-
Posts
983 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by cpast
-
Explosive Decompression
cpast replied to Souper's topic in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
Why would a Kerbal ever, under any circumstances, take off a helmet in vacuum? -
OK, sweet (I'd been holding off on 0.17 until I knew KSO would work fine). What about the vehicles using transparent windows? With the KSO, it doesn't look weird, but it does seem weird to have a car windshield be opaque.
-
Question: Can the cars and trucks be made to support RPM 0.17's transparent windows? More generally, will the RPM in KSO be modified to support RPM 0.17 (or does it work already as-is?)
-
I know; I'm perfectly able to derive it myself (and in fact, the first time I learned the rocket equation was in a physics class where it was derived as an example). My point was that knowing the derivation only helps if he *understands* it, which requires more than a quick study of calculus. If he doesn't understand the derivation, there's no point doing a bunch of symbol-manipulation to go from the original to the one people actually use; the original adds complexity for little value (it's legitimately useful if I_sp varies, but then you're likely past the point where you can do the problem without some understanding of what you're doing).
-
I also agree your teacher - while calculus *can* be done mechanically, you aren't actually learning anything by doing so. Also, for this specific case (the delta-V formula), you don't need calculus at all - the more standard way to calculate it is: delta-V = v_e * ln(m_wet / m_dry), where v_e is effective exhaust velocity (and is equal to g * I_sp; g is the gravity at sea level on Earth, and applies in space because of what I_sp represents, which is impulse per unit *weight* of propelland at sea level on Earth; I_sp is, well, that, and is a parameter of the engine; m_wet is mass of rocket with propellant; m_dry is mass of the rocket without propellant). This is true for most equations you have to deal with in KSP: you can, in fact, calculate things perfectly well without any calculus. Now, learning calculus is nice, and lets you see actually *why* delta-V works the way it does. But if you just learn plug-and-chug, you still aren't gaining any insight - there's no point rederiving the delta-V formula if you don't understand the meaning behind what you're doing.
-
It can also serve as a little "thank you" without cluttering up the fora (that said, the "must spread rep around" works directly against that - IMO, rep is better if attached to posts and not users, than to users and not posts).
-
I fail to see how that could *possibly* reduce latency. Latency is "time I start a transmission to time you start receiving it". Unless a satellite is the original sender and another is the ultimate recipient, relaying will only decrease latency (which is governed by the speed of light).
-
You seem to be fixated on levels of presumed intelligence - here, you say "those are high school problems" and leave it at that; elsewhere, you've said "if this is the best you've got, the brilliant rocket scientists can of course solve it" -- calling something a high school problem doesn't refute anything. In fact, it just makes your failure to refute it rather glaring. You don't get to handwave counterarguments by saying they're trivial unless they are, in fact, intuitively obvious to the most casual observer - since many members here seem to take issue with your arguments, the issues certainly aren't trivial. As mentioned, cost of a booster itself is fairly low. Cost of skilled personnel (and you *will* need to keep people on payroll to produce spare parts, because things *will* break, and you need to replace them) is the dominant factor - while skilled labor is involved with manufacture, and that is less of a need with less production, lower production will just mean higher unit cost - you save less than you might think. Also, a lot of the same sort of people you want for production also are useful for maintenance, so you'll still want them on payroll. Here we get to the utterly ridiculous. First off, if you do become effectively a monopoly, you have a *critical* need for good PR - otherwise, you run a risk of being caught by antitrust laws. Governments don't like when there's only one option for something. Second, your competitors *are* advertising, pointing out all the advantages they have over you, while conveniently neglecting to mention disadvantages. You kind of have to respond to that - no one else will point out your competition's disadvantages, and you will lose your position. Even if your advertising is just to remind people that you're the default choice (along the lines of "no one ever got fired buying IBM"), you need it to be there. Third, and most importantly, this entire discussion is about opening new markets. No one, bar no one, is going to say "Oh, cool! Launches are only a few million now, so we'll totally launch a satellite even though we hadn't given any thought to how we could possibly use them before!" The people you need to reach aren't going to be paying you the slightest bit of attention - most people just aren't interested in space, and if they can't think of a way it'll help them, it won't come up. You absolutely need heavy marketing to encourage people to want to put things in orbit. Many of these people won't even come to you - they might go to your competition. You have to do the difficult task of advertising to increase the pie, not to make your slice a bigger piece of it. But you absolutely do need to find companies that haven't considered space launches for anything (i.e. almost all of them), and talk up what space can do for them. "It's cheap" doesn't actually sway people if they don't also believe it's useful.
