ARS

I see. Thank you for your clarification

Okay, here's an analogue: Stock parts + real solar system = nobody get to go to space because stock parts underwhelming performance in real life scale Real parts + stock solar system = total overkill since many real life rocket parts are overkill when used in kerbol Compare it like this: In real life, a nuclear bomb with x megaton power produce the blast size of 15 km that leveled an entire city on earth surface Now scale down the earth and the explosion into kerbin size. For us, the blast looks puny bcs of the smaller scale, but for kerbals, its still a bomb with x megaton power and 15 km radius Its all about perspective and balance. If you make a nuclear bomb with real life scale and drop it on kerbin, I doubt the plane that dropped it will make it out of blast zone and makes the weapon impractical. So the bomb was scaled down to make it more practical

Question: does this means if I go really fast inside mun atmosphere, my craft could blow up bcs overheating from atmospheric drag? I know moon (or mun) does have atmosphere in real life, but does this mod add a very thin atmosphere or a quite thick one? Overall, good mod It gives another planning aspect for visiting moon or planets

3 years playing KSP and sometimes I forget to put drogue chutes or antenna

Maybe it's because being born and raised in microgravity environment and never experiencing surface gravity makes the bones and muscles too weak. Somehow it reminds me of jellyfish...

Mars gravity is still too heavy for someone who's adapted to live in zero G

Making a quick cash grab by doing several tourist contracts at once (well, most of them is just suborbital/ flyby/ orbit, etc.). Jeb goes on EVA to get some science data. For some reason, they all looks happy

We all know that being in a microgravity environment on a planetary orbit (most people call it zero gravity, but it really isn't since the gravity is still in effect, but in a form of continuous freefall) weakens the human body since blood flows, skeletal and muscle tissue isn't counteracting against gravity like on a surface. My question is, if for example, a person was born in that microgravity condition (like on earth orbit) and spend his/her life in that condition. What'll happen when one day, that person was brought to earth surface for the first time? How he/she will react? Astronauts does show a sign of weakness whenever they disembark from their capsule and had to be supported by other people just for walking. But how it turns out if the astronaut never experience earth's surface gravity before? If he/she becomes too weak, is there something to do to make that person able to adapt with earth gravity? Also what happen if astronaut spend too long in microgravity condition? I know it does cause a weakening of a body, but does it cause death? Let me know what you guys think

Dres I don't know why, but I just love dres Some of my reasons: - far enough to be considered challenging, yet simple enough in aesthetic to give me a warm, calming feeling - the surface looks like asteroid or mun, make it easy to familiarize. Also, the aesthetic looks perfect for mining base - easy to land and easy to take off there, and there's no moons that'll mess my orbital maneuvers - no atmosphere, so I don't have to worry about reentry. Also, the terrain is mostly smooth and suitable for landing (except at those canyons)

Hey, that sounds like what my sisters said too!: KSP is a game where you fly a rocket filled with green peas

Usually, when my vessel is within 1km or less, I start to kill my speed by burning relative to target. The problem is, most of the time, when I'm trying to kill my speed, the vessel's engine points at or near retrograde node so whenever I try to perform a burn to slow down relative to target, it usually also ended in burning retrograde too. My 2nd craft is usually faster than the 1st And by what you mean relative to target is by clicking the text "orbit" on navball multiple times until it shows "target" right?

Okay, I'll gonna try again next time from higher altitude. 100 km should be enough? You mean those ascending/ descending node? I tried to match the orbital plane and try to make those nodes as close at 0 degree as possible All vessel launched from my launch pad goes to east to make an orbit, so from KSC perspective, my vessels orbits from west to east. Usually as soon as 1st part of the station is in a stable orbit, I launched 2nd part when (looking kerbin from above) 1st part is around 45-90 degree angle while 1st part is at 0 degree angle. From there when the 2nd part makes a stable orbit, they go in the same direction, so I fine tune my 2nd craft to make sure it isn't overtaking the 1st part, but usually it ends up the 1st part overtaking it while I'm going suborbital Is there anything wrong in my procedure?

