![](https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/uploads/set_resources_17/84c1e40ea0e759e3f1505eb1788ddf3c_pattern.png)
![](https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/uploads/set_resources_17/84c1e40ea0e759e3f1505eb1788ddf3c_default_photo.png)
Wanderfound
Members-
Posts
4,893 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Wanderfound
-
Awww, shucks. That's my standard heavy cargo lifter; it's been up and down dozens of times. I did blow up a few of them getting these screenshots, though; if there's any gimballing or atmospheric drag pulling the exhaust off-line, it'll blow the tail off. Even with it straight you don't want to keep it lit for more than a few seconds or you'll start losing parts.
-
I think you've got your threads crossed. I'm fine with the landings, but I keep messing up reentries due to impatience. Especially with this one; it's so sleek that it takes forever to slow down, which in turn leads to me overshooting KSC, which in turn leads me to tear the wings off when I try to turn around before slowing down enough... On the Minmus trip I ended up landing on a hillside about 500km east of KSC just because it was late and I couldn't be bothered flying all the way back. (BTW: the Minmus trip involved refuelling in orbit before leaving Kerbin. It can probably do runway-to-Minmus without a refuel, but you won't have enough to get home again)
-
Action Groups
Wanderfound replied to FastMINI42's topic in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
That's all you need, but it's not all I need; see above. And doing 'em by staging is no good because everything I use action groups for is a toggle that will be switched on and off repeatedly during any flight. My list above didn't even include the several groups you want for toggling pairs of intakes to reduce drag during ascent and fine-tune aerobraking. Just give us as many action groups as we want, mapped to whatever keys we want. Anyone who doesn't need them doesn't have to use them. BTW: while I know that there are a few extended action group mods, I haven't found one that doesn't mess up the default gear/lights/abort assignments and works with .24. Any recommendations? -
Speaking of fuel balancing...the RCS Build aid mod also gives you CoM with both full and empty tanks (without having to faff about with tweakables) and measures the distance between the two. If it's more than 1m on a spaceplane, you should think about rearranging your tanks. Spread your fuel load laterally rather than longitudinally and use fuel lines to control the order in which they drain.
-
Action Groups
Wanderfound replied to FastMINI42's topic in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
It comes up routinely for spaceplaners. One to toggle the RAPIERS, one to toggle the turbojets, one to toggle the aerospikes, one to switch modes on the RAPIERs, one to toggle the flaps, one to open the cargo bay, one to toggle the solar panels, one to toggle the Vernors, one to trigger the scientific instruments and a few reserved for use by the payload. Even if you can fit them all in, trying to remember which is which is an absolute pain. Editing mid-flight would be nice (because then you wouldn't have to reserve slots for the payload), but at the very least let us see them. -
How can I dock two ships already in orbit
Wanderfound replied to LABHOUSE's topic in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
You'll find it a lot easier if you first build and launch a pair of small, manoeuvrable ships with docking ports and practice rendezvous and docking with them (which is what NASA did). It's simple once you've got the knack, but when you're first starting out doing it with large craft is painful. -
Technicality requirement of scientific papers.
Wanderfound replied to mardlamock's topic in Science & Spaceflight
Thoroughly endorsed; get ahead of the curve. Half of the reason that I cruised through university so easily is that the topic of each subject was usually covered by a book I'd read for fun the year before. -
Please disprove the theory of evolution to me
Wanderfound replied to Monkeh's topic in Science & Spaceflight
Mutation provides variety; reproductive success "decides" what variety persists. Defining one or the other as "the driving force" doesn't really make sense. It's not a directed process; it's an inevitable consequence of reality. Everything affects everything else; it's a causally connected universe. If you want some easily-readable books on the subject, start with S.J. Gould and then move on to Dawkins. -
Technicality requirement of scientific papers.
Wanderfound replied to mardlamock's topic in Science & Spaceflight
The internet makes the world smaller; local is good, but not necessary. Find an active club and ask them for book recommendations etc. So long as you don't make a nuisance of yourself, they'll probably be keen to help. Geeks tend to be evangelical about their geekery. -
Technicality requirement of scientific papers.
