wumpus

It looks like the register (tech rurmour website) has been working on an amature project on this very topic. Note that baloon has gone over 100,000' (not sure about payload beyond a small figurine), so it seems to be a bit more than a standard weather baloon. One thing I remember is that their first [few?] attempts with ignition failed. Off-the-shelf rocket ignitors simply didn't raise the temperature enough when your rocket is at something like 40 below. http://www.theregister.co.uk/science/lohan/

I recently got KSP running for my nephew. It was an "all-in-one" job with a minimal GPU and really couldn't handle KSP at native resolution (it kinda-worked by dropping it down to something like 1440-900). Fortunately, his father's laptop seems to work better (and is typically where he can use it), but I'd like to thank Squad for not overdoing the graphics. If mods exist for great graphics, why make things more difficult for older machines? I suppose that KSP would make me more happy with more realistic textures (read inhabited) for Kerwin, but what I really want for 1.0 is far less crashes, more sane contracts, and as much of the "1.0 list" that Squad can do. Better graphics really won't make or break KSP. Gameplay and bugs will.

Can I gripe about survey missons (assuming they require samples or other "really on the ground, we mean it this time" missions? I'm presently ignoring my career mode due to a mission that requires my rover to escape a crater on the Mun. I don't really have an issue with rovers on thier own (especially after some of the ideas here about 6 wheeled landers), just the traction issues and how surveys seem to be randomly laid out with "you can't get there from here" issues (I could make flying rovers, but am too much of a lousy pilot to expect to survive often).

One thing I haven't seen mentioned is that you could build a "space tug" (or more likely, just a stage) of plenty of nukes to use just a few periapsis kicking, then send the main vehicle off with less (or even just one) nukes. Once you've built up enough deltaV to be in a highly elliptical orbit between Mun and Minmus (~900m/s), you are nearly there to Eve, Duna (~150,170 respectively). You are "merely" half-way to Jul, Elo, and Moho (and I'm ignoring capture and aero-braking which will count for some huge burns if you are not aerobraking due to "real aero" [mods or >=1.0] or lack of atmosphere (and Dres gets stuffed here due to still needing ~400m/s and no possibility of aerobraking)). In any event, returning a stage that has a perigee already at a parking orbit is trivial, although it might take some time to land specifically on KSC if you wish to do that.

The obvious problem is the only comparable aircraft is the SR-71 blackbird. If you've ever had the chance to look down the nose of one of those, you will see that its cross-sectional area is *tiny*. Pretty much as small as Kelly Johnson could get it (for obvious reasons). It isn't all that long and it would be hard to imagine it carrying something much bigger than a pegasus (and even that "only" carries 1 Tonne). For something made in the Apollo era (listed as 1966) it still isn't clear that we could duplicate much of it (what can we produce for a superstructure that is better than titanium? My guess is that a modern "blackbird" might not leak: *huge* in lowering fuel costs, and I suspect it desperately needed artificial stabilization (as did the U2), but little real advances in making it a launch platform.Anyone who really thinks spaceplanes are the answer really ought to price out the jet engines needed for such a beast. Modern commercial airlines barely break even (or worse) on 20 minute turn around. If that jet engine isn't in the air/space >80% of the time, things are going to get seriously expensive. Rockets make a lot of sense when the craft is expendable, and fuel use is irrelevant. Rockets make even more sense when you can use them a few times (and SpaceX isn't claiming more than 10 uses for any rocket, and throwing at least one away every Falcon 9 flight).After reading the title I was assuming that this thread was more likely about Skylon flying suborbital flights to NYC or similar. Sadly, it appears to need nearly as much to accomplish that (deltaV around 7km/s) as to get to orbit. I can't see Skylon being remotely profitable either way (orbital or suborbital).

First: KSP is seriously geeky in itself and likely to attract more geeks than gamers even after launch. Some of Squads choices fall both ways: I'm surprised by the "No Steam Achievements". These seem tailor made for KSP (and are already backfitted under "XP"). Score one for the geeks. On the other hand, Steam wants deltaV either to be a deep, dark, secret (or else have you compute them by hand). We'll see once the engineering report is included in 1.0 Have you even *tried* the new career mode? They not only avoid hand-holding, they chop off your hands and won't let you upgrade back to andriod hands until you at least orbit Kerbin manually. Does anybody here want *less* pretty explosions? It seems to be a direct contradiction between hand-holding, win-buttons, and pretty explosions. Keeping pretty explosions means they are at least doing something right. Lastly, I think the "gamers" are more likely to keep trudging on to put a flag on every planet/moon. The geeks might take their time playing with rocket designs, but it doesn't follow that they will spend more time with the game. They *are* more likely to mention it elsewhere and try to drum up support (because it is such a geeky game), but the time doesn't follow. Part of the thrill of KSP is that you can always design a new rocket, although these posts show that geeks aren't going to play this game forever. I've put off going to other planets partly because of release timing and contracts consuming my time and partly because of playing in the sandbox coming up with better rocket designs. For pretty much any (PC) game, I'd look to the modding community for long term playability anyway. My guess is that nuturing colonies (possibly intersteller ones) will be the end-game for KSP. Oh, and counter point: Yes, Scott Manley has published 33 hours worth of youtube just of him playing a game of KSP. These aren't his tutorials, just a playthrough. Presumably he has enough followers (who watch 33 hours of him playing) to keep going.

