All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. You are correct, that was something I fixed after the merge.
  3. schwank

    Why landing on Moho is damn difficult

    That only works if you are positive you will be inserting on the sun facing side. Usually you are on the dark side when inserting but it can be done with planning.
  4. Clonos

    POLL: When did you start playing KSP?

    July 7th, 2016 Good decision.
  5. And update... Since sending that message (at 12:45 pm), Apparently I now get this when trying to contact that seller an hour later... "We're sorry we couldn't find an answer for you. Unfortunately this seller is not able to respond to your question. We suggest reviewing the item again to see if your answer is in the seller's listing." I... I think they blocked me... WELP! Time to escalate to a claim! I tried to be nice and resolve this with polite questions... Now I'll have PayPal and Ebay go to bat for me.
  6. electricpants

    [1.7.x] electricpants's "Eh" System Rearrangement (V. 1.1)

    well again, i'm not super amazing at kopernicus yet, so new planets might not come for a few updates unfortunately. no worries, however, that is the plan for the future . in fact, the next update will add a new body in orbit around Valentina's Star that you might hopefully enjoy, it just won't be a full-on planet.
  7. If we assume these engines have exactly the needed TWR, you'd need about six of them to get two astronauts to the lunar surface, probably more. This seems like it'll get out of hand. EDIT: this is the ascent engine, it has nothing to do with the 90 kg payload. The more relevant number is the 15 kg of samples, meaning you'd need more than six times as many as my earlier back of the envelope numbers suggested. We'd be looking at the N-1's little brother.
  8. linuxgurugamer

    [1.3.*, 1.4.*, 1.5.*] Better Science Labs Continued

    Ummm, KSP doesn't do that, you must be using a mod. Please supply your mod list so we can help you identify it, at which point you will have to go to that mod's thread
  9. Snark

    KSP Loading... Breaking Ground: Hinges

    For anyone who missed it, the video in this post demonstrates both hinge sizes in action:
  10. This could be a fun small project for sure. My house is definitely made of glass in this scenario Github Updated with better FX. Some minor tweaks.
  11. CatastrophicFailure

    SpaceX Discussion Thread

    I really doubt they’ll make a dedicated expendable version, that goes against everything SSH is made for. But beyond that, seems there’s really only two different shells, everything probably will start out as a tanker until the right holes are cut for the crew version. OTOH, that may be a reason behind the competing build teams right now, too. So apparently they haven’t given up on this idea, hmm...
  12. RocketSquid

    Starship Design... a broad look

    The choice of engine and power also vastly influence the design. Anything nuclear will tend to have long booms, or long cables, between the hab and the reactor. More importantly than a sphere's ability to hold air is its surface area to volume ratio. When it comes to spaceships, surface area is bad (pressure hulls are heavy, comparatively speaking) and volume is good (holds more stuff). The reason to pick a cylinder is that cylinders are easier to build and launch than spheres. A torus would be equivalent to a cylinder in terms of surface area to volume, but more expensive to build, so it would really only be useful if you're going for spin gravity. Of course, you could also make something that's only mostly spherical, and actually is a lot of flat panels, or make the sphere part out of kevlar or the like with an easier to construct internal frame. The choice of whether to spin the whole ship or just part of it also depends on the purpose. If it needs to dock frequently or perform observations, spinning the whole ship is a no-go. But spinning just part of the ship is bad for other reasons, mostly that it's hard to make an airtight joint that permits rotation, so it would be avoided unless necessary.
  13. Idk if this has already been answered but, where would the files of the parts be put? and does it work in science mode as well?
  14. Nigel J. Cardozo

