All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Yes. I believe that the science animate was installed via CKAN as a suggestion (I don't think it is a dependency) when I installed the DMagic science mod itself.
  3. Amazing! I never thought I would found stock hinges after DLC came out. Absolutely fantastic fine piece of work. Now my Mun save file will be overpopulated with Lunokhod!
  4. Yes, it has a very nice Atlas V with a modular centaur. You can put an RL-10 to have more realism or any other engine, hey, you can even add an F-1 engine that would REALLY solve the low TWR issue.
  5. Now I can't wait to put Jeb in orbit around a 25km asteroid that orbits a moon that orbits an earthlike moon that orbits a gas giant moon that orbits a GIANT uranus sized gas giant that orbits a star that orbits a black hole.
  6. They're considered part of the Gemini Agena Target Vehicle, which is still on the To Do list. The old ones are still there but soft deprecated.
  7. If you like to build Stations with Mobile Processing Labs like I do, you need large Numbers of high leveled Scientists. But getting them beyond Level 3 requires Interplanetary Missions which take quite a while and flying Kerbals in bulk to the Mun and Minmus can get quite tiring as well. Besides I don't see much point in having placed a Flag everywhere necessarily making you a better Scientist. For this Reason, severedsolo and Mark Kerbin have made the Kerbal Academy Mod which allows to level up Pilots in Training Courses. So why won't add a secondary way to level up Scientists? As the Final Frontier Mod by Nereid does that, it should be possible to count the Number of Science Points a single Kerbal has researched. This in my Opinion is the most logical Way to count the Experience of a Scientist. So I'd lake to create a mod to do exactly that but my Modding Experience so far is limited to adding functions to parts (Mk 2 Lander Cabin with BonVoyage Controller, Mk 4-1 Pod with Research Lab and a very crude Surface Sample Function in the Drill-O-Matic Junior)
  8. Today
  9. I'm on the fence with this, on one hand it adds little to the game just like 5th says but on the other it would probably be a little bit of an eyesore not to include because it's likely many of us actually will see playtime in the thousands of years. On that note I'd like to pose a related question: KSP1 can orbit a vessel around a moon that orbits a planet that orbits a star, but what if we must go deeper? (I'll skip the meme necromancy for today though.) Having one of the star systems provide a colossal star for all other systems to orbit around would vastly reduce the brain strain for both players and devs IF the game permits additional "layers" of orbits. Now I can't wait to put Jeb in orbit around a 20km asteroid that orbits a moon that orbits a planetlike moon that orbits a gas giant that orbits a small star that orbits a giant star.
  10. Still, I, too, remember Cronkite talking about the too-shallow reentry as if it was a one-way trip to Earth escape. Fifty years later, it occurs to me that Walter was a reporter, and probably knew next to nothing about physics and orbital mechanics...
  11. Yes, you will loose energy so you Ap would be lower on next orbit. But as you say they could easy run out of resources, they had dropped the service module so they only had the power and oxygen in the capsule. And as other say they wanted to land close to the recovery ship although this was not so critical.
  12. The problem is not 1.8.1. If I install by the book 1.7.3 and 1.8.1 just with REX the results are 100% equal. The problem is the adding some more planet and star packs, I have 83 addons, that some how are raising that problem of excess of light, thanks for your concerns I understand them. I believe that I found the solution, fixing the other mod pack and keep those both files. Thanks!
  13. Another thing Apollo didn't have was a button in mission control that automatically recovered the capsule instantly no matter where it was in the world. They actually had to land reasonably close to their target so that their recovery ship could get to them.
  14. It was a complex series of analyses and models with more than just the topographic models. We also used rock counting to the cm-scale, color variation, local tilts, and spectra. Osprey has slightly better backaway vectors but a lower density of fine material. So the probability of a successful contact times the probability of a successful collection for the two sites was about the same. After vigorous debate we selected Nightingale as prime and Osprey as backup and rejected the other two. We received concurrence from headquarters that our rationale is sound. Yes, we had modeled our pre-launch data based on Itokawa and expected vast smooth regions like the Muses-C regio and assumed worst case would be like the rough areas of Itokawa. Surprise!
  15. It is a myth. It's impossible to "bounce off" into solar orbit or indeed, into anything resembling a stable one. However, the Apollo capsule didn't have a whole lot of consumables (batteries, RCS prop, life support), and was designed for very specific reentry profile. It would eventually reenter, but it would likely be too late by that point, and even if it wasn't (Apollo crews could be quite resourceful), there's a good chance they'd end up over land, which is another thing Apollo wasn't designed to handle.
  16. Don't expect miracles out of this one's Centaur, though. This stage has weak thrust IRL and there's no way around it. You can use the two engine version for a bit of a kick, but it's just not very powerful. @CobaltWolf, what's the deal with Agena D's secondary engines? I can't seem to find them, neither in part list nor in the mod folder.
  17. Hi guys yesterday fortunately played space engineers without big successy and i purchased for 6.49 the kerbal space program but still did not ask to the key due to have limited funds and lots of expenditure but hopefully i start good work today 13/12 /2019 so i should have more funds which even more than necessary part of it invest into the space researches / where imperial college london into the space craft and rocket engineering 3-4 years program would be good idea as there is vast support in my regon for engineering courses and ideas . Today do first launch with the amateur rocket fro mebay big development big successs will publish at my project and today i did moon village at siemens nx very basic and even would say ugly [ much uglier than the french moon village which i saw at the you tube] but anyway it is constructive behaviour even more than welcome to do it. After i will publish here Much love :> All the best, keep going. Moreover to improve the performance and see progreess instead of concentrating on rocket and spacecraft engineering ebook i switch more on fluid mechanics as i see much more fluid in my life and my brain finds fluids even in things like soap in mcdonalds[which is much like fluid in shape and consistency]
  18. I've run into a few missing textures on Airplane Plus, but none on grounded. Most of the missing textures on Airplane Plus are on older parts. Specifically affected are the short versions of the tails and several propellers. They all appear just white instead of the usual black missing texture. I'm not sure why. I'm thinking of making an automatic texture converter program to fix these textures. However, I would have to make it platform specific. I have means to build and test a Linux and Win64 version (MingW64 for building a Win64 version and Wine for testing it). However, I do not have the means to make a Mac version. This means that Mac users would need to run the Windows or Linux version in bootcamp. I could integrate one into a KSP mod, but it would be slower and create inferior results so an independent program is preferable. Yes, and the forwarded the note into to their release notes. There was nothing they could do about it.
  19. Docking ports have very week bonding and tend to wobble. To fix this you can enable auto-strut to grandparent part on the far docking port after connecting. Since docking ports simply don't rigid attach, you can't use that.
  20. You have unlimited life support and next-to-unlimited battery power in KSP. A reentry vehicle does not.
  21. I remember watching Apollo missions as a kid (yeah, I'm that old ) and listening to the commentators talk about the angle of re-entry. Too steep and the capsule could burn up, too shallow and it could bounce off the atmosphere and be thrown back out into space. Every time I come in too shallow, in KSP, I do bounce back into orbit...but it's not like I'm headed to Kerbol after that. My apo is reduced every time this happens, on subsequent orbits, until I have a successful re-entry. I do try and avoid all that, of course, but was the whole "bouncing off into space, lost forever" a myth?
  1. Load more activity