Wanderfound replied to mardlamock's topic in Science & Spaceflight
BTW, have you explored forums like these: http://www.rocketrysouthcarolina.com/forum.php? That's just the first thing to come up when I Googled; you can probably find something local-ish if you look. -
Inconsistent asymmetric thrust loss with SSTOs
Wanderfound replied to Shyrka's topic in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
See http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/64362-Fuel-Flow-Rules-%280-23-5%29 for the detailed explanation. You can build an asymmetry-proof multi-engine plane, but it's a hassle. Much easier is to just use an odd number of engines. When you get up to flameout altitude, shut down everything except for the central turbojet. This gives you two benefits: firstly, you don't have to worry about asymmetric flameouts, and secondly it concentrates all of your intakes into one engine. It's better to have one engine working properly than to have many engines spluttering. You don't need a lot of thrust to accelerate at 30,000m; multiple engines are counterproductive at that altitude. -
Please disprove the theory of evolution to me
Wanderfound replied to Monkeh's topic in Science & Spaceflight
This thread is skating on the edge of erasure already; if it drifts into theology and biblical analysis it's certain to get shut down. Stick to the science, perhaps? -
Please disprove the theory of evolution to me
Wanderfound replied to Monkeh's topic in Science & Spaceflight
This is totally irrelevant to the current discussion, but there are biological replicators that don't use DNA/RNA in their replication: prion diseases. Mutant proteins that convert other proteins into copies of themselves. They're damned freaky things when you get into it. -
Please disprove the theory of evolution to me
Wanderfound replied to Monkeh's topic in Science & Spaceflight
Evolution doesn't work like that. You're thinking of humans and pre-human ancestors as discrete categories. They're not; it's a smooth progression [1] all the way. You don't have a non-human ape one day and a human the next; you have a species of pre-human ancestors that gradually became more human-like over the course of a very long time. "Theory" in science doesn't mean "guess"; that's a hypothesis. A theory is something that coherently explains a wide array of observations and has resisted attempts to disprove it for a very long time. The only reason we don't call it "fact" is because scientists hate making absolute statements about anything that isn't absolutely 100% provable (i.e. pretty much everything outside of mathematics). 99.99999999999999999999999999999...% likely to be true still isn't 100%. While the phenomenon of evolution (which means that species change over time) is an observable fact, the Theory of Natural Selection (which is what Darwin actually came up with, and has since been substantially developed and refined) is an attempt to explain those observations. But it's a very, very good explanation. Nothing in the biological sciences makes any sense without it. You'll probably benefit from having a dig through this: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html It's a safe bet that pretty much all of the creationist arguments you run into are catalogued and refuted there. They've been recycling the same nonsense for hundreds of years. It's a zombie debate. [1] Yes, okay, punctuated equilibrium; trying not to needlessly complicate things here. -
That seems to be a bit of a contrast to the usual intake-spamming definition. Intake spam gets you the benefits of a careful shallow ascent without actually having to fly sensibly. It covers up otherwise suboptimal piloting or design. Shallow doesn't necessarily mean slow, though. With a high-thrust low-drag plane (nothing ridiculous, just a TWR above 1.5 and a relatively sleek design) you can climb vertically out of the sub-10,000m soup and then top it off with a smooth arc that zeroes out your climb rate just before the engines choke at around 30,000m. If your design is slick enough, you can start the final burn immediately; if it's more of a lumbering sort of craft, you may need to stay level for a minute or two to get up enough speed (Mach 4 to 5). You only need an extended runup if you're going hypersonic, and there's no need to do that except for the fun of it. I'm talking FAR, of course; no idea how it works in stock.
-
Kerb 35 Kraken (fighter jet replica)
Wanderfound replied to lunait's topic in KSP1 The Spacecraft Exchange
So when can we expect the Kiggen? -
Pretty much the same here. The celebrity-geek fanbase of KSP does a lot to promote the game.
-
KSP makes people mistake you for a rocket scientist
Wanderfound replied to Firedtm's topic in KSP1 Discussion
Just for a contrasting opinion: I went straight from stock to FAR shortly after getting into spaceplanes, and didn't have any trouble with the adjustment. Give 'em both a go and see which one you prefer. One of the major differences between them is the inclusion of aerodynamic failures in FAR. Get too silly with your piloting and you'll tear your wings off.