Nathair
-
Posts
387 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Nathair
-
-
39 minutes ago, Leafbaron said:
for all of you who didn't know, i was paraphrasing Space Odyssey by David Bowie
Oddity.
-
15 minutes ago, Plecy75 said:
6 sats per launch, 4 launches, 25 operationsal sats with 5 on-orbit spares.
You have 30 sats in your LKO constellation?!
-
19 hours ago, boccelounge said:
But the Imperial fractions of halves, quarters, eighths, sixteenths, etc. do have certain advantages, particularly for craftsmen (and women). That's the extent of my point.
My tape measure allows accuracy of 1/10cm, which is 1/25th of an inch... and I use the term "accuracy" loosely because my "skill" level never gets to such fine detail. Within a 25th of an inch is Good Enough for any project of mine!
If there are actually some inherent advantages to cutting stock to 8 1/2 inches rather than 21.6 centimetres I'm just not seeing them.
-
1 minute ago, Leafbaron said:
ground control to major tom there something wrong can you here me major tom? can you here me major tom?
Of course I can hear you, I'm standing right... Hey! Wasn't I supposed to be in that thing?
3 minutes ago, Whisky Tango Foxtrot said:How often do you really need ladders, though? On most bodies the gravity's low enough that you can just jetpack wherever you need to go.
T'was meant to represent the entire gamut of "Doh! I forgot..." paraphernalia. Ladders, solar panels, 'chutes, pilots etc.
(And when ladders are needed, they are needed.)
-
1 minute ago, Leafbaron said:
I usually take my protein pills and put my helmet on
commencing countdown engines on, 10, 9, 8
check ignition and may god's love be with you. 7, 6 , 5, 4 , 3, 2 ,1
Lift.. off.
usually how I do it.
I usually take my protein pills and put my helmet on
commencing countdown engines on, 10, 9, 8
check ignition and may god's love be with you. 7, 6 , 5, 4 , 3, 2 ,1
Lift.. dammit I forgot the ladder!
usually how I do it.
-
19 minutes ago, mtpatane said:
Might sound tedious, but I find it satisfying to get it up there myself. I'm also a huge fan of single launch networks (1 craft 3-4 Sats).
In the past I have had a couple of incidents where constellations that were assembled with painstaking fussiness went wonky without warning. It's irritating when the crew finally arrives at Sarnus only to discover that their comm-links have bunched up or wandered away during the years of transit. Perhaps things in 1.2 aren't as drifty and vague as they have been in the past but for belt and suspender reasons I habitually "get up there myself", as you put it, and then cement everything into place in the persistence file.
-
Completed an absolutely flawless single launch 4 satellite Remotetech commsat constellation set-up and only then realized I had forgotten to accept the contract for the job before I launched...
-
9 minutes ago, Plecy75 said:
of course the drifted out of alignment
I strongly recommend, once they are all in place, editing the persistence file to give all the sats in a constellation the exact same SMA. If there was station keeping capability I'd use it but until that time comes a little Notepad++ magic handles the drift.
-
5 hours ago, Zeiss Ikon said:
Be very careful trying to reenter tandem pods, though; if they get too far apart, you won't be able to switch from one to the other. Set parachutes to "open when safe" and trigger them before starting reentry, and at least everyone will get down safely.
Why split them? I commonly send up early rescue missions with two Mk1's stacked. (I've even done three.) No struts, no decouplers, just welded together. 'Chutes on the top pod and a mostly emptied hs on the bottom one and Robert is your mother's brother.
-
1 hour ago, cyberpunkdreams said:
people object to having to have a LKO network, as opposed to ground stations
I always set up both ground stations and a LKO constellation.
-
16 hours ago, 78stonewobble said:
<rant...>
3. So you are in favor of discrimination?
<...rant>
Apparently the mods don't mind this discussion taking place here, so I will briefly explain my position on the subject. This is an issue that comes up frequently in regards to racism, sexism, multiculturalism and similar areas, this notion of "all discrimination is always bad", the idea (for example) that making a distinction based, to whatever degree, upon gender is therefore sexism. This is simply not true. As I mentioned earlier and as Nibb31 touched upon there is much more going on in something like the astronaut selection process or a university admissions program than some sort of blind, strictly score-based meritocratic filter. Clearly those people who would most likely triumph in a blind, strictly score-based selection process would prefer that that was how these things were done but the problem is that you don't get to dictate such things. A process isn't wrong just because it addresses more than one goal or because it addresses a goal that you don't care about. Obviously a university admissions program that only pays attention to your grades is very appealing to someone who has had excellent nutrition since infancy, a safe and stable home environment and easy admittance to all the finest schools. But just because you could qualify if that were the university's admission program doesn't mean that therefore the the university should use that standard. The fact that you have privileges doesn't mean you deserve them. I have absolutely no problem (in general) with programs that take a broader view, seek to ameliorate imbalance and to eventually make themselves unnecessary. So am I in favour of discrimination in the sense of the inclusion of consideration of the group, class or circumstance a person falls into when apportioning such opportunities? Yes, sometimes I am.
This kind of "Gotcha!" over a word is sophomoric. Discrimination which, in the vernacular, "punches down" is to be abhorred. The old boy's networks, legacy admission scams and glass ceilings are not "bad" simply because they are examples of discrimination, they are bad policies and institutions because they employ discrimination in order to promote and entrench imbalance and unfairness or in such a way that the end result is the promotion and continuation of existing imbalance and injustice. In short, they do substantial harm throughout broader society in addition to whatever direct and immediate effect they may have. Programs and policies which seek to undo such pernicious states of affairs are not necessarily rendered automatically bad merely because they (in the strict and narrow sense of the word I am using here) discriminate.
I hope that has made my general position clearer to you.
