-
Posts
138 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Everything posted by Casualnaut
-
What would you like to see added to KSP?
Casualnaut replied to DarkOwl57's topic in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
A simple buffet is a great buffet... -
What would you like to see added to KSP?
Casualnaut replied to DarkOwl57's topic in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
I would die to see another species... -
Other creatures than kerbals
Casualnaut replied to Vivigluglu's topic in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
#MakeDogsGreatAgainInSpace -
Stage Lock in Settings? Help
Casualnaut replied to KerBlitz Kerman's topic in KSP1 Technical Support (PC, unmodded installs)
I don't think it does... But I don't play on PC, so I don't really know.- 1 reply
-
- stage lock
- settings
-
(and 3 more)
Tagged with:
-
Other creatures than kerbals
Casualnaut replied to Vivigluglu's topic in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
Well I mean, it would be awesome to send up a dog with a kerbal. Even take the dog for a spacewalk! -
I have the Soviet Union in my genes, so this should be easy. Also, here is a quick question: are there extra points for the engines exploding after they're decoupled?
- 58 replies
-
- lunar landing
- soviet
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
Impact Confirmed Challenge
Casualnaut replied to Casualnaut's topic in KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas
As much as the craft worked, you used the structural panels as drag... -
Impact Confirmed Challenge
Casualnaut replied to Casualnaut's topic in KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas
I have a question, did you use the service bay doors as wings? Lithobraking, at least 30/ms, any body. All though you didn't ditch the polymer structures, I still like it! Well, that is true. I will add "No Science Containers" to the rules. -
I play console... I haven't got corrupted or 2 months. I think console is fine... But that is what I THINK.
-
Man I made some mistakes... This is like putting ketchup on bacon. It doesn't make me feel good...
-
CHALLENGE: Design a craft that survive a surface impact, on any body, even an asteroid. RULES: No parachutes except for 1 drogue. No engines to slow down your craft. You can use as many parts as you like. Parts can be sacrificed during impact, just make sure the payload survives. It can't be a glider. The only exception is if you glide through reentry, then you must ditch the wings. Must land while moving 30m/s or faster. No Science Containers... You know why. ACHIEVEMENTS: Look Mommy, No Parachutes! - Design a craft without the drogue parachute. Only Took 100 Tries - Land a craft without any pieces breaking. Before I Die, I Need Makeup - Design a craft that looks and IMPACTS good.
-
Remember when Vostok and Mercury capsules were the big thing? Probably not, but Russia and the United States are doing what they were doing around 50-60 years ago: to building the next innovative capsule. Here are the new capsules of this generation!: Orion - The US has Lockheed Martin and Airbus working on the Orion Capsule. Meant to take humans farther than ever, Orion is supposed to send 4 astronauts to capture some asteroids and go to Mars in the near future. It is supposed to go with the Deep Space Habitat, which is also being developed. Federation - You have probably never heard of Federation, but it is Russia's new replacement for Soyuz. Federation is a 6-seater meant for the Moon and possibly Mars. It is supposed to dock with the supposed Russian Lunar Orbital Station, and possibly help in colonization of the Moon. It possibly might send Russians to Mars if they design it to. Able to survive reentry, the heat shield possibly could have little landing legs. Said to slow down in atmosphere using environmentally-clean retro-rockets, Roscosmos hopes to have all phases of atmospheric flight be harmless to the environment. Which craft would you prefer? The all-lunar Federation capsule or the into-the-unknown Orion capsule?
-
No no no, this was back in 2000 and 2006. It has been canceled due to Barack Obama's replacement of the Vision For Space Exploration. I am not saying it was bad, I am just curious about how it would operate as lunar outpost. Is it a lander/outpost duo? Or are the engines on the bottom just for it's soft landing? It is great when NASA and other space agencies redesign older designs to use for future missions. It allows them to know that because the older spacecraft design was successful, they can use some of it's design to make other missions successful. I am not really sure what you mean. Do you think this project is ongoing? Because it is not... The concept art is 10 years old. It was scrapped after Obama's replacement for the Vision for Space Exploration.
-
This seems very... interesting because it is.... COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!!!!!!!!!!
-
All though this was canceled, I think that it is a bit strange. In 2006, NASA announced the Lunar Architecture study. It's purpose?: "To define a series of lunar missions constituting NASA's Lunar Campaign to fulfill the Lunar Exploration Elements." The result was a plan for a permanent lunar outpost near a polar crater that had ice. The crew would swap every six months. Now here is NASA's concept art for the base. The guy is walking into his wonderful lunar base. Seems like a legit base, right? Well get this: Back in November of 2000, NASA made plans for a lunar landing. It was like a Apollo mission, with the same type of lander. Here is the link to the plans of the L-1 Lunar Lander and Gateway... https://history.nasa.gov/DPT/Architectures/Moon - L1-Moon Lander Design JSC DPT Nov 01.pdf Now the lander from this 2000 concept is the exact same as this lunar outpost from 2007. I don't think that I am seeing the concept picture wrong, the white cylinder in the background looks like it too could be a lander. It seems to have landing legs and a 2 engines on the bottom. If this mission was revived, I would pose a few questions: Is the base permanent like it was described? Why is the base the same as the L-1 Lander? Is the lander actually the base? If the lander is the base, why is it described as permanent? It has a ascent stage in the plans. Is the white cylinder in the background the ascent vehicle?
-
Rewriting Higher Paths, data got corrupted, waiting for next update.
-
Hmmm, I remember this from somewhere... It's based off Higher Paths' GCOS! You can see the similarities...
- 13 replies
-
- kanada
- space program
-
(and 2 more)
Tagged with:
-
So I'm playing on my PS4, and I have this sudden urge to create some sort of space lifter. I have the idea, I don't have the parts. Now here is what I am suggesting: Every so often, Squad releases a poll for mods that the console community would want to see. The winner becomes a free downloadable expansion for the PS4. For example: BD Armory - 32% Infernal Robotics - 45% RSS - 23% Is this a good way to allow console players to access mods? Am I just overthinking this?
-
Mmmmmhmmm... I got one that goes 2000m/s. It is called a rocket.
- 5 replies
-
- competition
- building
-
(and 2 more)
Tagged with:
-
100 Years of airplanes history 100% stock
Casualnaut replied to Makc_Gordon's topic in KSP1 The Spacecraft Exchange
Nice Cessna 172 Skyhawk and SU-37! -
Stock turboshaft helicopter: 77I- AH-64 Apache (beta)
Casualnaut replied to Azimech's topic in KSP1 The Spacecraft Exchange
Very interesting. -
Squad- Please "Chop this wood"
Casualnaut replied to Jengaleng's topic in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
Hmm... Realistic spacecraft damage that can be toggled, Sonar as a water experiment, realistic heating effect on craft spacecraft equipment and engines that can be toggled, A.I space programs that you play against, gravitational effects of larger asteroids. There are tons of things that people have never even thought of.