makinyashikino
-
Posts
146 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by makinyashikino
-
-
Honestly, video games make the most sense in space, as 1) They take up VERY little room, as they can be played on an playing card sized device, were talking about board games and things of that nature. The reduced space means more food and more room for other things. Maybe they could launch some more powerful laptops and play KSP! 2) They don't get lost or interfere with the equipment. If a velcroed chess piece floats away on accident, if could interfere with the machinery if it floats and jams into something. If you lose a chess piece, you have to improvise pieces or play a different game.
-
This is a discussion regarding the disposal of nuclear waste, please feel free to share your opinion on what we should do regarding Reactors and their waste.
In order to solve the impending problem of piling nuclear waste, rather than dump it into a mountain in the desert. We launch it into space, sending it on maybe an escape trajectory or into the sun. Although, placing dangerously radioactive on a large stack of explosives may pose some safety risks...
-
Quantumcurvature did a Munar lithobrake with an overengineered probe that would have survived a Kerbin lithobrake. He used stock landing legs and a Grand Slam bouncy-bomb design, those legs didn't even bend on impact.
Kerbin Lithobrakes are much easier, because the atmosphere slows you down to around 100 m/s. All you need is some steel girders and you're good to go.
-
115-120ish. I remember my first aerobrake at Jool. I thought it was like Eve, and stopped at around 80ish. How wrong I was.
-
Whats up with the MET? You went back in time?
Relativity my friend.
-
I have no grievances from an overall VERY well developed software that is also very affordable. I am happy to report no pet peeves
I realise that you have your own opinion, but the software is far from perfect :/
-
One of the main reasons against long term missions to places further in space, such as mars(There are PLENTY other reasons we aren't going now, but bear with me) is that zero-g results in many health problems such as muscle atrophy and loss of bone density. This results in hours of vigorous exercise daily for astronauts, as well as hauling heavy and expensive exercise equipment to space. What if we used the simulated gravity from centripetal force in order to provide 1g of force. It would have to look like the ship from 2001: A Space Odyssey. It might also be problematic to reach the centre of the ship, due to the force. But the ship itself would function as one giant treadmill for exercise. Thoughts?
-
Until the Sun craps out something, as it does sometimes.
Mars has no dynamo effect of its core and its atmosphere is pathetic. There's a difference between staying on ISS for a few months and living your whole life on Mars.
What about psychological effects? Does anyone here realize those people would kill each other like animals? It's just a matter of time.
Imagine you're sentenced to a life in few capsules, with rare EVAs. No more trees. No more blue sky. No more rain, no more animals, grass, clouds, birds.
Most of your food is boring, mushy stuff you get from grown algae. Every year, perhaps, you get to eat cookies sent from Earth. You can't even live chat with people on Earth, because the signal travels a significant amount of time.
And there's no one to force you to stop doing anything you want (like in prison). No more ***? Why not ****? Who would punish you?
With no hope of ever returning back, we'd witness a horrific decline of human minds. Reality TV? How about ****ing illegal live snuff, because that's what it is.
The whole concept of a permanent settlement requires law enforcement, at least.
Legal issues aside, with all these problems, I don't see how anyone would invest in such a stupid idea.
As much as I agree that Mars One is a pipe dream, you are exaggerating the effects. Humanity is much stronger willed than you think. If people have the will to endure the horrors of **** death camps and North Korean prisons, I believe people have the endurance to survive in poor, cramped conditions. People live in submarines for months at a time, I DO realise that they will eventually reach the surface eventually, but it's for quite a while. Also keep in mind that before we had trains and planes, people had relatively plain diets; for example, during WWII, people had restricted diets, especially in occupied countries. They could occasionally smuggle something with more flavour, but it was rare. If we were going to mars, we would bring more than one food source. We would have different crops as well as some occasional sweets or delicacies. Obviously there ARE weaker willed people who would not be able to survive the harshness of space. But people have had worse, and if we can make it through that, we can sure as hell make it to mars.
-
I wouldnt step on the nerva's toes quite like that.I don't really think that it would step on the NERVA's toes to add an early version,
Toe hivemind
-
don't let anyone tell you you're having fun the wrong way.
This needs to be posted in every single 23.5 engine argument thread
-
Honestly, people need to relax about this. Nobody is pointing a gun to your head forcing you to use the new Ions. If you are, great good for you. If you aren't because they are too OP, then either A) Don't use them or
Limit their thrust. If you're complaining that you could use them in a lander or land on other bodies with them, then DON'T USE THEM TO LAND ON OTHER BODIES THEN. People are getting very passionate over something very simple. Obviously it's not realistic, but nothing in the game is realistic, Kerbin is not even as big as Earth's moon, aerodynamics allow for perpetual motion machines. Orbital Decay doesn't exist, etc. If you seriously have a problem with the way other people are enjoying their single player game, then you have a mental disability. -
I feel as if parts that impact places should either A) Explode if it's a fuel tank. or
Become embedded in the surface they're in and part of the terrain. Rather than becoming a part, they simply become part of the map. Although I feel that a part should have to hit at a very extreme speed. Parts that don't hit hard enough become "Broken!" and bent or something. Like a rocket engine gets its bell damaged and I-Beams become curved. This entire idea might be too hard to implement. -
Obviously the prices have not been at all balanced for a majority of the items in game, but my point was people need to calm down about the whole "OP ENGINES" thing, because they are already balanced, it's just we don't really know it yet.
