Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by DerekL1963

  1. 19 hours ago, JacobJHC said:

    I want to thank everyone for the joy the KSP community has brought me over the last few years. This community is an excellent one to be apart of, and I'm glad I was able to experience it. I wish everyone the best, and thank you for growing this thread to 51 pages, showing that after six years of me being at the helm, there is still a strong enthusiasm for the Ultimate Jool 5 Challenge!

    Thank you for your years of outstanding service to the community!  And thank you to kingofnowhere for taking the reins and ensuring this classic challenge continues!

  2. On 10/24/2023 at 11:26 PM, SunlitZelkova said:

    Why didn’t anyone care about spaceflight in the 2000s?

    Same reason they didn't care in the 70's, 80's, or 90's - people don't care about space.  Has nothing to do with any other hand waving or smoke blowing BS.  People don't care about space.  Despite decades of mythmaking, they only barely cared in the 60's...  and that was only about a Cold War d*ck measuring contest.

  3. 10 hours ago, magnemoe said:

    Agree, they might simply add more g to get an more accurate landing. You probably experienced this in KSP 1 using mechjeb or other atmospheric re-entry predictions. If you  do an Pe at 50 km its way less accurate than if Pe is -50. 

    KSP aerodynamics are...  different from the real world.  And KSP spacecraft don't use dynamic lift to control their landing point the way Soyuz does.  In fact, Soyuz ballistic landings (high G landings) are less accurate than lower G trajectories with dynamic lift.

  4. On 10/18/2023 at 10:32 PM, SunlitZelkova said:

    But, I’m also not sure if the Soyuz is truly lunar mission capable. When Zond 5 returned to Earth, the turtles that were riding aboard suffered something like 8 gs. Their eyeballs popped out.

    The G levels experienced are a factor of trajectory more than anything else...  That being said, over the decades Soyuz has been optimized to be a space station taxi, so I share your doubts.

  5. 14 hours ago, Robin Patenall said:

    Quick question, does anybody know if using a mod like KSP_PartVolume to make more parts available to be moved using EVA construction would make the attempt a MODDED one?

    That would be Jacob's call, but I'd say it's modded as you're changing parts.

    14 hours ago, Robin Patenall said:

    I've got myself in a corner where I'm going to have to throw away fuel because I'm separating a lander and I don't have enough tank space on the mother ship to remove the excess fuel

    If a lander has too much fuel, that sounds less like you need a mod and more like you need to redesign your lander.

  6. 1 hour ago, tater said:

    How many Kaibokan could have been built with the metal wasted on Yamato and her sisters?

    You do have to be careful with that line of thought...  In 1937, the Japanese had no idea that WWII wouldn't turn out the way they thought it would.  Plus it runs counter to IJN doctrine of the era, which favored a small number of technologically and operationally superior units.  (That the Yamato would turn out to be neither until she was refitted with Wave Motion technology was also unknown to them.)  And that doctrine was in turn based on the reality that they well understood - they could not hope to compete with US in numbers or over the long run.  They simply lacked the industrial capacity and easy access to the needed resources.

    1 hour ago, tater said:

    For a bunch of guys who planned their initial push outwards so effectively, they utterly failed to think about the logistics. Course I think the Axis writ-large was an abject failure at logistics.

    As I said above, the Japanese (more the IJN than the IJA) certainly understood their position with relationship to the industrial capacity of the US.  But rather than deterring them from war, it lead them into the clutches of that wily seductress, the short war fallacy.  (The IJN were also inclined to that by their near religious devotion to Mahan's increasingly outmoded doctrines.)

  7. On 9/21/2023 at 10:11 PM, tater said:

    They really did the same with ASW doctrine.  Unpopular posting because considered "defensive." So the US submarine service absolutely wrecks their merchant marine. USN SS force killed way less tonnage than the U-boats—but the U-boats had ~0 impact on tonnage shipped (only 1-2% of ships in convoys sunk over the whole war), and the US Fleet Boats sank nearly all the Japanese Merchant Marine.