The problem that I face every time I try to dock is during rendezvous phase. What usually happen is like this: 1. Finished setting up maneuver node, got at most 900-500m of distance towards the target, starting burn. 2. Burn finished, time to match my speed with the target, burn again. 3. Burn finished, now just wait until I'm close enough. 4. When the target is closing in, I switched to RCS and slowly match and fine tune my speed as I approach the target 5. Here's where things usually go wrong. As I approach the target vessel, sooner or later, the distance between me and my target slowly start to increase and we're getting further and further apart 6. Usual cause? Either: -Matching speed with target after maneuver burn changed my orbit to suborbital trajectory -Like above, but worse: I'm back inside atmosphere when I approach the target. The target still going, but the atmospheric drag slows me down and the target overtakes my vessel -RCS/ LfOx depleted At that point I just going "screw this, I'm gonna do it in 1 launch"

KSP is a single player sandbox game that's unlike most sandbox game out there. In KSP, it takes more skill than just build stuff, there's a skill needed to fully enjoy the KSP such as the skill to fly rockets/ planes/ SSTO properly, do efficient orbital burns, landing a plane, doing reusable operation, setting up a base, docking, and doing advanced maneuvers such as gravity assist or pulling off acrobatic move with aircraft. Some people is able to master a skill faster than others. Some needs a few trial and error. And some needs to "think outside the box" for compensating for lack of a particular skill So, is there a skill in KSP that you still haven't mastered yet (or still in the process of learning)? Let us know what you think I'll start: the skill in KSP that I haven't mastered is surprisingly, docking. A BASIC DOCKING. I want to build space station, so docking is a necessary skill for it. 3 years attempting to dock never ends well for me, so I take an "outside the box" approach: SINGLE LAUNCH EVERYTHING! most of the stuff that I posted in what did you do in KSP today is either single launched, or using overpowered mod engines (like SpaceY lifters)

Not sure if this is related, but I suspect that kerbals is the kraken themselves. Bcs... the dead kraken that we found on one of the jool's moon is also green colored. Also, when you put a kerbal on a great force from the outside, they seem to show their "true form" (aka spazzing) which, if they are being stretched enough, they seem to resemble "a central body with 5 or 4 long appendage sticking out radially" which resembles the kraken. The question is why they always revert back to their calm-docile like creature whenever their spazzing finished (if they haven't blown into dust first)? Is there something that keeps kerbal from becoming kraken themselves? Or perhaps the (ghost of dead) space kraken outside is lonely and start attacking ships (which usually prefer big, part-heavy and complicated ship full of kerbals) so that he may turn the kerbals into what they should become? Or perhaps the kerbals themselves able to resist the power of kraken (well, mostly) so they can back to their kerbal form instead being blown to dust and joining ghost kraken? Nah, I think I'm gone too far

Well, that's new for me. I'm sorry if I misunderstood some of the stuff. I'm working on manufacturing company, so most of the stuff about laser cutting is still very basic for me, since that's what my workmate knows. Anyway, thanks for the info!

Well, most of the cutting laser is a gas laser AFAIK. But even then, using cutting laser as a weapon is not a practical idea anyway

Uuuuum... what are you thinking? Laser cutter and laser emitter is not the same. Laser emitter that have a long range is generated from optical amplification based on the stimulated emission of electromagnetic radiation. This laser have long range, but almost do no damage (other than blind people). Assuming what you mean by laser cutter is the one that's usually used to cut metal, it's generated by discharging electric current through a gas, which means the range of your laser gun is limited to how far the gas can be expelled (think it like a long range blowtorch), not counting the power requirement and cooling needed to destroy the target, then you might just grab a gun and shoot your target instead

Aborting all missions and starting a new career since I'm updating my KSP to 1.3 (Don't wanna lose kerbals since some of craft uses mods that is already discontinued since 1.0) Oh, and also, I would like to ask something. I want to make a semi-permanent munar lander that can function as an outpost. This is what I've made: You see, it's just a mk2 lander can with a launchpad-like structure on top. I want to make it like a lander, that is able to deliver a kerbal and provide at least "larger living space" than a normal lander, but I want to make it so that when it's time to leave, the kerbal would be transferred to mk1 crew pod, the fairing deploys and the radial decoupler detaches the upper rocket out of tower as it's engine started (Think like an apollo lunar lander, the lower part is left behind and function as a launchpad, only this is not inline decoupling but radial one). The problem is, whenever I tested it, it's either the upper rocket detached from tower but with engine turned off, the lower engine ignited instead or simply nothing happened (just decoupler active, engines not even responding to staging sequence). If anyone knows the solution of this problem, then that would be great. As a note, root part is mk1 crew pod staging is as follows: lower engine> fairing> radial decoupler + upper engine> upper inline separator> parachute Can someone give me advice about this problem?

