Northstar1989

Already being worked on, in the background, and not going to be the primary focus for development for a LONG time. The devs have said so themselves. So not really a valid response at all... Kerbals can already pack/unpack parachutes, collect surface samples, fix wheels, and manually deploy solar panels (useful for that probe/satellite where you forgot to deploy panels and charge ran out). I'd say it's no less complete than the (excuse for) an aerodynamics model at this point... Is that even going to be planned? Regardless, that kind of requires aerodynamics- as I imagine one of the primary effects of weather would be to produce asymmetric drag on your rocket, throwing it off course... Kind of matters how the drag is being calculated in the first place, doesn't it? Like weather, this also needs to come AFTER a better aerodynamics model. The underlying aerodynamics model is the framework these things need to be built on... Such as? because, aside from crew tasks, you haven't listed anything that doesn't require aerodynamics as a prerequisite, or isn't already on a long/slow development backburner... (to use a cooking analogy) I don't think there's anything less developed. Except Resources (the numbers/types of resources, their densities/properties, and an ISRU system...), which is probably a pipe-dream anyways. I imagine we'll still be using the unrealistic, equally-dense, unitless Liquidfuel and Oxidizer, which burn in a stoichiometric ratio neither easy to work/play with (c'mon, WHO thinks an 10:11 ratio is easy or fun to play with? Why not 2:1 like Hydrogen/Oxygen or Methane/Oxygen, with differing fuel-densities?) nor like anything in the real world, launched from the KSC, when KSC is "released" as 1.0 and a complete product... Then again, maybe "LiquidFuel" isn't meant to symbolize something like RP-1, but instead is diesel fuel. Which was looked at for use by OTRAG in the 1970's/80's... In fact, the KSC's location in what looks an awful lot like East Africa strongly supports this supposition (OTRAG built its main launch site in Libya, due to its proximity to the equator...) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RP-1#RP-1-like_fuels http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OTRAG Regards, Northstar

What you're basically repeating is "Brooks' Law" "adding manpower to a late software project makes it later" That is, even according to the Wikipedia article you linked (which enshrines Frederick Brooks, despite the fact he is only writing from essentially a single anecdotal experience), only within certain limits: "their output decreases AND WHEN it becomes negative" Notice the words "and when" (emphasis added). The number of developers has to exceed a certain total- and the concept of "Brooks' Law" was developed on an enormous project at IBM. It doesn't really apply to small game studios- which haven't yet nearly reached the point where additional developers would only be a hindrance to progress... Additionally, the definition of Brooks' Law requires that the project is already past-due, rather than simply being in a long development timeline or having an over-optimistic schedule. I wouldn't say KSP is by any means past-schedule, the devs themselves have said that though it's taking a long time, KSP is developing at a pace within their expectations and in a direction they are encouraged by... See also the "Exceptions and Possible Solutions" heading under the Wikipedia article on Brook's Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks%27s_law#Exceptions_and_possible_solutions Under that section: "Projects can be brought back into (or kept in) control if people are added earlier in the process." THAT is exactly what I am proposing- adding more staff to the project *before* it falls behind schedule, so it can be kept within control even after the loss of a key dev... Regards, Northstar

There is, literally, only one reasonable solution to the problem of getting into a stable orbit this way- and you've already seen it done with Kasuha probably better than anyone else could mange it- build a slingshot/trebuchet that transfers momentum to your Kerbal to give him additional velocity at apoapsis (circularizing his orbit, but leaving the spacecraft in an unstable orbit) Without mods to store IntakeAir (B9 Aerospace's tanks for IntakeAir and TAC Fuel Balancer's ability to pump intake air around come to mind...) you really can't get very far with stored IntakeAir (certainly not to orbit) unless you bring up a massive number of extra intakes and stage them off like fuel tanks... All this is assuming EVA propellent is banned, of course- otherwise with a sufficiently-high apoapsis, your Kerbal can bail out and reach stable orbit with just his jetpack, or "get out and push"... EDIT: I just learned that the radial intakes can store a MASSIVE amount of IntakeAir for their weight. So technically, it is possible using "canned air" as well- though I'd much rather the B9 compressed air tanks were simply allowed, as it's a more realistic way to do the same thing... Regards, Northstar