    You really do have to be careful comparing Allied apples to Japanese oranges.  The U-boats had less effect on the Allied war effort than you might think because we built Liberty and Victory ships by the gross lot.   On the other hand, the Japanese started the war with the merchant marine on the back foot - they didn't have enough but to barely supply their civilian needs, let alone the expanded needs of wartime industry.  And they never managed to climb out of that hole.  They simply couldn't (and didn't) build enough shipping to make up for their losses.  Thus it's not clear that improved ASW doctrine would have helped much, because they couldn't mass produce the escorts needed to implement that doctrine.

    You also have to consider that the main strength of the Allied ASW effort wasn't just better doctrine or having sufficient capable escorts...   It was hunter killer groups (built around the baby carriers the Japanese didn't have and couldn't build.)  It was long range maritime patrol aircraft.  And not just Coastal Command in the Bay of Biscay! (To which there couldn't be a Japanese equivalent, because the US sub bases weren't in range of any reasonable aircraft.) The Liberators out of Iceland had a huge effect - and they were essentially spares strategic bombers (which the Japanese didn't have).  It was about Huff Duff (high frequency direction finding) which exploited Doenitz's requirement that U-boats frequently phone home (which US subs in the Pacific didn't do).  And Ultra/Enigma.  And littler things like radar (which the Japanese never quite managed to master and put into mass production), and Leigh Lights.  Etc... etc...

    The Battle of the Atlantic turned out different from the Battle of the Pacific because the Allies put a great deal of effort into the Battle of the Atlantic which the Japanese didn't have to put into a mirror equivalent in the Pacific.

  8. On 12/7/2022 at 6:29 PM, kspnerd122 said:

    Question for you real quick, why ban certain mods, bc for me id say just let people have fun rather than disqualify them to complete the challenge

    Speaking strictly for myself...

    Certain mods tilt the playing field and/or reduce or entirely eliminate the challenge...  and the challenge is the point.  To demonstrate a breadth and depth of knowledge and a certain level of skill.  To make the challenge badge something a player has to work to earn.  To make it a mark of achievement.

    And when I did it, I had a blast solving all the engineering and operational challenges.  If that's not what you find fun, the challenge is not for you.

  9. 20 hours ago, 18Watt said:

    Actually, an unmanned Jool 5 run would itself be quite a challenge.  With no engineers to repair things, reconfigure ships on the fly, and operate ISRU equipment, doing an unmanned Jool 5 will require a lot of planning.  Especially if you plan on returning to Kerbin with your acquired science- instead of transmitting it like I probably would.

    That assumes that things break, or that you've failed to design a ship that doesn't require reconfiguration (or requires more than docking and undocking), or that your mission requires ISRU

    My Jool 5 run, linked in my sig, is in most ways trivial to run unmanned.   (In some ways easier, because I could get rid of the weight of the kerbaled components.) There's nothing to break, nothing that requires reconfiguration, and it doesn't rely on ISRU.  I'd have to add some Experiment Storage units, but off hand that would be the only change.

  10. 1 hour ago, king of nowhere said:

    the principle of reusable is simple: you should be able to do it again. If you have a reusable lander, you should be able to land, come back to orbit, then land again, then come back to orbit again, many times.

    If your lander ditches the fairing, and then it's no longer able to function without the fairing, then it's not reusable.

    I would agree.  If the fairing is merely protection during  assembly & transfer, that's one thing.  If it's a functional part of the system, that's another very different thing.

    That is, if you can fly the mission from LKO to LKO* whether or not the fairing is there it's cosmetic.  If the fairing is required for any part part of the mission and would prevent mission success if absent, then it's functional and must be recovered to be considered reusable.  "Imagination and pretending there is a cargo door" is, to me, contrary to the spirit of the challenge because that is in effect a mod that alters the physics of the game.

