Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by KerikBalm

  1. A "cushioning" effect near the ground that makes slowing descent rate to a tolerable limit/avoiding colliding with the terrain easier, but putting the plane down before running out of runway/ putting down on rough terrain harder
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket#Pendulum_rocket_fallacy https://handwiki.org/wiki/Astronomy:Pendulum_rocket_fallacy It is behaving as it should. You'll have to rely on either differential throttling of the rotors (can be done via a kal controller, but its not ideal and has quite some response lag), If you enable pitch, yaw, and roll, control on the propeller blades, you can make it work somewhat, but once you increase blade pitch to their optimum AoA, any change (increase or decrease) will decrease lift, so as you approach your max altitude, this won't work either So lastly, there's the aerodynamic stabilization with good ol' fins/wings. This can work if you climb rapidly, but as you slow to a near hover at maximum altitude, this doesn't work so well either. That's why my eve ascent vehicle designs were planes flying nearly horizontally
  3. That's like saying that we shouldn't say that making the atmosphere of Duna thinner won't affect new players getting to low kerbin orbit. The atmospheric thickness of Duna literally has no effect on getting to LKO from the surface of Kerbin. Atmospheric tilt literally has no effect on getting to LKO from the surface of Kerbin. Player experience does not change this
  4. They won't have to deal with it at all until they are going beyond kerbin orbit. Going to Mun with, say 2 deg of inclination, will be rather insignificant, there won't be anything to deal with, unless you are going for perfection. Going to Minmus will be the same, as it's already an inclined orbit. But this does raise a point, will there be a view mode that aligns with a planets axis/ rotational plane? Can we switch between a view alignment with the ecliptic an the planets axis?
  5. 1) axial tilt has no effect "as soon as you get off the ground", it would only become a factor once trying to go to Mun, Minmus, or farther. 2) it's exactly equivalent to getting to Minmus with Minmus' orbit being out of Kerbin's rotational plane. So essentially, you have to deal with a slight inclination difference when going to Mun, instead of a larger one when going to Minmus. My way would have players likely notice something is going on if they don't adjust inclination, but given the low tilt, and Mun's size and proximity, you'd still easily get to Mun without adjusting inclination. Minmus on the other hand... if you don't match inclination, you will easily miss the intercept or arrive on a very inconvenient trajectory (unless you are meeting it at an An/Dn). It wouldn't do much at all to the difficulty curve, it might even help. 3) personally speaking, getting rid of these 0,0,0 orbits (no eccentricity, axial tilt, nor orbital inclination) would help with suspension of disbelief. The parameters are defined anyway, it's not like it increases the computational load. I don't care if it's miniscule: if it's barely noticeable, and only skilled players notice it, then that's great. It doesn't harm/ overwhelm the new players, and it adds some depth for the experienced ones
  6. So my thoughts: - within Kerbin's SOI: axial tilt is equivalent to having Mun and Minmus inclined. Giving Kerbin an axial tilt of 6 degrees, and Mun an axial tilt of 6 degrees in the same plane changes nothing as far as getting to Mun A degree or two of axial tilt doesn't change much. Even putting Mun at a 6 degree tilt doesn't make much difference given its size and distance (although it is quite relevant for Minmus Kerbin could easily take 1-2 degrees of axial tilt, enough that new players will notice it has an effect, but not enough to really screw up their early missions. - outside of kerbin's SOI: * it won't change things dramatically for interplanetary transfers, as the effect of axial tilt will be much less than the effect of kerbin's orbit not being coplanar with the target body Currently duna has an ever so slightly inclined orbit, and even Eve has a 2.1 degree inclination. Have you ever really noticed issues with Eve and Duna's inclination? No? Then a few degrees for Kerbin won't matter either Many players won't even insert into an orbit of kerbin within 2 degres of an equatorial one anyway, its within the margin of error. Overall, I think they should ditch the bodies with perfectly circular, 0 inclination, 0 tilt orbits. Add a little eccentricity, tilt, and inclination, but for the starting system, keep it small, within the margin of error of newbie orbits anyway. 1-3 degrees of axial tilt for Kerbin is fine for new playes, 23.5 degrees is too much for new players. If larger axial tilt is introduced, then players might ask for dynamic ground/planet textures to reflect growing and shrinking icecaps to go along with seasons.
