the_bT

I've followed this discussion since it started. I refrained from posting because I had seen the movie just once and that was a couple of years back. However, I did not remember it to be boring at all. Turns out its stream it is but one Google search away, so I just watched it again. To me the movie made it pretty clear from the beginning and throughout that the main focus is the black monolith. It is a collection of three stories that revolve around a monolith each. The stories are not connected much beyond that and don't need to be. The first and last monolith induce a significant step forward for those who dare to reach for it. The second points to the third as a test of ability, that's a bit uneven but I don't mind. Why the AI goes mad I didn't completely understand. It certainly is connected to it having the information about the monolith and its primary function/reason to be being to serve mission, ship and crew. Then again, how could anyone know exactly why someone else goes mad? The fact that this is no different for an AI might be to underline its not that different from a non-artificial sentient being. It's always kind of strange in other movies when the very advanced AI more capable than even the brightest mind goes full ****** and some geek shows up to explain to everybody that the reason is some sort of logical fallacy in its programming. Very advanced AI indeed.

I would guess it is because flying in a light plane is usually not done to get somewhere but because flying is fun. A lot of accidents with young drivers happen when they go or come from spending free time and are in "lets make this fun" mode. That does not happen with planes. Same with drink driving, you just don't just get into a situation where it would be convenient to just say: "Whatever, I will fly home anyways. I feel totally fine." Also the traffic density is lower and where there is a lot traffic there is also a control tower telling you what to do. Lastly, there are a lot of things other then traffic you need to avoid crashing into in a car, where in a plane there is only one, the ground. Plenty of reasons to give a pilots license at least for gliders to people 1 or 2 years before they are eligible for a drivers license.

Tried these earlier today and they work very well for navigation lights on large planes. I was using B9 omni lights for that until now and they light in color but stay white themselves which looks odd. The models are a bit bulky though, they should be almost flat so that they look like they are embedded in whatever you stick them on. PS: Great, now I'm stuck listening to daft punk for the day...

I have some issues of parts not getting shielded inside of a procedural fairing. I don't know whether to post this here or in the procedural fairings thread. But since some parts are shielded and others are not I'm going with here. How does FAR figure out what parts to shield anyways? I tried to make a large cargo plane and because I had no cargo bays of sufficient size I used some structural panels and procedural fairings to hack this: If it turns out this is just to far over the top I won't complain... As you can see the panels are shielded but the tanks are not. Both the panels and the tanks are however inside the fairing and surface attached to something that is inside the fairing and shielded. Is it a bug in the generated fairing model maybe induced by the large size or is there some rule about how FAR figures out what to shield that bites me here? (I realize that question is hard to answer, what is more likely though?) I assume there is no way that FAR would shield a craft that was simply parked inside this so I thought about docking ports on the floor or KAS winches on the ceiling... I tested how much weight I can lift with this setup and discovered the shielding problem before it got that far.

Currently you can do what the new vernier engines are doing with actiongroups, that is true. But for all rotations and translations you block 6 of your 10 action groups. I find that excessive. So just for their ability to use the RCS keys as input is enough demand for me. But that feature could be implemented a lot better then with new parts. Why cant I decide as the constructor of a vehicle to what input axis an engine is linked? It could be a tab in the current action group editing mode or something. Each axis would have its own "axis action group" and parts would add themselves to the proper group automatically like they do already with the normal action groups. Even better would obviously to be able to link things to one of several cockpits also. Just think about how much better something like an (infernal) robotic arm would be if you could hook it up to special cockpit or maybe command seat and move it with WASD when you "control from here".

This effect of almost zero risk of failure is in all games with a quicksave feature, it is a natural side effect of the mechanic (or any saving mechanic for that matter). Even if you were to remove quicksaving, players could still exploit the autosave feature to get the same effect. And it is a good mechanic to begin with anyways. It would not be a good idea to try and add some sort of cost to it, you cannot explain that inside the game world. From the game world perspective no time passes but you lose something wich should not be possible, therefore it will break immersion. Some players care a lot about such issues. Better make some sort of iron man game-mode or mod that disables quicksaves and reverting in a career save. I think I would try it... I will try to try it without a mod, I don't know if I have the willpower once the first crew dies because I crashed an already landed plane by braking to hard or something stupid like that...

Does this constitute the first ever act of space piracy in the history of humanity? (sure, they did get permission from a government agency, but that is nothing new in the pirating scene)

Ok, this is offtopic but I think I need to clarify my standpoint a little. I don't think that if you consider something possible to do without injury and end up injuring or killing people in the process you are treating humans as expendable. If you however from the beginning assume that some goal cannot be reached without death and try regardless, then you do. No space program has ever done this. Underestimating risks to appeal to politicians might have been done on both "sides" but not on a systematic basis I believe.