I don't get why a mod would implement an enclosed command chair in that way (and deal with the difficulties you described in using them as a result). Why not just make it an enclosed pod with no SAS? (or is it so that you can see the Kerbal while he's in the pod?) I'd never heard of D12 Aerotech before... I might have to check it out on my next save... (I'm already close to memory-failure on my current version of KSP, partially because the parts memory is cluttered with old versions of parts from previous installs of mods... I'll have to do a re-install when I update to 0.24, and that'll be when I restart my save and mods-list form scratch...) Procedural Parts is a pretty cool mod- I've been tracking its progress ever since it arose as the continuation of StretchyTanks/StretchySRB's... Last I checked, it still wasn't considered "done" yet... Definitely will be going in my new install after I update to 0.24 though- as I currently use StretchTanks and love it... (by then it should be done- I won't re-install right away when 0.24 comes out...) O:o I don't mean to be a jerk by pointing this out, but you know technically your design should have been DQ'd for using those, right? The Challenge specifically states the helicopter needs to be held up with Firespitter rotors of some sort (although I suspect that was only created as such because the challenge author had never heard of KAX rotors before, as I also have not...) Structural bits from Infernal Robotics? I thought that mod was mainly just focused on robotic manipulators and hinges and rotators and such... What did you use from IR? Regards, Northstar

What else is on the planned list that is less complete? Regards, Northstar

Aerodynamics. They need to be improved at some point, and it's already on the chopping block. If Squad is going to stick with a policy of focusing on the "area of least development" like it their dev post last night, then they should work on an improved aerodynamics model next- as it's currently the least-complete part of the game... Better aerodynamics are also necessary before they can begin working on a re-entry heating module (as it's kind of important *which* parts of a rocket are heating up, and *how much* drag they are experiencing...) Regards, Northstar

@SQUAD Have you guys considered the possibility of bringing on some of the members of the KSP community as unpaid interns to ease the workload a bit, and build a recruitment of pool of people you're familiar working with, in case you ever lose another key developer in the future? (in which case you WILL need to look at bringing on someone new...) I'm sure a ton of KSP players would love to do anything possible to make the game develop a little quicker- and possibly earn a chance to work on the dev team someday if you guys ever expand. It's one of the advantages of having built such an enthusiastic player community. Plus, a lot of the modders already have at least a little familiarity with how KSP works under-the-hood... Just an idea- but I think it might make the game better in the long run... Many hands make light work- as the proverb goes- and if you're getting some of that work for free (and possibly hiring one of the interns someday if you decide to expand), then you have more total development time to devote to maknig KSP all it can be... Regards, Northstar

That might be my best bet. I'm looking for a theoretically-perfect orbit, I understand that slight imprecision may eventually mess it up. And I don't want to spend the fuel to go all the way to a polar orbit on the edge of Kerbin's SOI to effectively minimize eclipses to once ever few decades or so like Kasuha did... Can you demonstrate (with screenshots and math) what this would actually look like? Regards, Northstar

The term is "oblate". And that's what I thought. Apparently the same reason sun-synchronous orbits around Venus aren't possible... Regards, Northstar

How does it manage to avoid Kerbin's shadow? Is it in a specific resonance with the planet? Because according to my understanding of KSP's physics engine, otherwise it should still *eventually* end up in Kerbin's shadow at some point, at least for a few seconds every hundred years or so... (the orbit crosses directly on the other side of Kerbin from the sun on rare occasions, as I can see). Regards, Northstar

That thing has a VERY high part-count (At over 200 parts). What are you using all those parts for? Looking at your album, you refueled in LKO. As I understand it, that's against the rules- you can only refuel in the SOI of other celestial bodies, such as the Mun or Laythe. Why don't you try it again with an ascent-stage: it seemed to be meant as part of the spirit of the challenge to build something with an external fuel tank or rocket anyways... I've never tried Throttle Controlled Avionics, but it definitely seemed interesting last time I looked at is. Does it work well for you? Like I said, I think your entry may be DQ'd by the thread author for refueling in LKO. But why don't you try it again with an ascent vehicle for an even higher payload score? Nice pics nonetheless. Cool craft. My only lingering question- why does it have such a high part-count? Regards, Northstar

Anyone? Any thoughts? @Mods: Is this the right sub-forum for this question? Are there any others (where it might get more attention) I could post it in? Regards, Northstar

I already pointed it out before... The thread author allowed me to meet the lower speed limit with the HELO: A (as I didn't notice or point out the discrepancy until after thinking I had already beat the distinction), but he said it would have to be meters/second instead of kilometers/hour (why the speed is so different from the real record) for all future craft... Regards, Northstar