Odd. I know I completed a contract for a Minmustationary contract (and had to have a certain feature "in view"). With KSP's physics hack, I'm pretty sure the question comes down to "is an orbit with the diamater necessary for a stationary orbit inside the Mun's sphere of influence or not". KSP doesn't include N-body physics. If you are orbiting the Mun you shouldn't leave the Mun's sphere of influence (unless it is doing something weird like leaving and catching you again. I may have seen that). Once you do, you can be captured by Kerbin.

I remain convinced that this is the [biggest] requirement that did in the shuttle. Lose the cargo bay (and use fairings like every other launch vehicle) and the size gets under control.http://xkcd.com/1461/large/ (3/4 of the shuttle wasn't payload. Figure out how much of that was the cargo bay.)

Here is a page of 17" laptops that aren't Dell/HP/Lenovo (but tend to be reasonably well known for PC parts). The >18" are budget breakers, and the 17" have a reasonably wide selection of GPUs (I'd tend toward the Maxwell jobs, if only for heat/power consumption). Warning: nvidia has no plans for wayland, so it might not be a good long term choice for Linux.http://www.xoticpc.com/custom-gaming-laptops-notebooks-laptops-ct-95_51_150.htmlNo idea how to find a good Linux laptop. With desktops it seams you just buy the desktop and it works (I've had more things not work with windows than not work with Linux). Best answer is to find someone who has installed (and used) Linux on the laptop. Second best method is to google drivers for each part. I'm guessing the wifi chipset is the only real issue.

Back in the 90s I needed a new nick. I decided to go for the "old school* gamer" sound.* To play "hunt the wumpus" you would type the program in from something like "BASIC computer games", port it to your own computer (my Atari 400 had a slightly non-standard BASIC), and write the code for any graphics you want to add.

48-7s. I can only hope that after its scheduled encounter with the nerf bat it is still reasonably possible to escape Eve.turbojets: a jet that goes up to orbital velocity? Would some sort of intake limit be enough, or does the jet itself need nerfing.basic jets: not as obvious with the OP turbojets nearby, but great for vertical takeoff and absolutely have no reason to break the sound barrier, let alone act as reasonable first stages the way they do.rapiers: haven't played with them. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they are a problem.LV-N: absolutely fine as an interplanetary engine. Lowering thrust a tad might keep it out of landers, where it really doesn't belong.Other issues:ion engine: ion engines are basically OP in real life, but kerbal makes them nearly impossible to use. Some means of letting ions work while "on rails" needs to be used. Note: LV-N basically acts as a stand in for ions. They can't be nerfed that hard as long as ions aren't usable.aerospike: clobbered with the nerf bat. If 48-7s get battered beyond use in lower level Eve ascenders, I can only hope that aerospikes get buffed enough for use there.

Am I the only player who still has issues with the GUI? Right now I see few issues: As a new player, adding struts was more likely to tear the rocket appart than add struts. Practice helped. The GUI still doesn't want everything to be clicked (some stuff just gets hidden). Still not ready. The career mode also appears designed for long-term players. Tricky contract language isn't good, but secret "don't overshoot your altitude by too far or you will lose your next contract" is worse. Puting new users in the hardest mode (weight limits, manuever nodes locked, part count limits) is just bad. I recomend going back to "science mode" for new players. All the rest is gravy. While I'd like the aero system fixed (but not enough to load Ferum), that and the other things on the list for beta are mere details. The point of this game is to launch little green men into space, and as long as you can do that Squad has delivered. I may have been lucky about the bugs (reverted after a short test on Win64, I will admit that my Linux port is roughly as buggy as win64). Squad would be wise to pull win64 support for 1.0 unless it actually works. Acid test for 1.0: What gets in the way of a new player landing on the Mun? Does he spend all his time cursing the GUI? Does he spend endless hours grinding away the 18T limit (shouldn't be hours, but without watching any Scott Manley videos, who knows)? Or is it a more Kerbal experience of trying to get there and adding boosters? Fix that which gets in the way of "moar boosters", ship that which doesn't.

Right underneath the thrust limiter should be "amount of fuel". You need to reduce that one. Also do all the tricks in the Scott Manley video to grab all the science you can. For later runs you probably want to use liquid fuel rockets (or some combination of a liquid stage on top of a solid stage), if only to have a throttle control. Once you are well on your way you can use the map mode (hit "m" to see where your rocket is going) and look for the apoapsis mark (mouse over it to find out your eventual height). Throttle down your engines (the "x" key) once your apoapsis is above the contract point (but add some extra, it will come down a bit due to air resistance). I'd really suggest the science mode for new players. The career mode seems designed to let current players experience KSP all over again with a hand or two tied behind thier back* (science mode locks parts. Career mode locks parts, weight restrictions, manuever nodes, and a few others (number of parts for one). * I'm not abysall lurker. (oddly enough, this would have helped in my learning to hit the Mun without manuever nodes).

