|
Looks like something out of the new goddamn Star Trek movies. Did they consult JJ Abrams on this thing  What's amazing is that this is actual flight hardware 
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 04:55 |
|
|
Why are the propellant tanks spherical? Perfect shape to fit the most propellant? I would think that makes them harder to efficiently distribute in the spacecraft.Hadlock posted:Looks like something out of the new goddamn Star Trek movies. Did they consult JJ Abrams on this thing heh, he said 'we went for a clean aesthetic' and it made me wonder if they're going for any aesthetic at all in previous manned craft beyond 'functional'.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
Confirmed: KSP getting official Dragon parts added into the game. I would assume it'll be in the next update, right? 
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
Tony Montana posted:Why are the propellant tanks spherical? Perfect shape to fit the most propellant? I would think that makes them harder to efficiently distribute in the spacecraft. Best shape to contain gasses at extremely high pressure without messily exploding.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
So can someone explain to me how to best use Ion engines? It seems like I'm sticking so many solar panels and batteries and thermoelectric generators that it adds so much weight it kind of defeats the purpose of having such a small efficient engine. Why don't I just use a nuclear rocket engine instead that doesn't require 5+ minutes of burning to get captured in an orbit? Not to mention you're hosed if you get caught on the dark side of a planet.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 04:01
|
|
|
Spherical tanks don't have any corners where stress fractures are most likely to form. Spherical and torroidal tanks are the best shape for high pressure tanks.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
Tony Montana posted:Why are the propellant tanks spherical? Perfect shape to fit the most propellant? I would think that makes them harder to efficiently distribute in the spacecraft. Pressure resistance, probably. High pressure tends to stretch containers toward a spherical shape, this way the tension on the body is much more even.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
Away all Goats posted:So can someone explain to me how to best use Ion engines? It seems like I'm sticking so many solar panels and batteries and thermoelectric generators that it adds so much weight it kind of defeats the purpose of having such a small efficient engine. Why don't I just use a nuclear rocket engine instead that doesn't require 5+ minutes of burning to get captured in an orbit? You really have to keep it small. This is my standard SPACE KART Seat Tiny probe core Small disc battery -> six 1x4 panels Xenon container Ion engine This'll get you to Mun or Minmus easily. Add a few more fuel containers and you can go just about anywhere.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
Hadlock posted:Looks like something out of the new goddamn Star Trek movies. Did they consult JJ Abrams on this thing This really reminded me of the pod from Contact except happier looking. 
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 04:34
|
|
|
Spacecraft have finally entered the modern age Its about drat time. This is what happens when rocket scientists and engineers aren't laden with 100,000 pork contracts, unchain NASA, NASA + SpaceX forever.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
Warmachine posted:The trick is that while yes, I did go to the internet and learn about dV and other rocket science, doing the math for my rocket of many pieces of varying mass by hand is dumb and doesn't get me to the blasting my Kerbals into space faster. It's why I have a mod that adds all that extra instrumentation. The smart part of it shouldn't be having to bust out a slide rule to calculate your burns--it should be knowing what all those numbers on the instrument panel mean so that you can do more and more efficient missions. It's landing on the moon Neil Armstrong style with a couple seconds of fuel left, and taking a deep, relieved breath at engine shutdown. I agree. I mean I don't get why it's being argued against. Worst that comes of it is that new players don't know what dV is, or if they do know what it is, they don't know how much is good. As you play you will gain an intuitive grasp of how much dV you need to get places with your piloting skills. All it needs is a basic breakdown of dV by stage (so you don't have to keep disassembling your rocket to see the numbers for your orbital stage and such) and maybe a total at the bottom. Let players use it how they like. Shibawanko posted:Just curious, but what does rocket fuel evaporate into? Can't we put it in a sealed canister (and maybe shade the tank from sunlight with some kind of movable sail?)? Gaseous rocket fuel. The issue is that rocket fuel is generally under such high pressure and made of such volatile, and often light elements, that it will basically squeeze through the tank, no matter how airtight you make it. You can't get a perfect seal, and even if you could hydrogen can actually pass through solid metal given enough time I think because it's so light. It's mostly a limit of engineering, there's always going to be a tiny amount of leakage from the tanks and when you're storing them in a complete vaccuum over years of travel time, that starts to get noticeable. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 05:52 on May 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:Spacecraft have finally entered the modern age Honestly, I'm sure at least 50% of that is purely for marketing to the public, and not to benefit the astronauts. But good UI design is still nice.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