Interesting craft- what mods did you use? I saw a number of mod parts I had never seen before on that (like what looked like cyrogenic capsules in the 8-Kerbal crew module, and the blue fuel tank on the turbojet module) The thread author has already clarified that small modifications to the structure are fine. I'm sure you'll be able to use your modular approach... Regards, Northstar

Ughh- wrote a long and detailed reply, but lost most of it to an error- so excuse my relatively short reply... I appreciate the thought you put into all your posts, and I'm sorry I offended you. I personally think water wouldn't be such an issue- it's one of the easiest things in the universe to recycle in a closed-cycle life support system. There are *multiple* reactions that allow you to do that, two of which would be extremely useful given the nature of an aerostat and Venus' atmosphere: the Sabatier Reaction, and the reverse Water Gas Shift Reaction. The Sabatier Reaction, first of all, reacts CO2 with H2 to produce H20 and CH4. It's quite useful considering Venus' atmosphere contains huge amounts of CO2 (a much higher partial-pressure than Mars), and the Methane you produce is lighter than the surrounding atmosphere- making it relatively useful as a safe (combustion isn't much of an issue in Venus' atmosphere, which lacks free Oxygen) filler for uninhabited balloon envelopes for the aerostat-cities... I think Venus has a lot of potential- but so does Mars. I think it's humanity's future to colonize other planets in the long run- otherwise we're eventually going to hit a wall in terms of scientific and economic progress, as it requires a certain critical mass of population and resources to sustain increasingly more complex innovations... I would LOVE to see that happen- but unfortunately I don't think there's the political or economic willpower, or more importantly, risk-taking necessary to develop some of the necessary launch technologies. I'd love to see some discussion of more futuristic technologies to get stuff to orbit on my thread on the subject though- which is badly in need of a bump... I suspect he meant a rocket engine that burns CO and O2 in a 2:1 ratio to produce CO2 and thrust... We'll both have to see what else he comes up with, though. Regards, Northstar

Except that it took exquisite engineering and more electricity that some small countries produce in a year (3 GW of electricity from an 18 GW thermal power array of nuclear reactors) to accomplish THIS (this is only a test-flight: I'm still having stability issues that make sustained supercruise at these speeds exceedingly dangerous) It's also blurring the line between plane and helicopter a little bit- if you shut off the rotors at over 400 m/s, it doesn't instantly drop like a brick, but instead starts to more gradually lose altitude (it hardly glides- but it doesn't exactly drop straight down either...) Top speed has not yet been determined, but I think I clocked over 426 m/s just before I lost control on that flight... Regards, Northstar

At an altitude of 60 km (where the airship starts moving horizontally) the air is EXTREMELY thin. So drag isn't nearly as much of an issue as you think- and the shock temperatures would be a lot less than you think (especially as the airship climbs as it gains speed- and also has some wings and is itself a giant lifting body). That being said, they are going to be spraying the leading edges of the airship with a special heat-resistant coating. As for ballistic coefficient- that decreases with the size of an object. The proposed airship JP Aerospace is working on would be more than 7 times the size of the Hindenburg... (so as to increase payload capacity, decrease the relative amount of envelope material through the square:cube law, and increase ballistic coefficient...) The engines are also supposed to be a new electric-chemical hybrid design- though I imagine they might just decide it's simpler to use a mix of chemical and electric engines for an intermediate ISP... Reaching 8 km/s really isn't an issue if you have enough reaction mass. And one of the interesting things about reaching the majority of orbital velocity in the uppermost atmosphere (rather than in extra-atmospheric conditions, like most rockets) is that you can use the atmosphere itself as reaction mass- through use of Thermal Turbojets (which can be powered by microwave power beamed form the ground or orbit- the technology has been around since the 1960's, when it was used to fly around a small electric helicopter. Here you'd be using it for a very small Thermal Turbojet...) This doesn't work so well for a rocket, as at those altitudes it won't take long for a rocket on a suborbital trajectory to fall back down- but an airship has a LOT more endurance due to its use of buoyancy and lift... (exceeding even a spaceplane) Think of it basically like a spaceplane on steroids- the idea is that by increasing the endurance of the craft, and avoiding fighting gravity, you can use much weaker (and therefore lighter) engines with much higher ISP... The vast majority of drag-losses occur in the lower atmosphere, so actually you'd save considerably more Delta-V than 500 m/s. In addition to that, in real life, like in KSP, most engines get better ISP in vacuum than in-atmosphere, with a gradual transition between the two (what's different in real life than in KSP is that in real life fuel flow remains fixed, and thrust increases with increasing ISP during ascent; whereas in KSP fuel flow decreases, and thrust remains fixed with increasing ISP...) And most engines have better TWR the closer they are to vacuum because the same engine produced more thrust without the atmosphere choking the exhaust column- so you need less engine mass with an altitude-launch, increasing your fuel-fraction and thus your Delta-V budget... A super-high-altitude balloon like this is essentially the ultimate in altitude launch. Starting from 60 km is in itself quite an advantage. What's different from an altitude launch is that they hold onto the lifting envelope (which is itself rather light) so that they can use lower-TWR, higher-ISP engines. You're also making a big assumption about ion engines- namely, that they can't be scaled up (they easily can, into integrated multi-thruster blocks sharing some of the same control equipment, etc. The only reason they haven't been is because there's no need for it for probes or stationkeeping- which have been the standard use for ion engines so far...) There are a number of electric-propulsion technologies available- including VASIMR engines- which can easily be scaled up into the multi-megawatt range... (the most practical ways to get this kind of electric power on a blimp this size are to spray parts of the enormous envelope with solar cell films, which they're looking at doing- but face issues with heat- or to beam the blimp large amounts of electricity with Microwave Beamed Power- which works especially well on a blimp because it is slow-moving and has an enormous volume that can mount an extremely large lightweight receiver/rectenna dish on the underside to allow use of much longer-wavelength Microwaves that face much less interference from the atmosphere, but require much larger receivers/rectennas...) The ascent would still be slow. It need not be said this would be most useful and cost-efficient as a way to get unmanned cargo to orbit very cheaply (the orbital blimp is supposed to be highly-reusable, as it never goes any lower into the atmosphere than about 40 km- where it receives its cargo from a lower-atmosphere blimp), in small but cheap chunks... Regards, Northstar