  7. Well, to be realistic, the LV-N should overheat after thrusting, and you should have radiators on standby to cool it after a burn. This would be rather complicated to model. You'd also have to pre-heat it before thrusting, and again, a radiator would be useful there. Anyway, want more TWR? That's exactly what the LANTR is for. Fwiw, I never had issues with lv-ns overheating, except in earlier 1.0x versions. Maybe it's the clustering that is the problem, because all my designs that I can remember have 2 or less lv-ns per nacelle, and don't overheat. I remember some 4x clusters, I don't remember if they had heat problems. Anyway, 1.0 m/s/s I consider to be pretty decent. The LV-N has been nerfed a lot from it's earlier iteration of 2.25 tons (3 now). And there are more advanced plans for higher TWR NTRs (project timberwind). If we have to deal with radioactivity in ksp2, I wouldn't mind a "timberwind" style thrust upgrade. Of course, we don't know if ksp2 will have part upgrades
  8. https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Parts/Cargo/GroundAnchor/groundAnchor.cfg Please tell me how
  9. So I don't have that mod, but from the wiki, they have a colorized heightmap, which I have circled candidate spots: Don't know how deep those spots are. I wonder if they are above Crush depth. On another note, I am now playing 6.25x, with 0.35x modifier to heigh (thus 2.1875x modifier to heights and depths), so I'm looking for depths of 140-180 meters (depending on if crush depth is 300 or 400 meters, I must test). Plus, you know, making such a long/tall vessel is also a pain, so something shallow but still out of sight of land is what I'm looking for
  10. I had to text edit the stamp o tron underwater, but I used it here to anchor an offshore mining rig to the seafloor, where I could mine. But... it's not practical to mine very far from shore. Especially with part pressure limits on. Don't think that it will allow me to have a fueling base in the middle of the ocean (Kerbin or laythe or eve)
  11. 2 of the new ones do: https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/S2-33_"Clydesdale"_Solid_Fuel_Booster - only 1 degree though https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/S2-17_"Thoroughbred"_Solid_Fuel_Booster - only 2 degrees
  12. I will just link to 2 of my previous posts. Without Breaking ground: With breaking ground. The propellor/helo blade/fan blades don't seem to work, but control surfaces do:
  13. Since I'm playing with part pressure limits on, I'd like to know what the limits are to my submarine aspirations. 1) Do all parts have the same crush depth, or can some go deeper than others? 2) Does Crush depth vary from planet to planet? (Assuming the same water composition, Crush depth should be deeper on Laythe than on Kerbin, due to the lower surface gravity. Crush depth should be higher on Eve IF the seas are made of something with the same density as Kerbin and Laythe's oceans) 3) Can anyone provide a map of the seas of Kerbin, Laythe, and Eve that have an accessible sea floor to craft with part pressure limits on? 4) Is there any resource that can show the parts of the seas that are shallower than X meters? It would really help with some mission I'd like to pull off.
  14. So now questions for discussion 1) Does anyone else want to show their ocean bases? 2) Is there any way to make a floating base with hanging drills stable, are waves a stock thing, or scatterer/Kopernicus thing (stock I think, I don't think Scatterer does anything to the oceans except visually - I used kopernicus to rescale the system to 6.25x, but I don't think that would cause wave/jumping effects in the ocean) 3) Where are good locations for this sort of base? Does anyone have a resource for looking at seafloor depths? I'd like to see some proposed locations where the sea floor isn't too far down, but the nearest land is still far away. (Yes, any thing other than a shores biome won't have ore without modding, I am willing to mod that) 4) Can anyone confirm that stamp-o-trons can't be placed by a kerbal underwater? It would be great if there was actually some trick that would allow them to be placed under water without text editing. 5) Does anyone have any good ideas for how one can actually build/launch and transport a base like this, and get it down to the surface of Laythe/Eve (I also have in mine my modded Duna with some seas, and my "Rald" planet based on Mars, which has a large northern sea). I was thinking of making several sections of the pipe/tube/hanging bits, and dcking them together in orbit, then docking them to the floating base... But getting the height right for the place where the base lands is going to be very difficult. Also, moving the base via docked boats at the surface is... not effective as the CoM is way down below, and resistance is very high. I'm thinking I will have to cheat this... get the base somewhere in the ocean, then cheat the base to the right part of the ocean where the ocean depth matches the depth of the hanging bits... I'm going to have to cheat the stamp-o-tron in position anyway... Any ideas for how this could be made adjustable through the use of engineer construction?
