Rayder
-
Posts
149 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Rayder
-
-
10:48 - Oh my god...
Previously the problem (even if you got everything right) was navigating the station with the camera. Since 1.2 lets you orient the camera on any part you wish, I'd say limits would be:
- Computer processing horsepower
- Launch vehicles
- Structural stabilityIf you're thinking absurdly large, the physics render distance is the ultimate hard limit.
-
My math got 600km for the lower limit too. Any lower and one will be over the horizon. It's worth noting that at this altitude, your triangle would have to be spot on. A small deviation will put one of them below the horizon of another.
On a related note, I've been working on a design for some time that provides 100% uptime (or very, very close to it...) and requires no orbital maintenance. My design is two satellites in high polar orbits perpendicular to each other. A third satellite sits in an equatorial orbit far enough away so that one satellite is always visible to the relay. The relay also serves to route signals between the polar satcoms in case one is on the blind side.
In this configuration, above the blind zone you will always have vision to one polar satcom. A polar satcom altitude of 9,000 km leaves a dead zone of about 300km. Unfortunately the values are inversely exponential, and to get a lower dead zone your DSN altitude goes up very high. The lowest dead zone I can achieve with this setup is 250km.
I'm yet to practically test this design out, but I believe it's got great uptime. Any downtime would likely be caused by the swiss cheese effect.
-
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I can't seem to figure out where I'm going wrong.
I'm trying to use Kerbal Atomics together with Near Future Electrical, specifically the patch which gives each NTR its own nuclear reactor. The NFE reactors seem to work fine, but the reactors inside the engines do not. The reactor stats in the tweakables window are all blank and the activate/deactivate button don't do anything either.
I noticed there's the "dummy" patch in there. Should I be replacing that patch with the actual one?
EDIT: I also noticed that the reactor inside the engine still does consume Uranium if you activate it, but there's no other indication that the reactor is doing anything.
-
Forgive my ignorance, but is there a reason why you can't just retract the antenna before using HyperEdit?
-
Just remember that all this is based on the OPs use of the variable thrust mod. This has no relevance to stock KSP - just stage when there's no fuel left. As for working out the TWR, it shouldn't be too complicated. The only thing that changes is the fuel consumption, which slows down as you burn to maintain the TWR. With those numbers, calculate the TWR of your vessel without SRBs.
Your other option is to just find the TWR of your vessel and then just set the SRBs to that.
On 2/14/2016 at 3:24 PM, Buster Charlie said:I Kinda wish there was a stock checkbox in the VAB to auto stage when there was like 1% fuel left in the SRB so you didn't have to have the extra mass/parts count of a sepratron, I know you can kinda eyeball and do it manually, but if you're designing a unified launch system then it's good to have repeatability.
Although not stock, there is a perfect mod for this! KM Smart Parts. You can select a specific fuel in the tank it's attached to, and a specific percentage. You can also set it to either stage or fire off a specific action group. There's some other cool gadgets in there too like an altimeter, a timer and a proximity sensor.
Example: Have your main liquid stage only fire once the SRBs have cleared enough distance from your vessel!
-
Not sure if it's been raised yet, but I have a suggestion:
Currently, life support is calculated on ships with Kerbals inside giving an approximate countdown on how long they have left. Is it possible to extend this functionality to probe cores and electricity? Currently the probe cores will have exactly the same amount of power as when you unloaded them, whether they have solar panels or not.
You could possibly include it as an addon to the mod, if you didn't want it in there as default.
It could add a bit of realism to using probes - a form of station keeping, if you will. Load them up every so often just to keep them in check (top up the batteries, etc)
-
The center of mass moves in the opposite direction of sweep. So backward swept wings put the mass way forward. I'm actually not sure if this has been an issue before or if it occured with 0.15.
I was able to observe this as well. Sweeping the wings right back pushed the Center of Mass slightly forward.
-
Yeah I know what you mean and where you're coming from. I was just trying to account for all the mass. Turns out if you weigh up the molecular masses of those compounds, they balance out perfectly. I merely used 1kg to try to demonstrate my point as it's easier to compare the other values, starting from 1.