-
...but maybe that's just a reflection of the way my Kerbals tend to return to Kerbin. YMMV.
-
1 hour ago, HebaruSan said:
I suspect that the US lags behind in metric adoption because too many established industries would have to switch over at once. It's one thing to put up all new signs across 4 million miles of roads, but it's another thing to get all the farms, lumberyards, machine shops, etc. to agree to change the units in which they do daily business
Do you not think there were lumberyards, machine shops or highways in other countries when they switched?
I think the major difference is in America's particular flavour of union. A tradition of the importance of state's rights makes it difficult for federally mandating something like national metrification and doing it one state at a time would be pretty awkward. There's also a national trend towards patriotism<->tradition (founding fathers etc.) that resists "cultural" changes like this.
...and so the Mars Climate Orbiter was lost.
52 minutes ago, regex said:I'm doing my best to thoroughly confuse my child by mixing unit systems as much as possible. Once I find out what they're teaching at school I'll exclusively use the other at home.
I like to mix different systems into the same topic. "We have to stop off at the store and grab three litres of milk and a pound of coffee beans." Really keep them on their toes.
-
6 minutes ago, The_Rocketeer said:
With the greatest of respect, your nonchalant ignorance is hardly a virtue. Imperial units are (generally) neither arbitrary nor random, they are based on everyday things that anybody could easily understand and compare. A 'knucklebone' (inch) is a very convenient measure that one carries with them absolutely everywhere they go, which can be readily communicated to someone else and give a reasonably accurate description of length or size.
You benefit from living in an era and culture where precise calibration of weights, lengths and volumes is readily available in the form of tape-measures, digital scales and measuring jugs. In former times, and probably in future times, these things are not so available. Remove them and the metric system immediately collapses, but master the traditional alternative - English/imperial measures - and you have a universal system of proven worth that will last you a lifetime.
Trusting in the metric system doubtless has engineering advantages and blah blah, but they are heavily dependent on the survival of modern culture. Meanwhile, traditional human-based systems may go out of fashion, but they do not go out of date.That's folksy but I have my doubts. People use what they learn as kids, that becomes comfortable. There is nothing inherently easier or more obvious about weighing 120 pounds rather than 8 1/2 stone or 54 kilos. Nothing especially obvious about a mile or a kilometre or a nautical mile, no inherent bonus to yards over metres, no clear cut winner for the one inch is the length of a thumb joint compared to two centimetres is the width of a finger. The only place I see a clear and obvious winner is in water freezing at 0 and boiling at 100 vs whatever ridiculous numbers we used to use in Frankenheight.
And I say all this as someone who was brought up in Imperial units and lived through metrification.
-
1 minute ago, Aelfhe1m said:
There's a mod called NavBallAdjuster that might help
Thanks.
-
On 2017-02-07 at 9:45 AM, Lunar Sea said:
And RCS should be close to COM in the x-y planes but not necessarily in the z
I'm curious about the reasoning here. Why should your torque be applied closer to the CoM?
14 hours ago, Ohm is Futile said:As for RCS ports being close to CoM, that's absolutely, totally false. What they need to be is balanced according to CoM, but distance hardly matters.
I hate to contradict you but in the application of torque distance matters a lot, in simple cases it directly multiplies your force.
-
5 minutes ago, regex said:
the sore point wasn't engineering something to hold a pod it was the fact that I NEEDED A POD IN THE FIRST PLACE!
Truer words...
-
More familiar maybe, more natural though? I say we should just (finally!) switch the planet to using decimal time and then KSP's warp will blend seamlessly in.
4 hours ago, Birdco_Space said:I'm also waiting for a mod that shows my masses in slugs (or pounds mass), forces in pounds force, temps in degrees Fahrenheit and distances in miles. I got my engineering degree in the U.S., and all these conversions from metric into the English units I understand makes my head hurt.
-
-
Kerbal Alarm Clock has a launch window planner in it.
-
I often find that the 8 Ball is cluttered. When I'm trying to follow a maneuver node indicator it can be obscured under, say, the prograde indicator and the target bearing indicator. Is this moddable? Could the drawing order of the indicators be altered on the fly (putting the node indicator on top) or, if not, could the indicators be toggleable?
-
On 2017-02-04 at 6:22 PM, The Dunatian said:
I'm not sure if everyone feels the same as I do, but I think command seats should be treated as regular command modules. I use command seats regularly when I need a light weight control system for a boat or a small vessal and its a real pain having to EVA a kerbal to board a command seat if its the only control system on the vessal.
Agreed. Personally, I like to use them for little KSC area rovers.
-
1 minute ago, meyerweb said:
There are a couple of things there I might take inspiration from—I’d been thinking about line-of-sight lines between satellite positions—but I don’t think I want to go as far as trying to map broadcast ranges or calculate connection strengths. It’s a bit beyond the scope of what I intend here.
I just added a “Flip orbit” checkbox to mine to let users choose which resonant orbit they want to see, at least if there’s no SOI bounds involved (I’ll fix that limitation eventually, I hope). I prefer showing one carrier orbit at a time; showing both at once seems a bit too cluttered and potentially confusing. I do think I’ll add an option for showing a body’s geosynchronous altitude, if one exists.
That's the beauty of making your own tools, right?
-
There's a long standing Remotetech orbit calculator out there you might want to take a look at. It has a multiple launch calculator that shows the options with either Pe or Ap at the target altitude. Maybe you could do something similar?
[1.11] RemoteTech v1.9.9 [2020-12-19]
in KSP1 Mod Releases
Posted
Are they in an icosapentagon? I would love to see a screenie of that! The most I've ever thrown up into a single net was one launch into a hexagonal constellation. Usually I just throw up a square for LKO and then pairs or triplets for specific deeper relay applications.