Checked and edited. I'm surprised that the LV-909 doesn't do better, but still looks like the best for transfer burns. Also I suspect my next lander might still use the LV-909 (due to wimping out on docking and hauling the mobile lab down to minmus). So far the 48-7s replaces: LV-1 (for anything that you might want an LV-1 for) LV-909 (although not all the time due to the ISP factor). aerospike (if you won't use it on Eve, why would you want one?) Of these, only the LV-909 seems to show up sufficiently earlier on the tech tree for a somewhat expected replacement.

It looks like I'll stick with my single-[liquid]-stage-to-orbit [ignore all those SRBs hanging off of it], but with odd tests of this "other" method. One thing I tried was going asparagas with the idea that the side stages could make it to orbit on their own if sufficiently throttled. Testing made it appear that they weren't stable under thrust, maybe I'll have to try with autopilots capable of maintaining a prograde heading (I thought they weren't using the autopilot/SAS system they had). This would be more or less an ideal method (except for that whole three landings per launch. Probably have to hand it over to mechjeb).

let's be serious here: Heavier lander? The only way you can get more deltaV out of a 48-7s than a LV-909 and >1 TWR on the Mun is with a command chair. The ISP just isn't there. The 48-7s is great for many things, but returning kerbals from gravity wells isn't one of them. Light landers are fine. [Edit: WRONG! Note that I my tests might be correct for extremely heavy landers (note that I assumed that filling with enough fuel to the point that TWR~=1 would show maximum advantage and that advantage would hold on lighter craft). Take a LV-909 if you need to transfer, capture, decend, ascend, re-transfer, etc. 48-7s will likely make a better lander.] Eve???? While I haven't landed on Eve yet, the math screams "USE AEROSPIKES" for lower stages. Even on upper stages there is something like a 00.8% advantage over LV-909 *in the soup* and *using a command chair* (and orange tank). When I go to Eve, I'll bring aerospikes and LV-909 (of course, by then one of these could get buffed/nerfed). [note: according to kerbal engineer you shouldn't use the poodle on Eve. Use 4 LV-909s instead]. [Edit: EVEN MORE WRONG! This is only true for verticle staging. As far as I can figure out, the rocket equation only considers the mass(empty) of the entire asparagus stage (i.e. no payload), so the fact that 48-7s wins without payload means it should be used for all lower stages as well. You aren't going to ascend Eve without asparagus staging, are you?] While the LV-1 could really use an ISP buff, most of the cult of the 48-7s is assuming that the mass empty part of the rocket equation will be similar on other craft as it is to the last probe stage. [EDIT: Nope. The 48-7s really is that good (although you probably want to have docking ports or other tech before switching to mass 48-7s use, it still doesn't like payloads). I'll have to make sure I make an Eve ascent before it gets nerfed.]

Scott Manley recently posted a video showing a low-tech (probably one step on the tech tree) 18T semi-recoverable rocket. While the specific rocket seemed impractical (I'd rather add two more SRBs in explosive staging than deal with the recovery issues for something that far away. Something tells me it won't cover the ~650 root cost of the SRBs), it shows at least some way to build a "space-X style" launcher in .90. So far I have concentrated on single-liquid-stage+expendable SRBs to orbit. So to get to the Mun or something, I would dump a bunch of SRBs in the sea, get to orbit, de-orbit my booster as close to KSC as I can (hopefully around 95% recovery without mechjeb), and then go on my mission with the lander (which I might not be patient enough to bother aiming at KSC from the Mun). SSTOs might be more glamerous, but simply aren't going to go anywhere until you remove the weight restrictions on the launchpad (full disclosure: I have. My "bring more fuel for those stupid surveys" rocket just wouldn't quite work with the weight limitations, and I pretty much put every root into the buyout+rocket). After watching the video (and failing to find the probe/debris with my copying attempts), I have to wonder how you go about "stay within 2.5km" are. Is a late gravity turn (to keep the booster closer to KSC) an option (I'm assuming you have to gravity turn with it to avoid a quick 2.5km distance). It looks like you *have* to take your booster above some [unclear, 30km?] altitude to keep theb parachutes from popping on the way up. After a few tries (mostly trying to make a medium lifter with a single asparagased pair of boosters) I checked the video again and the first [liquid] stage has 3000m/s deltaV (including 500m/s from the expendable SRB). This seems a long way from orbit (another 50% isn't "just a little more deltaV) but going to land a long haul from KSC (reason I want multiplayer: to hand this over to mechjeb with a small fraction of fuel and tell it to land on KSC. See how far it can go without a payload). So, how efficient is it to dump a liquid stage a significant fraction of Kerbin's radius away from KSC? A rough guess of my recovery seems to be slightly more than half the cost of my rocket (the other half being SRBs and the lander). Anyone know how much you recover from the first stage when doing this? Scott Manley cut out the recovery screen, and it seems to be the critical number in determing if you want to recover as much as possible from a big booster or split the costs and lose a big chunk of a smaller booster (don't forget, a big low-tech and weight limited booster will have way too many SRBs hanging off of it. You don't get anything back from them).