My concern was where all the other compounds go. I'm no nutritionist or scientist or whatever, but I was curious why I was coming up short with the Oxygen, and where the rest of it was going.
-
Ah I see. Turns out the .dll from the latest Firespitter pack isn't the latest one. Downloading the new one fixed the problem. Thanks
-
It actually already is. So it looks like it might be an accuracy issue in stock KSP. Do the commands still activate at the specified place (for example: At the correct time relating to a maneuver node)?
I just did a quick test on the launchpad. Wasn't using a node, just aligning orientation to prograde/retrograde etc. It still activates, just not at the original time set. It gets progressively more offset if you reload the vessel multiple times, up to several minutes if you do it enough.
So you're saying that if I set a command at T+1 minute with 10 minutes delay, that the timer gets set to T+11 minutes, and just counts down to that?
-
I've also found that the wheels sink into the runway. I also can't retract the landing gear. Guess we just need to wait for a 0.90 release.
-
I have a small problem with the Flight Computer. One thing I've really wanted was persistent commands, which we now have. However, when you set a command with delay, T-0 changes a little bit.
Say if I set a command with 10 minutes delay at gametime 1 minute, that command should execute at 11m. If I go back to the space center and then fly the vessel again, the timer changes a little bit - usually 5-20 seconds. I believe this is because the gametime pauses when loading and unloading the vessel, but RemoteTech continues counting so the timers get offset.
Perhaps you can link the delay to the gametime? So by setting the delay, it calculates time remaining based on a time in the future, rather than now + 10 minutes.
I hope that all made sense...
-
There are problems with the Bosch reactor that make it a lab only system at the moment. Cleaning the carbon deposits off the system for disposal and maintaining the high temperatures required in space are two of the challenges. This is probably why the Sabatier is used on the ISS but they don't have a Bosch reactor yet (the methane is vented as waste on the ISS). This would be a good one for a near future pack, but with US we're focused on tech that's space viable now.
Would it then be more viable to have a Methane fuel cell instead? Methane and 2-O2 combustion yields CO2 and 2-H2O, which as far as the water goes, could be fed back into the electrolyser (or drinking). For the CO2, unless you feed that back into the Sabatier, Having Kerbals onboard means ever increasing CO2 levels. I guess it could be dumped, but this means we could have some interesting fuel conversion processes for probes - ie having the hydrogen fuel cell, electrolyser, sabatier and methane combustion to transform your materials into the forms you need.
If you look at the chemical reactions, adding the methane fuel cell fully closes the cycle. Water obotained from the Sabatier and Methane cell gets electrolyzed, which creates enough hydrogen for the sabatier and enough oxygen for the fuel cell.
-
Food when metabolized, do in fact produce large amount of water and CO2. In reality you'd be losing between half and two thirds of your oxygen to water (I don't think TAC actually does this).
I've actually been trying to do the calculations to figure out the numbers, but I think I'm hitting a roadblock. The process is C6H12O6 + 6 O2 > 6 CO2 + 6 H2O. So if my numbers are correct, you should have:
1kg Glucose + 1.07kg Oxygen --> 1.47kg CO2 + 0.6kg H2O
According to NASA's numbers, 0.62kg food and 0.84kg Oxygen is consumed per day per astronaut. But here's my problem. Even if you assumed that the whole 0.62kg food / day is glucose, the Oxygen needed is only ~0.66kg. So where is that other oxygen going? What happens to it?
-
I seriously doubt you could compress any liquid to 500% its density - or more - even Liquid Hydrogen. Water only compresses 0.5% at 150 atmospheres. In liquid state there are already no gaps between the atoms so the only practical way to increase the density is to lower the temperature. Even at that, you won't get anywhere near the compression rate of 500% (more like 1-5%)
If such an example exists, I would love to see any liquid compressed down to 1/5 it's original volume.
