Jump to content

Alchemist

Members
  • Content Count

    1,735
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,085 Excellent

About Alchemist

  • Rank
    PowerTech Chief Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The way kOS handles it, vessel:position returns the center of mass. And the coordinate system is ship-centered, so for current vessel ship:position=v(0,0,0) Not the most obvious thing, but that's how it works
  2. 1. Assembly: The way you assemble the ship is not prescribed. If you bring fuel from Minmus using pre-existing infrastructure (or even incorporate an old lander you've had around), that can be considered just as part of orbital assembly. However, the final vessel must depart as a single ship from LKO 2. Departure: You are not supposed to interact with anything not included in your ship after leaving LKO - so preexisting fuel infrastructure is out of question after this point. However, if you transfer to Minmus and use ISRU-equpped lander to refuel from it before flying to
  3. It definitely shouldn't (and pretty much can't) be done by simulating the entire thing, let alone custom-built from small parts. But if when you approach the end the things actually simulated are the few parts on the end and then there is just the structure going into the distance simulating the rest of the thing with all the inertia (yes, completely custom code for a specific part) - that's something plausible. Anyway, docking to the hook would be a very Kerbal piloting experience. Because, even if the horizontal speed is matched, you are still on suborbital trajectory and gravity
  4. Sounds rather fun, but I'm not sure I see that much advantage compared to a space elevator. Just shorter string won't be that advantageous, if you end with much higher load on it due to swinging and higher propellant expenses for keeping the counterweight in orbit. Anyway, it would be quite interesting to have support for such superstructures. And it probably should be quite doable with some smart design to avoid full simulation of both ends
  5. True. Of course, Mun's gravity and low altitude also means that it doesn't take much propulsion for emergency landing either, to the point a good RCS system could be enough (and also work as backup in case of attitude control issues). I agree, backup thrusters wouldn't help with that (although, crewed test of something you are pretty much checking if it blows up again or not is quite the Kerbal practice. But pretty much everybody playing KSP sometimes does that - having the revert button causes some specific habits) That pretty much was my point - what if it manages to lift off
  6. An entire base disappearing only to quietly reappear at another location - now that's the real Mun conspiracy. Fortunately for them, telescopes on the surface just don't have the kind of resolution due to atmosphere to see such things going on on the Mun (so unless somebody would use a high-aperture orbital telescope knowing where and when exactly to look - chances of somebody spotting it in action would be pretty much zero). One thing about the saucer prototype I'm a bit concerned of - shouldn't there be some kind of backup propulsion system in case the prototype antigravity drive fails?
  7. I guess the main problem with several players managing their own sets of ships in the single universe would be the fact that timewarp is one of the core mechanics for anything beyond just going to LKO. You can't just force multiple players into the same timeframe. Meaning, you'd need some way to record actions of a vessel to then be able to replay those as another vessel is flown later by real time but around the same in-game time. BTW, this feature to rewind some in-game time and take control of another vessel has applications even for single-player game - from managing a fleet of interp
  8. To be fair, you can manage SpaceX style boost back if you have good enough TWR with just kOS. The general idea is steeper initial ascent than for typical rockets. which leaves you with higher vertical and lower horizontal speed at stage separation - which is also what makes the boost back maneuver cheaper with first stage turning back straight after separation you can even manage to complete the boost back before leaving physics range for atmospheric flight (I would still recommend to increase the packing/unloading range for the stage to something like 35-40 km for both atmospheric
  9. That line is a rather obvious error, however the file might need a bit more investigation. For example, I have some suspicions about what happens if the engine modules are declared in opposite order than they are listed in multimode engine module (namely, secondary engine declared in the part file before primary) - kOS interpretation may give opposite results than actual stock behavior resulting in quite a mess.
  10. Let me see... Nothing too special about the part config in question... what about RAPIER? Yup, broken, too. Let's see the source... great, it has been refactored several times over. Oh wait, where did that come from? https://github.com/KSP-KOS/KOS/commit/567820cbbaebb71092bcd4eb4c0ba6a34f176776#diff-8f94cb2f0d2ce25080591180a75f3360R38 Yes, somebody replaced == with !=. Of course it misfires
  11. Oops... so much for "we bring them home". Sleeping over risky mission parts is not too healthy Kerbin Galactic really seems to share quite a bit of the tendencies to overstretch hardware capacity with where those part designs came from. Which sometimes tends to backfire, unfortunately, especially when the crew is in no position to intervene
  12. Yeah, the surest way to get out of trouble with aerobrake gone too deep... is to have delta v and TWR at which you wouldn't exactly need to aerobrake. On the other hand, participation in the Shuttle Challenge has taught me to appreciate aerodynamic control capabilities on aerobraking (plus, spaceplane configuration makes sure you have proper attitude for emergency boost in case you still need it). Well, at least they had the lander in tow, hopefully there was enough space for the crew and enough time to get in there. But in order for everybody to get back, the two space agencies wi
  13. The question of lift was about why it doesn't stay upside down, but rolls the other way around soon after SRB separation. By the way, this maneuver is not a thing for Buran - it stays belly-up. Which clearly means the reasoning involves something about the configuration after booster separation - and here Shuttle and Energia-Buran have high thrust deflection in opposite directions
  14. To be fair, with most of the thrust being SRBs and most of the weight being ET+SRBs, the resulting thrust vector should still be quite close to being along the ship. But all of this also means the SRBs have to do most of the work on yaw and roll control And to think of it, with such thrust vector, starting pitch program early on (pretty mush as soon as roll to the proper azimuth is complete) and with noticeable deflection from vertical gives a good option to actually pass maxQ with the Shuttle perfectly aligned with airspeed, while the offset thrust compensates for perpendicular to veloci
  15. And what if you lock steering to target:position? Does the effect still remain or is it specific to vector drawing over longer distances?
×
×
  • Create New...