Away all Goats posted:So can someone explain to me how to best use Ion engines? It seems like I'm sticking so many solar panels and batteries and thermoelectric generators that it adds so much weight it kind of defeats the purpose of having such a small efficient engine. Why don't I just use a nuclear rocket engine instead that doesn't require 5+ minutes of burning to get captured in an orbit? Are you using the Z-100 or Z-400 batteries? Those have PhysicsSignificance=1, meaning they have no mass or drag, and you should stick as many on as you possibly can.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
Tony Montana posted:Why are the propellant tanks spherical? Perfect shape to fit the most propellant? I would think that makes them harder to efficiently distribute in the spacecraft. Also, in addition to the structural strength mentioned by others, a sphere has the smallest surface area to contained volume ratio, meaning that for any given amount of fuel, a sphere has less surface area it can leak through.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 07:42
|
|
|
And for the same basic reason a spherical tank is the most mass-efficient way to store a given amount of fuel.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 12:23
|
|
|
emf posted:I'm sorry for starting a massive derail, especially when so many people completely missed my point; but that's my fault. I really, honestly, thought that more people saw the sexism and gender-normative stereotyping being introduced by gendering Kerbals. The reason I didn't elaborate on it before, and also the reason I specifically requested to not hear from straight-white-males, is that they are not part of the group that is trying to be "included" by adding gender to Kerbals, nor are they a member of the many groups which will be explicitly excluded by the addition of a simple binary gendered Kerbal, and -- all good intentions notwithstanding -- are not in a position to choose their opinions for them.  Don't ruin my cis gendered sexual fantasy space role playing game.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 13:22
|
|
|
please stop quoting emf's post
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 13:28
|
|
|
Doomsday Jesus posted:
gently caress off this was ages ago and you've added nothing
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 13:52
|
|
|
DStecks posted:please stop quoting emf's post Why? Something so loving stupid should be shared with the world. Post it from the rooftops ya know?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 14:44
|
|
|
Cotato posted:Why? Something so loving stupid should be shared with the world. Post it from the rooftops ya know? Because then the thread keeps being about emf's ridiculousness and backpedaling, whereas just about everyone else (Squad included!) seems to be of the same, sane mind.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 15:15
|
|
|
Cotato posted:Why? Something so loving stupid should be shared with the world. Post it from the rooftops ya know? No it shouldn't, it should be forgotten and the thread move on. If we want to talk about female kerbals, offer constructive poo poo rather than just "OMG WHAT A TARD" because we already know he's a tard. I like the idea of female kerbals, but I'll make a suggestion here. Randomize their features, in a sense. Some of them should have eyeliner and/or mascara, and some shouldn't. Some girls want to "be pretty and wear makeup" and many don't. My wife rarely wears any makeup at all, for example. If you include both in the game, then nobody feels like you're not considering them "real." You could do the same with random facial hair and poo poo for the male ones, to make it fun.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
Away all Goats posted:So can someone explain to me how to best use Ion engines? It seems like I'm sticking so many solar panels and batteries and thermoelectric generators that it adds so much weight it kind of defeats the purpose of having such a small efficient engine. Why don't I just use a nuclear rocket engine instead that doesn't require 5+ minutes of burning to get captured in an orbit? Step 1) Trash your probe and start again. If you don't need it, like really desperately must have a part - leave it off. Mass is all important Step 2) If you have Nearfuture, use his solar panels. Stock are ok but only use enough to barely break even at full throttle, rotating bases from infernal robotics can help greatly here. Step 3) Asparagus your Xenon/argon or whatever. Small central tank to maximise your TWR as you expend fuel. Step 4) Use NERVAs to get poo poo done. You play with ions for the sake of playing with the design challenges of using ions. Step 5) Do not do maneuvers on the dark side of a planet. If that's where you're headed, change course and make sure you don't.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
shortspecialbus posted:No it shouldn't, it should be forgotten and the thread move on. If we want to talk about female kerbals, offer constructive poo poo rather than just "OMG WHAT A TARD" because we already know he's a tard.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 16:04
|
|
|
shortspecialbus posted:Randomize their features, in a sense. Some of them should have eyeliner and/or mascara, and some shouldn't. Some girls want to "be pretty and wear makeup" and many don't. My wife rarely wears any makeup at all, for example. If you include both in the game, then nobody feels like you're not considering them "real." You could do the same with random facial hair and poo poo for the male ones, to make it fun. But that would humanize the kerbals, and we all know that sending thousands of kerbals to their deaths is the ONE TRUE WAY to play KSP! 