    KSP Loading... Breaking Ground: Hinges

    Nice!! I can make an F35b with this!!!
  15. Scatterer 0.54: Scatterer 0.53: I'm not sure what's changed, but scatterer 0.54 has completely broken the effects on this planet i've made and I am unable to fix them. Something that was changed between these two versions has caused this and i can't recreate the preferred effect (bottom picture) in scatterer 0.54.
  16. So, I recently replaced my old iPod Mini's battery with a new one, as well as upgraded it's storage to 128 GB (Originally, it was a 6 GB hard drive, then I upgraded it to 16 GB flash the last time I replaced the battery). Anyway, getting inside an iPod Mini isn't too hard. Pull the two plastic endocaps off, take out a couple screws and a retainer clip, unplug the click wheel, and it slides right out. The battery plugs into a socket on the board, and the hard drive used a standard IDE over CF-Type II connector... That's why Compact Flash and SD-to-CF converters work in the iPod Mini. It's honestly one of the nicest iPods ever but, in terms of service. I also had an 8 GB second generation iPod Nano, years back, but the cat broke it in half. it too was rather easy to disassemble. Like the Mini, but just smaller. So, I mention to my boss at the machine shop about how I'd upgraded and replaced the battery on my iPod, and he mentions his old Nano, and asks if I'd be willing to replace the battery on his. I say sure, it'll be easy! Oho boy... What I did not know, is by the time the fifth generation iPod Nano had been released, Apple was will into their attitude of don't fix it, replace it, and we're gonna help make you not WANT to bother fixing it! I am going to break down the... unique... methods that Apple used to make any service on this iPod a huge pain in the aft end... Like the iPod Mini, you start by prying off the two plastic endcaps, which are both glued down by adhesive tape. This is identical to the Mini. So far so good... There is no retainer clip, but in it's place, there are now 5 screws, more than the Mini. Let me detail these screws though... All 5 screws are Tri-Wing 4 of the screws go in at a 30° angle There are three DIFFERENT sizes of screws Why... So, once you get these screws out, you try and slide the board out, and it doesn't budge... You can loosen two more screws to remove the top retainer by separating the hold switch from the retainer. That's another two screws, but that part wasn't difficult. But no... something was holding the board in place, so I went online and looked... Wow... Rather than bond the glass screen window onto the case, they bond it to the LCD itself. It's necessary to pull the glass off and clean up the adhesive, in order for the LCD to slide out. You must pop out the click wheel and unplug the flex cable under it, pushing the click wheel up from inside the unit... Which is full of parts... in order to remove said parts... You must remove the camera bezel... *drumroll* because they hid a locking pin behind it that interlocks the board and case, preventing the board from being able to slide out of the case! Really Apple... So yeah, that was very fun... Also, since the adhesive was on the LCD, sliding the unit out of the case has smeared adhesive residue all over the LCD itself. Fun times... Ah, but the fun times don't end here... The battery in the unit is a piddly 0.91Whr, or about 245mAh (for comparison, my iPod Mini now has a 1300mAh battery, and I think the original was around 900mAh). I know battery technology tends to advance gradually over the years, so I spent extra time searching for the highest capacity replacement battery I could find. Most were rated at either the stock 245mAh, and a few I saw from China were rated even lower! Yikes! I did find one supplier listing a battery that was rated at 300mAh, at double the cost ($16 vs $8), and thought this is the route I wanna go... That battery arrived today, and the label is identical to the stock label, showing it's capacity at 0.91Whr (245mAh)! I was cheated! I've contacted the seller, and requested an explanation for receiving a battery with stock ratings. Now I wait... Frustratedly... *and looking over the description, I see the claim IN TEXT, is that it is a 350mAh battery! Ugh!!! The text claims an even higher rating than the photo, and neither are remotely accurate! Dang, if I'd caught that, it might have been a red flag... Time to send a second message, asking now why it wasn't a 350mAh battery, and asking why the listing is so absolutely brokenly inaccurate... Ugh...
  17. What do you think they normally do, as opposed to "just let someone like Blue Origin build it"? Every NASA spacecraft is subcontracted out to one or more companies, and it's been that way for as long as NASA has existed. And the fact that Blue Origin is building Blue Moon either way isn't a benefit, really. Without government involvement, spaceflight will be the domain of the very rich, and the rise of private spaceflight will only cement that.