  15. So I wanted to make a functional base out at sea. At the moment, bases have 2 purposes: science production from labs, and production of fuel. Also at the moment, all bodies have no ore in their ocean biomes - easily modded (plus the shores bio of Kerbin has ore, including the underwater parts). So, as far as undersea bases, its not convenient to produce fuel there, given the difficulty achieving negative buoyancy (both keeping the base down, and having a sub get down there to take up some fuel. So, I figured that I would try to place a stamp-o-tron underwater, that way I could attach mining machinery to the bottom, and it won't matter how ore levels fluctuate after, and I may also be able to link it to a base on the surface. Here's my diving+ming bell: Didn't work: It seems that you can't place these things under water... nuts... ThenI tried a floating base, with mining equipment hanging down to touch the surface, this actually works, but waves (is this stock, or a scatterer ocean thing?) make the base jump around alot, and it wasn't doing good things for the kerbals walking around the deck. So... I cheated by text editing. First I placed a stamp o tron with a docking port, and then text edited its height and location in the ocean. Then I used the cheat menu to put my mining base at what should have been right above it. Then I used the offset tool and an engineer in construction mod to join them: That worked... Look at that ore production, now boats, subs, seaplanes, etc can come refuel without leaving the water... A kerbal enjoying the view and walking around on the base. Now the next thing I need to do is to link up many segments to make a really really long section extending to the seafloor, and figure out how to get something like this in orbit, and then to laythe/other bodies with oceans so that I can have these farther from shore. This isn't quite the isolated outpost in the middle of the ocean that I was going for, its not ready for Laythe:
  16. As he described, yes, but with a purely suborbital 1st stage, it can be a massive bonus. Also, my first stages have no ISRU. I have a ISRU rover for that. It works as a system for getting mass to or it of eve, but not as a "go anywhere in the solar system" system. The abstraction if ksp2 should focus on getting tons of resources to orbit via supply lines, accounting for reuse. That should require demonstrating a flight with recovery. The payload vs resource cost is calculated, and those are the fees for sending supplies to an orbital depot/destination. No automation of flights, just abstraction of resource transfer after proof of concept flights
  17. Stage recovery is an excellent opportunity for cooperative multiplayer. I use recoverable first stages all the time, with Kopernicus as my only mod (scaling up the system, not worth it on smaller systems). I've made reusable 1st stages for Eve ascent vehicles (stock 1x scale Eve, with breaking ground robotics). It would be a lot easier if I didn't have to have a flight profile that requires switching between stages, with enough time for the 2nd stage to achieve orbit and for me to switch back to the 1st stage before it gets too deep into the atmosphere.