-
Yes, the way to profit greatly is to design something with 2500-3500 DV left over after you achieve orbit around Kerbin. Queue up four orbital contracts (my usual limit), launch the new probe, and do all four contracts with a single 15-20k launch.
This is how I broke the game. I set a strategy that converted funds to science and I literally earned enough science to unlock the whole tech tree after about 10-12 satellites. The problem is you can't get past 160 science in the tech tree without a building upgrade, which in hard mode is about 1.1 million.
-
I've tried looking for a formula or some way of calculating it but it doesn't seem there's a quick way. Might have to go through and check them manually. Hyperedit will help.
-
It's just simple trigonometry. Can even use an online calculator if you want. To get cone coverage of Kerbin with the KR-7:
Angle: 25 deg
Eq. Radius of Kerbin: 600,000 m
Plugging those values into the formula (minus Kerbin's radius) you get: 2,016 km
It's not 100% precise as a planet has a curved surface, but I quickly tested it and it's very close to 2200 km.
EDIT: ^^^^^ Or that
-
Would it be possible to have a height align feature? Say, selecting one wheel and all others adjust to match?
-
To change your LAN, you need to wait until you are at the closest point to the pole in your orbit, so whether it's the most northern or southern point. You then burn normal or anti-normal to move the LAN around the planet. Only works if your orbit is already inclined however, and it isn't very efficient. Much like changing your inclination, but you're moving your orbit on a different axis. You will also need to make several burns if you need to make large changes in your LAN.
To match those orbits, I find it's easiest to line up the ascending/descending node line, with the KSC and launch straight into the inclined orbit. It's more fuel efficient that way.
Think of it this way. Launch into a polar orbit. Then wait for a bit, then launch another craft into a polar orbit. The vessels will be on different orbits, but they are both in polar orbits. The reason for this is that the Longitude (the lines that go North/South, from pole to pole) where the orbit crosses from the northern hemisphere to the southern hemisphere, is different. As Spheniscine mentioned, there is usually a determined point where the LAN is actually measured from and from a KSP standpoint, is completely arbitrary.
-
cost matterbecouse u can collect it and ship back to the ground so one ship of smallest container give u huge profit and recowering from landing on lauchpad.....
My opinion is it depends on if Antimatter will be available from the VAB.
If it will be, then the cost will matter. As you could recover it, obtain funds and re-launch vessels with Antimatter. If it won't be, then it's really easy. Make the cost 0.
EDIT: Rover beat me to it
-
That's the price per ton of antimatter. That larges AM tank holds a mere 270 grams.
*crunches numbers*
... and is worth 13 Billion. Ok. That might just be a bit much. We probably don't want to overflow the funds bar.
If Interstellar will still require you to collect AM (and not be available from the VAB) then the cost shouldn't matter.
I like how horrendously expensive antimatter is in that XD. I wonder if people will make extra farms to produce and sell it >.>That's something I didn't really think of. If Antimatter is stupidly expensive, it could be possible to farm it and recover it at KSC, recovering absurd amounts of credits.
-
Thanks for the suggestions Cosmic and Nathan.
@rescaleFactor works, but it doesn't change any resources in the part (I knew it wouldn't, but I figured I'd try it anyway). TweakScale and currentScale works, but only partially.
It will change the maximum value of the resource, but keep the default amount in the available resource. Example, I'm trying to resize the Z4K battery. Resizing it gives it an electric charge of 4000 / 500.
I could always just edit the resource to what it should be, then let tweakscale handle the resource scaling from there.
-
Not sure if anyone has asked this, but I did some searching and came up empty. Is there a way to resize a part by default? As in have a selected part resized to a new default?
I'd like to use large 3.75 and 5m parts, as their texture won't get distorted at the larger sizes, but I'd like them to come out of the parts menu at 1.25m by default.
Is there a module setting that will allow this?
Orbit Opacity
in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
Posted
Would it be possible to add in a setting where you can adjust a craft's orbital line opacity? I know in my saves once you get a lot of vessels going the lines can get bothersome. You could turn them off but sometimes it's nice to be able to see them without getting in the way.