I agree with all who say that a person that can only move with a suit that pretty much moves for them has no advantage over controlling that robotic suit remotely. But remote control is difficult with a time delay. The best deal you can get seems to be to control your robot from orbit. I believe coping with these long time delays for rover operation on Mars has lead to big leaps in autonomous control computers and driver assistance systems for vehicles (I have no evidence though). I wonder if the same progress would have been made without the specific problem at hand. That claim is often made for technologies developed for spaceflight and rarely proved. Now if you use some sort of human like robot without wheels (for whatever reason) you need new control systems I guess. Would either robot or control system be developed without specific problem to solve? If robotic exploration of Venus leads to some affordable full body force feedback control setup that I can then abuse to play video games I'm all for it... The robots may be useful too but what do I care Also ... Whats with all the hate on soviet tech? Are we that insecure as "the west" now that we need to badmouth ancient technology that was barely worse if at all then what "we" came up with? As far as I know the soviet space program has never treated humans as expendable.

I don't think we will ever need to place ullage engines in stock KSP. That would make things awfully complex. Even if it is not that hard to a concept to grasp, how would you ever convey to a player that some engine is deprived of fuel X not because said fuel is absent but because it currently chills in a corner of its tank on the wrong side of the rocket... Hopefully we get something rocket engine like that works with RCS input. I'm sick of placing 20 rcs blocks per end on large cargo SSTO's. I've already tried using the orange Rockomax engines for that but it needs to many action groups.

I like the idea. I'm just struggling to figure out how I would launch into the uhh... ecliptic? (the plane where all the planets are). Now I launch, set mun as target and have ascending and descending nodes to burn inclination away. I should probably not be able to do that from a is-it-realistic point of view... but how would I do it? I guess the real deal is to track some stars and do some math and then know where to go. I'm not the real deal though Edit: on the other hand, if I go interplanetary I go to some calculator and get some inclination and angle to prograde, all that needs to change is the calculator really. Edit2: I think I know how to do it. Know the axial tilt angle, burn over the terminator until inclination is equal, need to do it in the right direction but I can figure that out on the fly

Ok, here's what I do: Throttle down to 10%-ish (or limit main engine thrust) and use RCS and SAS to keep you on course. I find that the easiest option with big cargo spaceplanes. This design is comparable in configuration to yours I think, note the extra RCS thrusters in the front and back (well, hard to see but they're there).

I'd like to try this I think... Just one thing: Suppose I launch the required satellite (sans docking ports) with whatever launch vehicle. Then I recover it with a different craft using a claw and land it. Now my recovery craft sits next to KSC (hopefully) with the satellite attached. I do have to launch that exact satellite again right? It has no docking port and I'm not allowed to use a claw. Stock only, I see no way that could be done except the rather dodgy proposal of putting it in some sort of basket and flying the whole ascend under thrust so it won't fall out. Sure, might be doable I guess... But seriously... Edit: just had a random idea... Point is launched satellite and recovery craft are of different origin right, why not launch satellite, next person recovers, launches next, provides quicksave. Would need to be stock only then but might be fun...

Testing a prototype Monorail I used docking ports to link track pieces but I'm not happy with that... I need something that keeps the individual pieces as separate crafts but still keeps them lined up enough to drive over. I figure that way I could travel beyond the physrange, how awesome would that be?

Mine was parked just off the runway next to the hangar. Then I tried to launch a rocket horizontally using wheels and a giant quarter pipe like ramp. Needless to say after hitting the ramp the craft disintegrated and a one of the side mounted boosters went straight into the plane

