thought, such a possibility was quite on the table in the backstory... but then they contemplated it and concluded that they have no idea of what can ever come of it other than total destruction Concept of getting something you want (or just cleaning your path to that) by intentionally causing harm to others or treating to do so. Unfortunately, submitting to violence can be even more damaging than responding with violence, since only submitting to it creates proof that this kind of action can actually get something done - thus giving at least some people a reason to consider it an option (instead of something that is guaranteed to fire back) But yes, a society that first creates and mass-produces advanced technologies capable of causing serious destruction and only then starting to consider the possibility and implications of using violence to satisfy ambitions - that's a good concept to explore. And it ought to get different conclusions than people used to low-tech violence (and thus also constantly evaluating militarized application options for any high-tech invention)... although after reaching a certain tech level the conclusions (at least about militarizing particular kinds of cutting-edge tech) seem to start converging to peaceful mode no matter the starting point (but with different amount of... experimental proof necessary, depending on analytical capabilities and acceptance of lower-destructive violence, unfortunately). And also one of the most hypocritical things - the way some people make a huge difference between an almost certain-kill attacks and semi-randomly spraying projectiles at the opponents with "those who actually get killed - it's their own bad luck" Maybe it could as well be quite different in our world if children weren't so much allowed (and to some extend even encouraged) to use violence (including psychological - which is most common and most overlooked) on each other as long as they don't cause too much damage or lay their hands on something too destructive. Yes, just the difference between "any violence is counterproductive and will either backfire or escalate into loss for everybody" and "violence is kind of acceptable as long as you don't overstep a certain threshold" messages (with the latter also leaving the room for "going out with a bang, so that it backfires on them too for once!" solutions) P.S. My own opinion of armed conflicts could be somewhat close to your Kerbals: "Waging war by the rules? If you are civilized enough to agree on rules, why can't you make agreement without violence? No, I don't propose going full-out over any petty squabble, but considering this option is a good argument for not starting the fight at all."
  5. So basically the primary difference of this thingy is that its indented use goes completely against safety rules (or what's the Kerbal equivalent? trying not to make too much mess?) for all the other equipment listed
  6. Well, I tried to finish my Duna-3 mission. Found a proper window for Duna-Eve-Kerbin maneuver (with over a year of waiting at Duna and an option to get straight to Kerbin faster - yeah, not exactly what that was meant to be for)... only to discover that it takes not only 1 km/s for Duna-Eve ejection burn (which I still have in the tanks) but also over 300 m/s for mid-course plane correction (which I don't have even if I take all the fuel from the satellites). This window turned out to have terrible plane alignment for Duna-Eve flight (on the other hand, it gives an option to arrange Kerbin intercept after slingshot with no further corrections). Looks like I'm a bit stuck... and the lander reaches orbit with barely any fuel left (aerodynamics? ask the shuttle not the payload). It will likely take quite a few runs down there to refuel the shuttle to the appropriate level. Not that we have anywhere to rush anyway Hah, if the previous Duna landing went as initially envisioned (that is with deployable mining rover, like the one used on Laythe), I could have solved the issue by revisiting the landing site with the shuttle itself. But right now the contraption I brought this time has the only usable ISRU rig around there.
  7. I think it may be the worst transliteration I've seen. If not for one word that's too difficult to mess up, wouldn't guess what it was supposed to be at all Wut?! Come on, this is 100% unrecognizable without reverse engineering after already getting a hint on what it is. Yup, tearing "teen" part out of numbers just doesn't work for other languages OK, I don't even want to check the source out, you've already broken the autotranslator in my head
  8. And we have landed! - Hm, weren't we supposed to use another craft? - Whatever. This one is better - Yeah, right. Was anybody counting the reloads? - But now we found the proper way to land it here! And with much less mess than initial version. - Guys, I don't want to spoil the fun, but the ISRU rig is not in the shuttle this time. - Oops, another reload OK, enough messing with the shuttle, here's the actual lander. And quite reliably doing its job here, unlike an aircraft with barely any air to use Why is the terrain so ... whitish? It had enough fuel (and it even was loaded only by 2/3!) for 90 degree plane change (overshot the actual pole a bit, but it looked like the Kraken made a nest there). But for the return to the station we'll have to hop to some more equatorial location first (well, haven't somebody requested a reusable lander?) Unfortunately, the small ISRU converter is not that good (was considering taking the large one, but the total size went a bit through the roof payload bay) so it may take a while. Not that we have a window for return trip anywhere soon anyway. P.S. Actually it takes just couple days (Duna days, not Kerbin) to refuel, even if the panels can't support everything at full power. Not that long, if you don't try to refuel entire HRO.
