Cheating Rules

[Just Jim]

1 hour ago, Freds said:

In my career game, I only use cheat if something bad happens due to a bug.

I forgot... I need to add this to my list as well. If something bad happens because of a bug, I won't hesitate to use alt-F12, HyperEdit, and any other tool or cheat at my disposal to try and get around it.

[Majorjim!]

I use the 'cheat' menu and hyperedit all the time for testing craft. You really don't want to be fying a craft all the way to Duna everytime you want to test a single change to a craft.. As some have said, it's a simulation!

[Pthigrivi]

I finally downloaded hyperedit to test my eve ascent vehicle the other day. Oh, the terrible, terrible shame.

[GoSlash27]

18 hours ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

 (Interestingly enough, I was just reading that they had never tested the Lunar ascent module in appropriate conditions because they just plain couldn't. They honestly had no idea if it would be able to lift itself off the Moon or not.)

Rocket,
 I think whoever wrote that was mistaken. They tested "Spider" ascent stage in LEO during Apollo 9, and proved that it met performance expectations. They knew that the AM engine was sufficiently powerful to lift off... assuming it actually fired. What I think was meant by "untested" was that the installed engine itself could not be test fired prior to launch from the lunar surface due to the fuel's highly- corrosive nature. This, coupled with the fact that the lunar launch was the only phase of the mission with no contingency, made it easily the most perilous moment of the mission. That engine had to fire and operate properly, or the crew would die on the surface.

Corona,

 Ultimately, you're the only one who can decide what is "cheating" and what is not in your single player game. If you don't feel like you're cheating, then you're not cheating.

Best,
-Slashy
 

[Corona688]

50 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

I finally downloaded hyperedit to test my eve ascent vehicle the other day. Oh, the terrible, terrible shame.

There was really no need.  Alt-F12, set orbit to Eve, done.

[GoSlash27]

6 minutes ago, Corona688 said:

There was really no need.  Alt-F12, set orbit to Eve, done.

Corona,
^ Ascent module. Hyperedit allows you to place an object on Eve's surface.

Pthigrivi,
 Don't feel ashamed. The difficulty of Eve demands that you either do that or launch the mission without testing.

Best,
-Slashy

Edited December 15, 2017 by GoSlash27

[Pthigrivi]

10 minutes ago, Corona688 said:

There was really no need.  Alt-F12, set orbit to Eve, done.

Edit: Ah, yes. What slashy said. It lands empty and gets refueled on the surface. Easiest just to test it full to iron out an efficient staging profile.

Edited December 15, 2017 by Pthigrivi

[Rocket In My Pocket]

15 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

Rocket,
 I think whoever wrote that was mistaken. They tested "Spider" ascent stage in LEO during Apollo 9, and proved that it met performance expectations. They knew that the AM engine was sufficiently powerful to lift off... assuming it actually fired. What I think was meant by "untested" was that the installed engine itself could not be test fired prior to launch from the lunar surface due to the fuel's highly- corrosive nature. This, coupled with the fact that the lunar launch was the only phase of the mission with no contingency, made it easily the most perilous moment of the mission. That engine had to fire and operate properly, or the crew would die on the surface.

Best,
-Slashy
 

Yes, thanks for explaining it more clearly, I was paraphrasing from the article I had read some time ago.

The really morbid part of all this is that NASA's plan was to cut communications with them and let them die alone if that happened. Can you imagine being stranded on the Moon with no outside communications? I wonder if they had suicide pills? They prolly did.

No rescue mission was possible or feasible, or even planned for, but I guess those guys knew that going up.

Edited December 15, 2017 by Rocket In My Pocket

[Corona688]

7 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

Corona,
^ Ascent module.

Fair enough.  Landing it sounds fun to me but I guess it would lose its novelty.

[Geonovast]

https://xkcd.com/1484/

I wanna use the cheat menu to somehow have a trip to the Mun return with extra Kerbals.

[Corona688]

5 minutes ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

No rescue mission was possible or feasible, or even planned for, but I guess those guys knew that going up.

They used hypergolics for a reason - nasty, inefficient, and dangerous, but if there's only one thing they're trustworthy at, it is ignition.  If the fuel's is there, it will burn.  Whether you want it to or not..

[regex]

20 hours ago, Corona688 said:

How do you play it?

I can't possibly cheat because I'm not competing against anyone.

[Corona688]

1 minute ago, regex said:

I can't possibly cheat because I'm not competing against anyone.

You're the third person to take offense at that, so I'll have to explain:  I use the term playfully.  Not "ha ha only serious", but entirely joking.  I thought that was obvious.  Why would I call myself a cheater?

[GoSlash27]

58 minutes ago, Corona688 said:

They used hypergolics for a reason - nasty, inefficient, and dangerous, but if there's only one thing they're trustworthy at, it is ignition.  If the fuel's is there, it will burn.  Whether you want it to or not..

Corona,
 They made the system as brick- simple as possible and monitored everything they possibly could... but there were still possible failures that could've doomed them. Thankfully, that never happened and it all went off without a hitch.

Best,
-Slashy

[Geonovast]

1 minute ago, GoSlash27 said:

Thankfully, that never happened and it all went off without a hitch.

*cough

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_13

[GoSlash27]

.