    * My definition of "re-useable" for spacecraft as opposed to boosters.

  11. 1 minute ago, Dragon01 said:

    TBH, given who I was talking to, talking about a continuum might be under-simplified. :) Also note, SF doesn't necessarily involve overcoming engineering, much less theoretical obstacles. In fact, in near-future hard SF, obstacles are usually economic and/or political.

    I've heard it said that the best SF is about people - the technology is just the background that enables the story which may or may not play a actual role in the story.  Consider Clarke's Imperial Earth, cloning and the Asymptotic Drive power the story, but ultimately it's about neither.

  12. 3 hours ago, KSK said:

    We’re talking about a setting where dirt-poor moisture farmers (Luke) and junk scavengers (Rey) can afford anti-gravity vehicles and sophisticated autonomous robots

    Which could mean the setting is inconsistent (poor buying expensive stuff), or that your assumptions are wrong (what you're assuming to be expensive actually isn't).  It's also worth considering that mass production changes everything.  As does the size of the potential market - if there's a trillion dirt poor farmers (of whatever stripe) across the galaxy who want anti-gravity flivvers to get into town on Saturday nights, I suspect somebody is going to figure out how to fill that need.  And that's disregarding the secondary market...

  13. 2 hours ago, Dragon01 said:

    . As long as you can figure our how to transport them there, or make them on site (aluminium is easy to come by on the Moon)

    Ore is easy to come by.  The equipment needed to mine and refine the ore, and process the resulting aluminum metal into a useful form... not so much.

    Which brings up the question, where do you get (and/or store) the power required to run this (decidedly non trivial) industrial infrastructure you need to bootstrap your power system?  Why aren't you just skipping the middleman and using that power source to run your base in the first place?

  14. 16 hours ago, Neil Kermstrong said:

    I have placed some auto struts and turned rigid attachment on in the parts that were having issues and now it's flying like a dream! Thanks for help

    Be careful with Rigid Attachment - it turns your rockets into glass, rigid but unbendable without breaking.  It can cause rockets to break that otherwise might not.

    IMHO: As far as autostruts go, usually Grandparent (preferred) or Root (for parts physically close to the root) are the best bets.  Which part is the heaviest can and will change over the course of the flight (I.E. as fuel is consumed), and the struts will change when it does, that can lead to...  unexpected results.  Grandparent and Root only change when docking/undocking and the dynamic loads are generally very low during that process.

  15. 4 hours ago, Spacescifi said:

    Spaceships Are NOT bought and sold like ocean vessels: An ocean vessel is mostly dangerous to other ocean vessels and ports. A spaceship is dangerous to entire planets, spacecraft and spacestations. Han Solo won't exist, anymore than he flies airliners. Professional spaceflight companies would fly spaceships, and no one would OWN a vessel unless super rich. Chartering a vessel for a mission is more likely.

    Yeah, no.  Dangerous is dangerous.  If an ocean vessel, which is a threat to a port where millions of people can live, are legal to own - then it doesn't make sense to limit the ownership of spacecraft on the same basis.  (You're forgetting the cargo shipmate - that's a much larger threat than the hull itself.)  And there's marginal shipping companies aplenty moving dangerous cargos across the oceans.   (One such finally got caught, and it was their seized and improperly stored cargo that took a chunk out of Beirut recently.)

    And when it comes to Han Solo, same mistake.  There's plenty of airliners and large bizjets in private hands.

  16. 4 hours ago, insert_name said:

    why have ramjets and scramjets not seen much use on manned aircraft?

    Ramjets want high speeds and high altitudes for maximum efficiency (or even decent usability), and that's a pretty niche application.

    Scamjets are still in the process of consuming flaming truckloads of money in hopes that they'll someday be a) practical, and b) useful.  Given that they also (like ramjets) want extremely high speeds, I have my doubts about "b".

  • Create New...