-
Recently there has been a lot of buzz over the changes made in the recent update, especially regarding the new massive engines. People are saying that this is the "death of craft design" and that this will be the only engine people will use when they unlock it. But keep in mind, when cost is added eventually, these parts are already balanced for when money is implemented. If anything, they will be used LESS simply because the insane cost of a S3 KS-25x4. It costs 5800 Kerbux(?) for a single one. Compare that to a mainsail, which is 850 kerbux. These engines are OP sure, but they are incredibly expensive. Now I am not saying that the engine prices need no fixing. A Mainsail is cheaper than an LV-45, and an LV-N is only 1700. but for their prices, the new parts are fairly balanced. They will also allow for cost efficient launcher designs, furthering innovation
-
uhm, it might have worked better if you took a screenshot in-game, and then overlayed a fire effect. Just a tip.
-
I kinda like that idea, maybe you could chose a launch site, rather than just default taking off at KSC? Maybe also have like VAFB(Very Awesome For Building rockets complex?
-
Out of the listed ones, Minimus. It's close, and the extremely low gravity makes basemaking easy. I wouldn't use rovers though, those things slide like butter on ice.
-
For all the players that ask for colonization or making it easier to do interplanetary things or even interstellar travel, the improved performance, stabler joints, and big parts help a lot in throwing big things into orbit.
I've been using KW rocketry a lot, so seeing someone make blocks of mainsails and jumbos just seems silly to me.
Also, the SLS engines aren't overpowered; the other engines are underpowered compared to real life engines.
The engines are underpowered because kerbin is a fraction of the size of earth
hell, Kerbin is smaller than our moon! -
You know, you don't have to use the parts, you're not at gunpoint, USE THE OVERPOWERED PARTS! Anyway, buffed things like the ION and LV-1 are mainly because in the older version, you would end up with burns going into the double digits. This is just so you don't have to wait as long. Also in the future, when $$$ is put in, there won't be spamming and well designed/cheap launchers will be a godsend.
-
It's pretty hard to see anything in that picture, what is your orbit? Are you on the same plane as it? Are you travelling in the same direction as the asteroid? If you are in the same plane and are travelling the same direction, what you are going to want to do is get an encounter at the asteroid's periapsis, and as you get to the encounter, burn to match speeds, you might end up behind if you start your burn too late so you will have to either start the burn a few minutes early or catch up to it, unless you have a very high TWR. Keep in mind, it will be going at least 1 km/s faster than you, so be careful and try not to get hit by it!
EDIT: I'm dumb and didn't read the second sentence of your post duhhhh, so just ignore the 1st part of mine.
-
It was probably before the forum wipe, but I remember someone made a modular aircraft that could dock with copies of itself on the sides, top/bottom, and maybe even front/back. I think he managed to snap 3 of them together in midair, but could have theoretically done a lot more
Do you mean
guy? -
With KAS, could you attach docking ports directly to the "potatoroids"? It would probably make moving the asteroid much easier as well.
-
In addition to having a cupola command pod. make a utility part like the hitch-hiker that is essentially a cupola, sans the large obtrusive control panel. That way, we could get a much better IVA experience along with better views. Just for balancing issues, make it a little lighter than the standard one.(I realise the thick glass is heavy)
-
Rather than suffer the consequences of have just not enough torque to right a fallen rover, maybe have the body have half the torque power of the small OKTO2 probe body providing some extra power. Just a suggestion.
Limit their thrust. If you're complaining that you could use them in a lander or land on other bodies with them, then DON'T USE THEM TO LAND ON OTHER BODIES THEN. People are getting very passionate over something very simple. Obviously it's not realistic, but nothing in the game is realistic, Kerbin is not even as big as Earth's moon, aerodynamics allow for perpetual motion machines. Orbital Decay doesn't exist, etc. If you seriously have a problem with the way other people are enjoying their single player game, then you have a mental disability.
hell, Kerbin is smaller than our moon!
heavy rover on gilly
in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
Posted
Gilly isn't too much of a problem staying on the ground just don't move alot, and if you want the kethane deposit AND ore that's 2KM away, you only need about 30m/s DV, you could fly using RCS! You could use more DV it you didnt want to wait. Eve is WAY more trouble than it's worth. I remember when I made a Minimus Launchpad base, and the Kethane deposit was 10km away from the ore. I used a rover and it was awful. took 1km to slow down. Gilly would be IMPOSSIBLE for rovers, just use a hopper ship. It will be WAY better than using a rover or landing on eve.