Jump to content

The Ark

Geo793
 Share

Recommended Posts

ihtoit

ihtoit

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, HebaruSan said:

Is that true? It's on Wikipedia's short list of probes on escape trajectories, and the page about the mission says it was launched directly onto a solar escape trajectory. I wasn't able to find full details about its full orbit from more official sources. What's your source?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artificial_objects_leaving_the_Solar_System

oh my bad, it is on escape, but not from launch. No rocket that's ever existed could throw it that hard*. But a gravity assist from Jupiter could.

 

*unless you trip the Infinite Fuel cheat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HebaruSan

HebaruSan

Posted
Posted
Just now, ihtoit said:

oh my bad, it is on escape, but not from launch. No rocket that's ever existed could throw it that hard*. But a gravity assist from Jupiter could.

 

*unless you trip the Infinite Fuel cheat.

So here's what it says:

"On January 19, 2006, New Horizons was launched from Cape Canaveral Air Force Stationdirectly into an Earth-and-solar escape trajectory with a speed of about 16.26 kilometers per second (58,536 km/h; 36,373 mph)."

"The Centaur second stage reignited at 19:30 UTC, followed by the ATK Star 48B third stage, successfully sending the probe on a solar-escape trajectory."

"New Horizons has been called "the fastest spacecraft ever launched" because it left Earth at 58,000 kilometres per hour (36,000 mph), faster than any other spacecraft to date. It is also the first spacecraft launched directly into a solar escape trajectory, which requires an approximate speed of 16.5 km/s (59,000 km/h; 37,000 mph), plus aerodynamic and gravity losses, all to be provided by the launcher."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Horizons

Again, I know Wikipedia isn't a primary source, so please let me know if you've got something better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kiwi1960

kiwi1960

Posted
Posted (edited)

I know I posted a few challenges before understanding the rules of this area, and yes, I ffff....mucked up....

 

It clearly states that in order to post a challenge, you should first do the the challenge yourself and post pictorial or video evidence that its a valid (workable) challenge...

Not wishing to be a nit picker.... OK, yes, I love being a nit picker, so.... has this challenge been proven to work ... is it valid?

 

Edited by kiwi1960
fixing lotsa typos.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HoloYolo

HoloYolo

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, kiwi1960 said:

I know I posted a few challenges before understanding the rules of this area, and yes, I ffff....mucked up....

 

It clearly states that in order to post a challenge, you should first do the the challenge yourself and post pictorial or video evidence that its a valid (workable) challenge...

Not wishing to be a nit picker.... OK, yes, I love being a nit picker, so.... has this challenge been proven to work ... is it valid?

 

It's not impossible. I have done something similar. Would you like the album?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kiwi1960

kiwi1960

Posted
Posted (edited)

I think this is why challenges must be proven.... also, to make a challenge where only high end computers can compete is a bit sucky.....

Wouldn't it be better to make this challenge as stated BUT using as few parts as possible.... over multiple launches...

 

but even then.... sucky.

 

Edited by kiwi1960
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HoloYolo

HoloYolo

Posted
Posted
50 minutes ago, max_creative said:

Question, HOW DID YOU NOT CRASH KSP!!!  My Dres rocket crashed our computer and its 275 parts or so. You said the launcher for you o'neil cylinder was 329 parts!

The biggest craft I ever made was 1,000 FPS and my PC pushed to a max of 10 FPS before the first stage ran out of fuel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DoctorDavinci

DoctorDavinci

Posted
Posted
On 03/19/2016 at 5:41 PM, max_creative said:

Question, HOW DID YOU NOT CRASH KSP!!!  My Dres rocket crashed our computer and its 275 parts or so. You said the launcher for you o'neil cylinder was 329 parts!

So it's not that hard to crash Kerbal if you have a low powered computer ... with a recent and decent powered one you can launch some fairly high part count ships (over 1260 parts to LKO is my record so far)

You can find an example of what I mean HERE

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...
The Jeb you lost on Duna

The Jeb you lost on Duna

Posted
Posted

I actually made a ship using tweakscale called '''The Ark''    p.s using tweakscale on the maritime pack is not necessary  they are already big enough for me 

I did make them bigger whenI made a halo ring.

halo ring be big

used cheats to get in space

dont have time for flying 

*adds guns*

*destroys universe*

*says "what have I done?"*

*looks at cookies in spaceship they are burnt*

*thinks hes used to many *'s *

*is anyone actually reading this *

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...