Jump to content

captainradish

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    221

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by captainradish

  1. captainradish
    The hoop antenna says it's transmitting science, then it doesn't. The science disappears rather.
  2. captainradish
    Mostly. I've seen issues with the antennas not transmitting science, but everything else seems to work.
  3. captainradish
    I like the idea of a one-manned LK as it corresponds to the two-manned Soyuz. One kerbal goes to the moon and one stays in the ship and makes sure it doesn't explode or something. Edit: on a side note, I always liked the Soviet moon program. It seems like such a basic, no-frills kind of program. I mean, you had to eva to even get into the lander.
  4. captainradish
    Agreed. I have a kick-ass science probe that is broken because of 1.1. I want to send it to Duna, but none of the dmagic parts do anything when clicked on.
  5. captainradish
    I'm having issue with the DMagic stuff not working properly under 1.1. I'm unsure if this is an issue with DMagic as parts from there don't seem to be working either.
  6. captainradish
    I have had, on occasion, docking ports that simply refuse to cooperate. Usually I was getting the docking port sizes mixed up.
  7. captainradish
    1.1 seems to be messing with some basic things. I'm wondering if docking ports are in the same boat as antennas. I couldn't get any antennas from Tantares to work properly.
  8. captainradish
    It's all your fault.
  9. captainradish
    This is true. It also has a built-in science container, an SAS, a reaction wheel, and it can survive reentry without any additional shielding. It's almost purpose-built to return science to Kerbin.
  10. captainradish
    Again: gameplay vs realism. I'd like to see one that has an impact velocity higher than terminal velocity. I'd like to use this thing to return science to Kerbin without any parachutes. As it is, I have to use a drogue chute, which isn't a particularly big deal, but I like the egg shape. It's currently kind-of pointless to use like IRL as it has no real built-in functionality (that I am aware of).
  11. captainradish
    Yes. "This unfortunate space probe is designed to withstand a high-velocity impact onto a surface." I would like this to be true. I know it's easy to simply edit the .cfg, but I think either the description needs edited or (preferably) the probe needs hardening. It's the eternal realism vs gameplay debate: the first model soyuz capsules carried three cosmonauts. I agree with you that two is a good size. There are few capsules that are designed for two kerbalnauts.
  12. captainradish
    I can agree as the RL module doesn't have seats per-se. We need to get someone into this argument that actually does IVA designs. I just want to start my kerbals out in the descent module then move both of them into the orbital module when they get into space. My issue with the current design is honestly more that it bothers me I have to leave one of my kerbals in the descent module.
  13. captainradish
    Ok, I can agree with this statement. I acknowledge there are sacrifices that need to be made to ramrod real life rocket parts into as cartoonish of a game as KSP. I'm just of the opinion that if you have a descent module that holds two kerbals (and two people IRL) that goes along with another part (that can presumably hold two people IRL) then the KSP version of that part should be able to hold two kerbals. Based on pictures I found the orbital module would be tight, but it is capable of holding two people with more comfort than the descent block could. Don't forget, no one wore space suits inside the craft much after Vostok/Mercury/Gemini.
  14. captainradish
    So...you're arguing that we should be using the orbital module as an airlock (like real life), but (assuming one actually CAN put two cosmonauts in it in the first place) we shouldn't use it like IRL. Look, I can see the point you're making. Kerbals are an odd shape. I fully agree that there are going to be logistical problems. I can also argue that there are easy ways around this: for example, remove the orbital reaction wheels entirely and move them to the service module. You have now removed some stuff. As far as I can tell, the orbital module IRL is intended for use as an orbital living quarters. It has a usable space of 5 cubic meters whereas the descent module has a usable space of only 2.5 cubic meters. It has a freaking bathroom in it. The design is already there. All we would have to do is scale it.
  15. captainradish
    I don't see the issue with wanting to be able to move both kerbals from the descent module to the orbital module while in orbit. I'm just saying that the orbital module should be used properly. I agree that it should serve as an airlock for the soyuz as that is what it's used for IRL. I play the game similarly to how a real rocket program would work. Thus, I never ever use an improper reentry vehicle. I also often build custom vehicles but usually based off a base unit such as the soyuz. I'll run it with a different orbital module if I'm flying to the mun, for example.
  16. captainradish
    The real life unit is really lightweight itself, but it wouldn't survive reentry like the KSP unit does. If the orbital modules were nerfed so they burn up, that would probably satisfy everyone.
  17. captainradish
    True enough. I'm just thinking about the kerbal's comfort over here. I also tend to use the Soyuz for quite a while myself. I just prefer it over the TKS as a shuttle.
  18. captainradish
    Agreed with reservations. One of the issues we run into here is there are many many different versions of the exact same craft IRL. Is the orbital module here modeled after an early or late unit? The early units were considerably more crowded than the late model units which functioned primarily as a docking collar for space stations. Thus, the early model units I can see you being exactly correct. However, the later models would be more open and could accommodate more people.
  19. captainradish
    I'm more thinking that if IRL both cosmonauts can fit inside the orbital module then both kerbalnauts should be expected to as well. It can't be comfortable to ride all day inside the descent module.
  20. captainradish
    Gotcha. I use the Soyuz module like in real life: I use both parts (or sometimes the bigger orbital module) and have a crewmember transfer from the descent module to the orbital module. I only wish you can transfer both. Is the real life module capable of having both cosmonauts in it at the same time? I can also see the merits of both sides. I could also argue that the attachment point on the top of the craft can serve double duty as the airlock if you don't include the orbital module if the game supports such a thing. That would satisfy both sides.
  21. captainradish
    The seat is unusable, however. The Soyuz (in this game) flies exactly the same if you have the orbital module or if you don't. I am well aware from a gameplay standpoint the orbital modules are 100% usable as pods (I used one as a Vostok for a long time), but from an RP standpoint they are not. I have no problem getting rid of the hatch as the RL Soyuz doesn't have one, but only because it's now unneeded. BTW, I apologize of I mistook what you were saying. It sounds to me like you're saying you can use the descent pod to carry two kerbals into orbit or attach the orbital module to carry three.
  22. captainradish
    But how do you get out of the pod when back on Earth? I think the real Soyuz is reversed: the orbital module doesn't have a hatch, does it? I'll have to look that up. Edit: nope, you're right. I'll be damned. The descent module DOESN'T have a hatch.
  23. captainradish
    Well, I suppose it does if you want to leave it...:)
  24. captainradish
    Mostly. I've seen an issue with the antennas not wanting to transmit, but other than that everything (so far) has been working for me.
  25. captainradish
    On the same note, I know it's not cannon, but can we get a version of the impactor that has a much much higher impact rating? When I first saw this thing I was thinking something along the lines of using it like a data retrieval pod that didn't need a chute. Suffice to say, my first trip with it ended up with it scattered across the landscape. I would love a version that can withstand very high speed 200 M/s+ impacts.
×
×
  • Create New...