I'm not trying to keep a portion of the satellites in a constellation in sunlight- I'm trying to keep *ALL* my satellites in sunlight. Pretty much any orbit with multiple well-spaced satellites in it will always have some in sunlight- with a ration depending on the Beta-angle. But what I'm trying to do is set up satellites that are *never* eclipsed (to maximize power output- my computer is rather slow, so it's better for me to have a few well-placed satellites rather than a bunch of not as well-placed ones...) Anyways, I appreciate all the help/suggestions from people about constellations- but I'm already well aware how to do that. What I'm looking to do is to set up a single satellite in an orbit where it is never eclipsed, without going into a sun-centric orbit and without stationkeeping... In real life, it is possible because of precession from the Earth's oblateness, but I'm trying to figure out if it is at all possible in KSP... Regards, Northstar

It's been a long time, and in fact I'm about to release the HELO Model: D, with a new technology- Microwave Beamed Power! And if you don't like it, tough- setting up 18 Gigawatts of fission reactors on the ground and beaming that power to the helicopter to run Thermal Turbojets at super-high thrust levels is the ONLY way to break 400 m/s without fuel-burning engines or fusion reactors in a helicopter (unless I gave it enough wing area that it could fly on fission TTJ power and lift alone- in which case it's a plane, not a helicopter). And even then, due to huge transmission losses beaming that power through the atmosphere, it's only possible in the immediate vicinity of the KSC... Anyways, the HELO: C got the Church, Boulet, and Precision Lander awards before I gave up on it after seeing the speed record was still impossible with reactor-powered TTJ's... Regards, Northstar

I've thinking about deploying a satellite to a satellite to a sun-synchronous orbit around Kerbin (there are NOT to be confused with heliocentric orbits- the orbit still lies within Kerbin's Sphere of Influence) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun-synchronous_orbit My reason why is irrelevant to the discussion, though it's to deploy a KSP-Interstellar Microwave Beamed Power Transmitter operating off solar power (moderators, please DO NOT move this thread to the 'Add-Ons' section- this is a discussion about orbits, not mods...) What I am curious is, is it even possible to deploy a satellite to a Kerbin orbit such that it is NEVER eclipsed by Kerbin? Some preliminary calculations of mine indicate that a satellite placed at the absolute limit of Kerbin's Sphere of Influence (84 159 286 m from its center, or 83 559 286 m above sea-level) would move East relative to the surface at such a speed when crossing the equatorial plane if its inclination were 73.709 degrees that its orbital period would be equal to Kerbin's sidereal orbital period (9 203 545 s, or 106 d 12 h 32 m 24.6 s- a Kerbin year) if it were able to orbit on the equatorial plane at that speed- however this is only at the equatorial plane, and the component of velocity in the direction of Kerbin's rotation increases to a maximum at the greatest height above/below the equatorial plane of such an inclined orbit- so that's not all that helpful here... I suspect that such a sun-synchronous orbit as I am looking for would lie outside Kerbin's Sphere of Influence, however I would like somebody to confirm this if possible... Regards, Northstar P.S. I am aware that there is no precession (rotation of orbits relative to the inertial frame) in KSP. I am trying to figure out whether it is possible to have an orbit that always stays at the same position relative to the Terminator (the line separating day/night) with all motion relative to the surface constrained to being in a North/South direction...