  18. I agree, I have previously suggested an outer solar system and Sedna/ planet 9 like object as an intermediate between KSP 1 like voyages, and interstellar voyages. An Ice giant, + KBOs/ scattered disk objects would be awesome
  19. I would love that, but what clues are you referring to? It would also seem to contradict the following claim: I recall a similar statement, but do you have the exact quotation, because my memory is that the statement wasn't so explicit and specific. I recall that it seemed like they were saying what you said, but that there was some wiggle room in the interpretation. Certainly no removals, but did Nate ever so explicitly clarify that there would also be no additions? I doubt it, and would be disappointed if so. The source of heat keeping H2O liquid on one side of Puf is clearly a sun. Tidal heating doesn't do that. Iirc, Lapat has tree like objects, again suggesting light as a significant source of energy. But inner and outer edges of the normal zone might be possible
  20. Iirc, they used solar rather than RTGs because of a limited supply of Pu-238, and the political opposition to launching RTGs. Solar powered ships shouldn't really be competitive that far out. But throw in a decay mechanic, and ISRU supporting refilling propellant tanks, but not RTG replacement, and maybe.... As long as we have appropriately giant solar panels for colonies and orbital "colonies"* so that part count doesn't degrade performance, fine... * Still waiting to hear details on colony building vs ship building: ate they completely separate part sets? Can you mix and match ship/ colony parts? Can you move colonies with some sort of propulsion system?
  21. Hard to pick. The rapier sees a lit of use in my programs for getting things to orbit, but little use beyond that. The Rhino is used to get massive payloads to orbit, but part of my love for it is because of the stats it had when it first came out, but it was nerfed after that iirc. Then I quite like the LV-909, it's a great little engine for space travel and landers on low to moderate gravity bodies. Similarly, the poodle has grown quite a bit on me since its graphics update. And one can't forget the vector - highest thrsu to cross section ratio of any engine - just great for Eve. The spark and even ant have their merits, but don't make my favorites. It's too hard to pick just one. No engine is best or even a decent choice in every case. Ones I don't like: Wolfhound: OP Isp, don't like the look, more mass and thrust than needed for a 2.5m vacuum engine. Skiff: got hit with the nerfbat too much, needs substantially more thrust. Radial mount engines: meh... they all have inferior stats to their inline counterparts, and it's easy to find a way to mount those counterparts to a radially attached part if necessary. LV-N: TWR is too low (realistically,uch higher TWR designs are possible), the lack of a radiation mechanic means I avoid it like the plague out of principle for any manned mission/ one in Kerbin's atmosphere. Aerospike: needs better TWR, and needs more thrust (even if accompanied by a mass increase) Ion engines: needs a thrust during warp mechanic to be really viable for me.
  22. Low "burns" above a star can increase hyperbolic excess velocity by a lot, much more than 3km/s So the question is how close can you get, and how much acceleration do you have? An Orion drive can give you a high acceleration, but it won't have a lot of radiators A fusion drive may have tons of radiators that let you get close to the sun (if solar irradiance is a small proportion of the total heat it needs to handle), but it may not have the acceleration. An end game torchsip drive like a matter-antimatter drive / "Epstein drive" like from the Expanse could probably handle the heat and achieve meaningful acceleration. Could be a way to save precious antimatter.
  23. Or batteries are matter anti-matter converters. It is interesting that you make this argument based on battery mass. Mostly I see it based on presumed solar irradiance at Kerbin (I think the cfg file value is the same, assuming units of kw/m^2 or something like that), or the upper limit on solar irradiance given Kerbin's atmosphere and temperature, and the sizes of the solar panels. I remember when the ion engines produced 0.5 kN, not 2. That was OP Eve then, but without thrust during warp, they aren't usable at lower thrust
  24. It is only 0.015 Earth masses. You can't hold on to water vapor with that little mass. It's the driest known object. Even if you heated Earth's surface to boiling, it would still hold on to it's water vapor. Venus is more humid than Io, it's not the heat, it's the tiny mass https://www.space.com/16419-io-facts-about-jupiters-volcanic-moon.html It's surface temp averages -130 C. Also note that it's proximity to Jupiter means little without other large moons to tug on it. The proximity means it tidally locked faster. It also means eccentricity led to greater heating (as constant rotation speed doesn't mesh with varying angular rate of change in an eccentric orbit), but it's orbit isn't very eccentric at all anymore. Take away the other moons, and it would cool down. Increase its mass, and it would have kept water vapor/ice. Increase the mass of it and other moons, and maybe it could have liquid water
  25. Io lost all it's water because it's too small to hold on to water. That's not true for laythe. And the answer about bumping up eccentricity doesn't give specific parameters either and won't help the hellhole thing
  • Create New...