  18. Brother, I hear you. I have spent over a year now playing KSP, most of it doing the career mode, and I do agree there is something missing. I would like to share a couple of points though, if I may. One, being realistic does not equal being fun. Sure, there is a lot of depth just in the financial management of a space program, not to mention keeping your employees orderly and motivated, buying materials and parts from other companies (NASA collaborates with highly specialised companies from all over the world as far as I know) and so on and so forth. However, KSP is about building rockets and flying them to places. As Pthigrivi said, such aspects of the game would serve as a distraction from the main goal of the game. I love the idea of being able to slightly improve the parts that have already been researched. I too came up with this notion when I was fantasizing about the possible improvements of the game. Something along the lines of improving the heat resistance of your nose cones by something like a 3 % margin, decreasing the weight of certain parts by a percent or two or increasing the structural strength and stability of specific parts ever so slightly. These changes could be very costly - both in funds and science - to provide some attractive end-game goals while not rendering the early game unplayable nor the late game overpowered and boring. Having these features locked until the whole tech tree is done might be also taken into consideration. Otherwise, the idea of faulty parts would IMHO cause more anger and frustration than joy of excessive realism. A "fog of solar system" - generally just the idea of not knowing exactly the parameters of the other celestial bodies - is not a bad one. However people who would appreciate this feature the most are I imagine pretty much just the veterans of the game who can tell you the average temperature 5000 m above Laythe's surface from the top of their heads (hyperbole, yay!) and to them such a concept would be pretty useless. Also, what it would mean in practice is just having to send one more unmanned space probe to the place before you start building your space hotel and casino there (looking at you, Matt Lowne!). I cannot decide if all the effort of introducing this new feature would actually pay off in actual fun. I am currently in a mid-game of my second career play through, and before I started, I decided to make things interesting. I use many mods; outer solar system to add some significant challenge for the end game, and the community tech tree to make the end game flights worth while. I use the life support mod (USI?) in conjunction with planetary base systems and deep freeze. I have plenty of new parts from OPT, Mk2 Expansion, Nuclear age by Porkjet and some other ones. What these mods have in common is they provide a ton of beautifully crafted and functional parts, while not being too overpowered (unlike for example Near Future Technologies, which is IMHO tremendously overpowered). I also took the liberty of adjusting the properties of some of the most powerful parts provided by mods, lowering their stats and make them much more balanced with the stock parts, and then I scattered these parts all over the rather large tech tree provided by CTT mod. I have turned the G-force limit on, given up the option to revert flight OR quickload the game in case I goof up. I can tell you, with all these changes, KSP feels like a completely different game as of now. TLDR; The career mode is not too bad, and if you know how to improve and rebalance it with mods, your experience can be as fresh as playing a completely new game.
  19. jojo5144

    KSP Loading... Breaking Ground: Hinges

    the size we seem to correspond with these structural element ! cool ! andI cant wait anymore! help me !!!! i am right mr st4rdust ? i love kerbal world !
  20. Kronus_Aerospace

    F-104C Starfighter Replica *FULL STOCK*

    Make me
  21. I have huge doubts that NASA could build such a lander in 5 years, unless they just let someone like Blue Origin build it. The benefit of Blue Origin, is that they are building Blue Moon with or without the government.
  22. Xurkitree

    KSP Loading... Breaking Ground: Hinges

    One seems to be Size 0 sized, the other is even tinier. Nice!
  23. DStaal

    [1.7] Global Construction

    Well, about the only thing I know is that storage parts should have the following two modules to be part of the system: MODULE { name = USI_ModuleResourceWarehouse } MODULE { name = USI_ModuleRecycleBin } (Well, technically only the first for logistics - but people will expect anything that's one to be the other.) But I'm not sure what needs to happen to make something a consumer.
  24. schwank

    KSP Loading... Breaking Ground: Hinges

    I want to build a docking port for a crew dragon. And the hinge can flip up the nose cone.
  1. Load more activity