Edited December 16, 2017 by GoSlash27
Operator error

[regex]

38 minutes ago, Corona688 said:

You're the third person to take offense

I took no offense at all, not sure why you read that into what I wrote. I simply stated my answer to your question, since you asked.

[Greenfire32]

18 hours ago, LordFerret said:

Konopoly?

Go straight to the Kraken's lair, do not pass the launch pad, do not collect moar boosters.

 

Might work.

Do not complete orbit, do not collect 200 funds.

Communications error in "your favor." (Due to interrupted communications with Mission Control, your colony never received the order to abort the landing. Enjoy your extended vacation on Duna!)

Catastrophic Malfunction! Due to foreseen circumstances (Jeb), your craft has experienced sudden deconstruction in mid flight. (Go to splashdown. You must remain on splashdown until you roll doubles)

[GoSlash27]

Geonovast,

 Not saying the entire program went off without a hitch. Apollo 1 pad fire being the most glaring and tragic example. Just saying the AM's engine worked every time. In fact, the (equally untested) descent module engine is what saved the crew of Apollo 13 by performing a job for which it was never intended.
 The success of the Apollo 13's use of the DM as a contingency allowed planners to stop using free return, which allowed more payload.

 Best,
-Slashy

 

[OhioBob]

2 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

The success of the Apollo 13's use of the DM as a contingency allowed planners to stop using free return, which allowed more payload.

They actual began deviating from a free return trajectory starting with Apollo 12.  Apollos 8, 10 and 11 all flew free return trajectories, but this type of trajectory was very constricting on the lunar area that would be accessible for exploration.  Starting with Apollo 12, NASA started using hybrid trajectories.  With a hybrid trajectory the spacecraft was initially injected into a trajectory that retained all the characteristics and safety features of a free return.  But after the spacecraft separated from the launch vehicle and the propulsion system was checked out, a mid-course maneuver was performed to place the spacecraft on lunar approach trajectory that was no longer a free return.

One of the problems with Apollo 13 was that at the time of the accident the mid-course maneuver had already been completed.  The first burn that had to be perform was to place Apollo 13 back onto a free return trajectory.  As I recall, Apollo 13 performed three burns total using the LM's descent engine:  (1) to place them back on a free return trajectory, (2) the PC+2 burn to pick up speed and shorten the journey, and (3) a burn to correct the entry corridor.
 

Edited December 15, 2017 by OhioBob

[LordFerret]

2 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

Corona,
^ Ascent module. Hyperedit allows you to place an object on Eve's surface.

Pthigrivi,
 Don't feel ashamed. The difficulty of Eve demands that you either do that or launch the mission without testing.

Best,
-Slashy

Probe cores. I don't know about you, but every ship I build meant to carry crew gets a probe core slapped on it first and tests are run... and that includes full trips to whatever body and back home. But that's just me.

 

2 hours ago, Geonovast said:

https://xkcd.com/1484/

I wanna use the cheat menu to somehow have a trip to the Mun return with extra Kerbals.

LOL!... I don't need a cheat menu for that!

 

32 minutes ago, Greenfire32 said:

Do not complete orbit, do not collect 200 funds.

Communications error in "your favor." (Due to interrupted communications with Mission Control, your colony never received the order to abort the landing. Enjoy your extended vacation on Duna!)

Catastrophic Malfunction! Due to foreseen circumstances (Jeb), your craft has experienced sudden deconstruction in mid flight. (Go to splashdown. You must remain on splashdown until you roll doubles)

Like I said, might work. Could be onto something here.

[OhioBob]

2 hours ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

I wonder if they had suicide pills?

There has often been rumors of suicide pills, but I've heard several astronauts flatly deny that that was the case.

[GoSlash27]

3 minutes ago, LordFerret said:

Probe cores. I don't know about you, but every ship I build meant to carry crew gets a probe core slapped on it first and tests are run... and that includes full trips to whatever body and back home. But that's just me.

LordFerret,
 I'm a stickler for crew safety, so I always do unmanned shakedown flights when possible before clearing them for use. As for the second part, it depends on where the mission is going. I prefer to hyperedit and test for longer missions rather than waste months or years just to try questionable equipment to see if it works. Most times, such extensive testing is unnecessary since it's all just a math problem. But some places (like Eve) require iterative testing and redesign to get right.

Best,
-Slashy

[Corona688]

2 hours ago, regex said:

I took no offense at all, not sure why you read that into what I wrote.

Well, it was an excessively literal and un-illuminating answer.  We know we can do whatever we want.  My question was really about what you and other players do with these things.

[regex]

2 minutes ago, Corona688 said:

We know we can do whatever we want.

Right, so I do. I don't have any hard and fast "rules" about these sorts of things, I do what I want. If I want to test something why would I worry about "cheating" with the orbit editor to get it to the test location if I meant to launch it properly after revert? In a similar vein if I launch something and use the orbit editor or infinite fuel to get it somewhere then I intended to do that in the first place, so why would I agonize over "cheating"? My answer is basically that I do what I want to in the moment; it's a sandbox game that I play for amusement. I have literally created a save to build a single plane and fly it halfway around Kerbin only to later delete the entire install, then later move on to a full-fledged science-gathering campaign.