  9. Show off your awesome KSP pictures!

    #STS challenge
  10. What did you do in KSP today?

    My shuttle brought a lander to the station. The lander required some assembly work, as you may have noticed
  11. There's a little issue about docking a shuttle to a station - the shuttle may turn out larger than the station and then it's difficult to say who is docked to whom
  12. Some leaked orbital testing footage. Guess what this is all about... And all of this didn't want to fit into HRO-M too well. But then HRO-M03 has slightly longer bay due to the ramp. At least these parts have no issue with getting out of the bay. Still need to work on couple small things - satellites got damaged when I tried to release them
  13. Это про недостачу потребляемых ресурсов - если не смог получить даже этого количества, то глохнет, иначе идёт на заниженной тяге. Разумеется, это про ситуации, когда ресурс чем-то генерируется - хотя бы те же воздухозаборники для ВРД. А с ракетным двигателем всё просто: топливо кончилось, движок заглох, пора сбасывать ступень - доступное топливо резко падает в ноль и этот параметр ни на что особо не влияет. Если только не заниматься производством топлива на лету
  14. Maybe as alternative options to STS-2a? Because as far as the shuttle flying part goes, there is not that much difference (unlike further missions that do increase requirements for maneuvering the orbiter) - get to parking orbit, deploy the payload, return to Kerbin. But alternative payload options are really interesting The badge requirements could be for Pilot just to get the probe in desired orbit, but for Commander to use the advanced maneuvers (aerobraking or gravity assists). Yes, STS-2a could really become a list of possible destinations for the payload (with possibility to expand if somebody designs a good mission). Something like this: KSO - at least 2 satellites to stationary orbit. Commander badge: at least 3 equally spaced satellites deployed with spin-stabilization Mun - ? Sun - polar orbit. Commander badge: use Jool slingshot Eve - polar orbit. Commander badge: use aerobraking to get into near-circular low orbit Moho - ? Maybe just flyby for Pilot and orbit for Commander (+ possibly Eve slingshot) Duna - ? Maybe could involve a rover Jool - put main craft in orbit and drop an atmospheric probe. Commander badge: use slingshot(s) around inner planets, perform flybys of at least the larger moons of Jool. And then there could be Probemaster badge for completing at least 3 or 4 of these destinations (separately or together) + STS-3
  15. As the one who made this (yup, 100% flown by kOS - replicating the way the real flight went), let me give some thoughts: In any case the question is never about fully manual flying of something this complex (we do have stock SAS!), it's about how far and in what way it should be allowed to step beyond this SAS functionality In the current form (unlike the very first version of the challenge) this progression of missions can be considered to be more of the engineering than piloting challenge. Including the challenge of building something you can reliably fly manually and/or with relatively simple automated/semi-automated tools. Heh, I still consider myself not that good of a pilot. Even after this insanity. And a few others. It's more like HRO is the overengineered masterpiece optimized to work with my piloting capabilities. This brings us to the true point behind this kind of rule - excessively versatile externally designed autopilot capable of handling even a very poorly designed shuttle basically negates both engineering and piloting challenge. Haven't touched MJ for quite a while (once took part in a challenge where it was kinda requirement - got fed up with designing for this smartS thing, decided it's more fun to design for my skills... or to design the autopilot as well), but as far as I remember its arsenal varies from simple semi-automatic assistants to that very level of doing half the mission in couple clicks with almost any craft. But there is also another aspect greatly amplified by the very nature of asymmetric craft, especially given many of us use keyboard - combination of large control deflection necessary for balancing with only small input needed for course adjustment. I'd say I don't mind any control assist system (whether it is plugged into stock SAS or uses similar-level control override) as long as the navigation input is either manual or follows a simple formula/profile (preferably, adjustable on user's end). And to be fair, apart from this sensitivity issue, ascent profile of a vertically launched shuttle doesn't differ much from that of a regular rocket. For ascent I really don't mind some simple guidance/assist, since nobody pilots that manually IRL anyway and specifics of such asymmetric launch configurations go way beyond Kerbal-style full manual piloting. Besides, the main engineering challenge for this part is still here no matter the autopilot - if you don't balance it properly across the entire range of fuel levels, it will flip no matter what. By the way, my Energia-Buran replica can go all the way through ascent with just switching between hold attitude and prograde SAS modes, HRO (with more STS-like engine configuration) requires just a little initial nudge to start pitching in the right direction. At least if there is no need for doing something serious with roll. but any course adjustments are done by pulling against prograde SAS - which is not the best idea with higher thrust vector deflection. A little bonus: quickly made Space Shuttle replica, inclined orbit launch and me totally not used to flying something like this without halved framerate - one big mess of a launch. Well, a legit reason to send a rescue mission, isn't it? Plus, I think there would be no real objections for using ascent autopilots to optimize performance needed for difficult missions, if it is already demonstrated that the spacecraft (with similar payload mass) is quite controllable during ascent using simpler means. Landing, on the other hand, is exactly the part with a serious navigation (especially if you aim for KSC or any other location) and piloting challenge (plus, of course, the engineering challenge to make it controllable. I said controllable, not barely getting out of corkscrew flat spin 200 m above the ground!!! Been there, flew that. Do not recommend). This is definitely the part where it's better to be careful with allowances. I'd say, piloting assistance (like keeping/limiting AoA or some smart smoothing of control inputs) could be allowed, but no automated third-party landing navigation. It's also rather interesting how this rule turned around from "no autopilots except couple standard solutions" to "no autopilots in atmosphere except self-made" Another thing to consider about allowing autopilots: what would the real crew do if if automatics failed at the particular part of the mission? If it's immediate switching to abort sequence, then maybe this is the part best given to autopilot. If it can be salvaged in manual mode - the cosmonauts would get trained for doing this operation in full manual. Russian rule for this is "the spacecraft should be capable of doing its mission fully automated the crew should be capable of taking manual control at any point".