Finally done with this... I originally planed to do this stock, had a ok-ish SSTO rocket that could lift about 20t into orbit and return with a powered landing. But attaching cargo was not really practical so I the project was scrapped. You can find the pretty ridiculous stock crane a few pages back in this very thread... I figured that I would need at least KAS to do it. While that kinda worked I thought it would be a bit boring. Then I got into FAR and the whole challenge was forgotten. Until about a week or so ago. Messing around with B9 and FAR I created a pretty capable SSTO. That reminded me of this challenge. I wanted the loading to be as robust and straightforward as possible. After some testing lowering cargo into a bay with KAS proved to be neither. I tried loading via cargo ramp but the B9 ramps are not big enough for my modules. After a lot of testing and prototyping, the best method seemed to be raising the whole spaceplane, then driving the cargo underneath and lift the cargo into the bay from below (The cargo bay is mounted upside down for this obviously). Cargo is docked inside the bay via Sr. docking port and secured with good ol' quantum struts. I know they bend the laws of physics but what else can you do? To raise the plane I fitted some IR pistons into the cargo bay. The cargo is lifted by a dedicated Cargo Vehicle. Because the goal of this challenge is reuseability, I designed the cargo vehicle reuseable too. It can load as many modules as needed. The Mission: The Mission went largely as planned. I spawned all Station modules, the spacecraft and the cargo vehicle and went for it. All in all there are 12 modules, grouped into 9 cargo assemblies. The first 3 or so flights were generally uneventful. But on returning from the fourth I discovered that some of the infernal robotics stuff in my spacecraft was not where it was originally mounted, stuff had moved downward. After one more flight the problem escalated so I was forced to "repair" my spacecraft. I noted the fuel level after touch down, recovered the vehicle, then launched it without cargo and about the same fuel as it had before. I also fitted a docking port that was forgotten when I first launched the thing. I hope that is no problem, I don't think it's against the spirit of the challenge but your call. Nothing I did prior to fitting the additional docking port would have been in any way different if I had not initially forgotten to put it there. Flights 6 to 8 went without problem. Disaster struck on flight 9. Undocking from the fuel truck messed up the craft view somehow. It was more or less unusable. IVA and Map view remained functional so I went for it. After all, how hard can it be? Luckily I had very recently installed rasta prop monitor and stuck a few cameras around the craft. Without those and the infinitely better instrumentation this would have been impossible. However the way things were it was tremendous fun I spent the whole coast to AP with figuring out how to select targets and and reference parts for docking from IVA. That's what they call learning by doing I guess... Final notes: * The Spacecraft is a "TT P235-82 Crane". * Tedia Station has 12 modules + a Tug used for construction, total mass 255t. There are 16 lab stations, it is crewed with 24 Kerbals (2 Kerbals share one Hitchhiker for habitation) * I did 9 Flights, so I had to refuel 8 times. I forgot to screencap some refuelings but most I got. All in all pretty cool challenge.

I would like to see that... Only thing that bothers me though is, pod racers as they appear in star wars seem to be ground vehicles, while they are maneuverable when airborne, they certainly cannot fly. Obviously you cant put wheels on a pod racer, but is there some plugin that can emulate the proper hovering, maybe something could be made? With that It would be pretty epic. Also If the pods no longer need the ability to fly it would be possible (or at least easier) to add FAR for maximum speediness. Edit: Rules should aim to allow a wide array of designs to compete, the only thing I think is absolutely necessary is a separation into pod and 2-4 engine nacelles linked by cables.

Press F2 for iron-man mode I just spectacularly failed because I had not enough fuel to even land. Could not have entered because I used some B9 engines for VTOL capability. Figured challenge is challenge whether or not you make a post later Is it allowed to mount lights onto cubic struts so they can be seen from inside the cockpit and use them as "ghetto-actiongroup-activation-instrumentation" ? To go to the moon without map on stock is easy. You wait in circular orbit (70km - 100km or so) until the moon rises over the horizon, then you burn towards prograde. Use the old orbit calculation tools (this for example) to figure out how fast you need to be after the burn. Should be ~3140 m/s or so. Downside is, you have no way of knowing how good your encounter is until you get there. Thats the Mun, Minmus won't work as easy because of its inclination. If you want to go interplanetary you're boned without map and special tools anyways.

Entry: Empty weight: 1.73 t Unloaded run: 1:08 Loaded run (8 modules): 1:40 I've got 10 control surfaces, for those who keep count Score (currently): 268.2080 I think...

Astrid...

I will not give up! Had done a quicksave right after de-orbit burn, continued from that point. Orbit is therefore the same as before.

Well, do the rules stipulate that nothing may fall off the craft? Because my shiny shoddy new wheels kinda did shortly after touchdown... All seats (pods) stayed intact though!

I know, It has no wheels... Problem?

I kinda figured something like this might not be exactly in the spirit of this challenge. I mean, it doesn't say that you cannot use a VTOL, just that you have to move forward when taking off, all you need for that are wheels right? Anyway, it says Airplane Lift Challenge so I build a proper airplane with wings and all that fancy stuff. Well ok, I thought about doing that for a minute, then just took my current short range cargo plane and reconfigured it for a greater take off mass and dedicated Jumbo fuel tank transport. Liftoff speed is about 75 m/s, maximum level flight speed at ~100 m is about 100 m/s (barely). The Jumbo tanks sit in cradles made of Landing Gears. They have no other link to the plane. This should make loading/unloading pretty simple I hope. It is also possible to jettison or airdrop the payload by retracting the cradle wheels. The TT P230-78 Jacul:

I came up with a working prototype of a stock crane if anyone is interested: It's basically a rover that drives up or down a ramp, and the ramp itself can move as well. The rover lifts, the ramp moves, simple and effective. A bit strange to handle but you can get a good clean dock without problem. Unfortunately it is not tall enough, but only by about 10 or 15 meters Once I get that to work I should be ready to do this...