So, I realized that I didn't need to launch a crew-rotation mission to the Munar Spacedock to fix the solar panels on my skycrane there after all... Instead, I simply sent one of my LFO Tankers to Munar orbit (it has a few OX-STAT panels I can rip off after transferring its fuel to the spacedock...) The transfer went smoothly... Meanwhile, my Cargo Ship made another run between the 350 km spacedock and the Mun (like the LFO Tanker, it hasn't rendezvoused with the Munar Spacedock yet...) One more run like this, and I'll have successfully moved all the 350 km Spacedock's supply of RocketParts to the Mun- where they'll prove of greater utility... I know supply runs aren't the most exciting stuff, but it has to be done, and I thought I'd keep you readers in the loop on them. I've been a bit preoccupied with real life lately- for instance going on a date Saturday that turned out to be with a really AMAZING girl I'm glad I met... Regards, Northstar

Perhaps because other movies don't *pretend* to be accurate/realistic? Regards, Northstar

Sorry to hear that! Did you have a power strip with a built-in circuit breaker protecting your computer? If not, you might want to invest in one of those for the future... Regards, Northstar

Alright, well nice job! It might have raised my eyebrows a bit less (and would have gotten you the "Slow Climber" Distinction as well as a larger payload to orbit in a single launch- the latter being useful if you're working this mission into your main save) if you had stacked on those two additional fuel tanks though... I guess I just always raise my eyebrows at VTOL rocket SSTO's because they're not really very feasible in the real world, where Delta-V to orbit is MUCH higher- at around 9-10 km/s... (designs with staging, like the Space-X Falcon 9r, work much better) Although, there *WAS* the Delta Clipper prototype, so *maybe*... Regards, Northstar

Do you mean you're curious why there's no Distinction for a powered touchdown without parachutes? Because I felt that would be a little too hard for most players not using MechJeb- I didn't want players to feel pressured to use MechJeb to "compete". Kudos for attempting it without parachutes though- even *I* use small parachutes on my Space-X style rockets that, though not nearly large enough to land their respective stages, help keep the top end upright through their torque... (I used to do it without parachutes, but I found that forced me to rely heavily on MechJeb for the landings- which I didn't like) Unfortunately, you need to do both stages in the same launch. I thought it was implied in the statement that all stages had to be recovered- technically, your upper stage is lost in the first launch, and your lower stage in the second launch. This also ensures that there aren't any problems in your ascent profile that might not become apparent in what are technically two separate launches (such as the upper stage not having enough Delta-V to get to orbit if the lower stage saves enough fuel to safely touch down again- note that I didn't even see how much fuel was left in the lower stage at separation on the 2nd launch...) Further, this forces players to make use of a little more realistic rockets- because Kerbin is such a small planet, it takes very little Delta-V to get to orbit compared to real life. But because you need the entire rocket to clear the atmosphere before your lower stage detaches (or at least burn to a sufficiently high apoapsis that you can circularize the upper stage before the lower stage falls below 23 km), it forces the player to use rockets with lower stages that are heavier and have more realistic Delta-V values... I'm sorry- in theory your entry would be fine (though it's less useful in-game: any rocket that works Space-X style without stage-loss on Kerbin would also be useful for reusable missions on Duna, for instance). But it doesn't meet the qualifications for the Challenge. I suggest trying it again with a heavier lower stage (just stack some more fuel tanks onto it, basically) so you can recover both stages in a single launch. Regards, Northstar P.S. Add some drop-tanks (detachable fuel tanks that feed into your core stage with fuel lines) to your lower stage to increase performance a bit. If they detach and land again before your rocket reaches 2.3 km (at is likely with anything meeting "Slow Climber"), then it's possible to incorporate 2 staging events instead of 1 into your rocket... This works best with giant rockets with large drop tanks though, as even the smallest decoupler has a certain amount of mass that you have to additionally lift, and parachutes only get so small relative to the drop tank...