Well, basically my KSP EVAs in a nutshell

Unlike what sci-fi movies told you, in real life, laser is actually an impractical weapon system. Aside from pinpoint accuracy and instant-hit capability, lasers usually suffer from: 1. Power requirement: This is undoubtedly one of the problem faced by energy weapons (not just laser). The power requirement of generating laser beam with sufficient power to be considered as a weapon to actually cause a damage (and not just blind people) is absurdly high. You will need a nuclear reactor or self-sufficient power generating method to fulfill those power-hungry laser to be considered practical 2. Range: Lasers do have a long range, but in atmosphere, there's a problem with beam dissipation. Basically, laser beam decays as they travel through air. This can be mitigated by increasing the intensity of the laser, but then it ends with more power requirement. Even if the laser have a very long range, the terrain is still a problem. Basically, every laser weapon needs a line-of-sight to the target to be able to damage them, in other words, the laser weapon is as exposed as it's target for return fire, while with good 'ol artillery barrage, you can do same (or even more) damage to target by simply arcing the projectile around obstacles, potentially even surpassing the range of laser weapons while being safer as you fire them from behind terrain obstructions. 3. Damage: Bullets, missiles, rockets, and any other ballistic weapon cause a damage on their target ON IMPACT. While lasers, being a sustained beam, need to be focused on target for a few moments as it cause GRADUAL DAMAGE, meaning most ballistic weapon might be able to destroy the incoming missile targeting an aircraft carrier as soon as it impacts the missile body, but laser beam need more time as it damage the missile until it's sufficiently damaged, during which, the missile might be already close enough that it's destruction still send damaging debris on the carrier 4. Heat: Lasers have poor heat dissipation. Most ballistic weapons can mitigate heat by simply changing barrel (and even if the barrel becomes damaged due to overheating, it's barrel simply need to be replaced). Lasers need a way to dissipate heat, which might be a radiator-type heat exchanger or coolant-based system. But then this brings a question: if a laser gun breaks because it's overheated (like a gun with warped barrel), does the process of fixing it could be considered as practical or complicated? Most guns can simply change the barrel, but laser gun is not a simple thing, it's takes an engineer or scientist to fix that thing, it's not something that every soldier can fix in the middle of battle like their jammed gun Not to mention cost

Hi there. First of all, welcome to the forum, glad to have you here Regarding of your question, yes, the antenna must be on the line of sight of each other in order to relay the communication. If your probe is equipped with the best antenna, but it's on the other side of the planet, you will need a relay (another satellite in line of sight to relay the signal to KSC) to make that probe controllable. Unless you enabled the extra groundstations (esc while in game> open settings> difficulty> commnet) you WILL need a relay satellite in formation around kerbin to relay signal to each other in order to maintain constant connection. Enabling extra groundstations will place several radar dish structure around kerbin to maintain constant communication (this means you don't have to set a relay in kerbin and never worried about losing connection around kerbin, so you can focus on making relay on another planet)

Gilly Those dang coriolis effect of compensating with gilly's rotation is what getting on my nerve everytime I tried landing something on it. Needless to say, everytime I land something there, something WILL break

If asking whether they can do it or not, then sure, why not If asking why they didn't do it, then: -Not much known about the dark side of the moon at that time -It's too risky -Can't be supervised directly from earth -$$$ -And remember, those are during cold war. They are under pressure to outdo Soviets in space race

For me, my strategy of using administration building basically goes like this: -early game, I need to unlock tech tree, so do some low level contract to get money and some science and level up administration building to max -unlock aircraft parts, make sure not to go suborbital first (or leave atmosphere) -once a tourist contract start popping up, get it (as long as I don't leave the atmosphere, the tourist contract will still limited to atmospheric flight) -activate "Outsourced RnD" strategy and set it to max or at 75%(convert all gained money into science). tourist contract give a lot of money but no science, thus changing all that money into science. And since it only involves atmospheric flight, jet engines are very fuel effcient and with good piloting skill, I can take a tourist to their destination and land back on KSC to make it so that the only thing I had to paid every launch is just fuel -once all tech tree unlocked, disable "Outsourced RnD" and set "Leadership initiative" to max (so my new objective is not to unlock tech tree, but exploring new places, it's basically encouraging rewarding exploration without being burdened by contract for those who's too lazy to do it and just want to go far away)