-
To suggest or to request
cpast replied to Algiark's topic in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
They don't *have* to determine it - if they think something would be a good stock feature, and the devs disagree, it wouldn't be implemented. If they think it's good for stock and the people on the forum disagree, they'll say so. It's just general guidance, for someone who's already wondering whether to suggest for stock or not - since suggestions that aren't suitable for stock are unlikely to be added, they make more sense to request as an addon. Short of producing an exhaustive list of what is suitable and what isn't, the best you can do is say "here are some tips for what might be suitable, decide yourself, it's not the end of the world if you're wrong". -
Not unrealistic - astronomers on Kerbin have telescopes, and we know that they know a fair amount about other planets already. Astronauts don't generally set the lasting name for features; that's set by astronomers. Now, the player should certainly be able to rename any feature, but it's not like no one could name a formation till they've been there.
-
Sounds somewhat like Borderlands (different manufacturers having different characteristics). I quite liked Borderlands, and I quite like this idea. Only thing to add would be that it should be easy to, at a glance, tell who made the part. Maybe have the power-at-cost-of-reliability manufacturer have bright yellow warning-about-to-explode markings, cheap manufacturer have duct tape all over parts, etc.?
-
Then why did you post in a section that focuses on real-life science?
-
...and? Unless the surface in question can support human life *without* needing specific life support, it doesn't qualify as a "homeworld". Terraforming would be fine, but a patchwork of settlements outside of which humans cannot survive does not a homeworld make.
-
N-1's hidden in a top secret siberian hanger
cpast replied to xenomorph555's topic in Science & Spaceflight
Read the link. Korolev proposed it to get military support, but: So, the Soviet military felt the same way about using one rocket for lots of bombs, or for huge bombs, exactly the way my leading question led. Lots of smaller missiles can be far more effective than one huge one: if the huge one is destroyed before launch, or there's a technical failure, you lose too large a portion of your firepower. -
Bunch of suggestions based on long play
cpast replied to vagran's topic in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
Things that already exist in the game: 4. You can click the red 'X' right next to the maneuver delta-V indicator next to the navball (or if the maneuver's mostly done, it turns to a green checkmark) to delete the maneuver node from any view. This was added in 0.23.5. 5. This already exists - select a target object, then go into map view and look for the boxes labeled "AN" and "DN". These point to ascending and descending nodes, and hovering over them shows the exact inclination between your orbit and the target's. 6. It's already there - on the right of the bars, in parentheses, it says some form of rate of consumption (though I agree it could be made more useful, and that being able to toggle between consumption rate and estimated time remaining would be nice). 13. You can hit F3 at any time to show the flight log (which is what displays after a crash saying "catastrophic failure"). 18. Changing the root part is annoying but possible. You can disconnect everything connected to the root (if your root is a pod, this likely isn't that much - almost all of the rocket can be disconnected by taking off the thing directly beneath the root), and click elsewhere in the VAB (but *not* over the part list, which deletes the item you're moving; just put it in the air next to the pod, without attaching). Then, delete the root part by dragging it to the part list, and place a new root part. Then reattach the rest of the rocket. Again, I agree it could be made to be easier (by letting you change the root). Things that it's believed will not be implemented: 7, 8, 9: Squad has said that autopilot is out of scope. 8 might be considered, but 7 and 9 are unlikely. -
N-1's hidden in a top secret siberian hanger
cpast replied to xenomorph555's topic in Science & Spaceflight
For the nukes: Which makes more sense, sticking a large number of warheads on a single missile which was not designed to accommodate them (and thus has a fair chance of having head wreck their control systems on re-entry), which would require moving to a massive launch site to set up, takes time to fuel, and can on no occasion deliver them to targets which are far apart? Or using their existing ICBM and SLBM units, which (especially later on) can remain fueled, and launch rapidly, from hidden locations, and which will have many more much more reliable rockets? -
Rubber laughing gas SRB
cpast replied to DerpenWolf's topic in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
Not really, no. Hybrid means liquid oxidizer, solid fuel. I guess gas is a fluid, but gas isn't really well-suited for fuel in general. EDIT: Wikipedia says I'm wrong. As long as one reagent is solid, and the other is fluid, it's hybrid. -
Rubber laughing gas SRB
cpast replied to DerpenWolf's topic in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
What things would hybrids be better than LFO engines at? What would they be better than SRBs at? What would they be worse than LFO at? What would they be worse than SRB at? -
[1.0.X - Experimental] [On Hold] FusTek Station Parts (WIPs on GitHub)
cpast replied to sumghai's topic in KSP1 Mod Releases
Correction: Kirs modules also make sense for parts with lights. -
What was the big change in 0.18, that made that mid-nostalgia?
-
Ooh, nice. Are the trucks made by the same folks who made the SST? The cockpits look the same.
-
Right, but how many of those are there? If it's free to redistribute, it's free to redistribute, but the scrape doesn't even care about that - they just take everything. Mods which are free to redistribute tend not to be lost, because anyone can reupload them to any site. I might go so far as to suggest that "not available except with a complete scraping of Spaceport" and "free to redistribute" are almost mutually exclusive.