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
I've been playing for a while now but I only recently landed a Kerbal on Duna. He wound up stranded there since I suck at piloting and rocket design so I decided to go for my first INTERPLANETARY RESCUE MISSION! Long story short, after a couple of attempts I plant it down ~5km from Bob Kerman, but the terrain screws me over and my launch engine blows up and knocks the whole thing over onto its side.  Other than the central engine the rest of it is 100% intact so I figure I'll jetpack Bob over to it and see what I can salvage. Only then I misjudge his speed and watch him explode into the side of a small hill.  About 2 years he was stranded up there just waiting for a rescue.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
I found the mod you guys want. The interface is a little clunky still, but I think it has everything you're looking for. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85jjddnfQVk
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 16:23
|
|
|
Kerbal Space Program: thrust vectoring into the gas chamber. Speaking of mods, which mod/texture pack was the one that put a thin atmosphere on Minmus with rad clouds?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
The Meat Dimension posted:Kerbal Space Program: thrust vectoring into the gas chamber. EnvironmentalVisualEnhancements. There are also sub-mods for this framework floating around that further tweak the look of things.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
*removed for politeness*The Meat Dimension posted:Kerbal Space Program: thrust vectoring into the gas chamber. I think this one? double nine fucked around with this message at 16:47 on May 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
haveblue posted:EnvironmentalVisualEnhancements. There are also sub-mods for this framework floating around that further tweak the look of things. double nine posted:I think this one? I was thinking of Better Atmospheres (which uses Environmental Visual Enhancements, I thought?), thanks a ton. I know that it's far from realistic, but I'm a sucker for cool extraterrestrial locations since I've gone through the entire Kerbol system before.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
My favorite ksp posts are about failed rescues. Making green splatters when you are trying to avoid making green splatters 
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
I intercepted the last of 4 rocks that came to Kerbin at the same time but this one is an E class. Not just a little bigger, it's a completely different order of engineering problem. I noted the ship mass pre docking and worked out the thing is 3711.13 tonnes. Up till this guy I've only had Cs or Ds up to 300t which proved pretty simple to move about. That 'tiddly' ship there had 16,000 dV prior to docking and is down to 340 after, the worst problem though is the wheels and RCS on it are just no way capable of turning it in a reasonable time frame. This thing is going to need a new project after this ship captures it - I'm thinking huge powerplant with a lot of RCS grunt and a series of dockable fuel tankers. 
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
Seems like you should be using mainsails as RCS thrusters.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Seems like you should be using mainsails as RCS thrusters. Couldn't you, if you're smart about your burns and such, just use the ship as a bizarre RCS motor by repositioning where it is clawed into the asteroid? Or add more claw ships at the cardinal points and switch between them for maneuvers?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
Instead of trying to turn a massive E class, just detach your ship and maneuver around to the right location. Or get KAS and stick RCS thrusters on the asteroid itself.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
Can not play KSP without KAS.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
How do you even plan a trip to an asteroid? I can't get their orbits to show in the map or plan an intercept using maneuver nodes.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
EightBit posted:How do you even plan a trip to an asteroid? I can't get their orbits to show in the map or plan an intercept using maneuver nodes. Go to the Tracking Station. There should be a lot of "unknown object" entries clustered around Kerbin. Select one and hit Track to make it permanent, then it will be given a designation and will show up in the map view in-game and can be targeted. Then it's just a matter of picking one with a trajectory you think looks doable.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
EightBit posted:How do you even plan a trip to an asteroid? I can't get their orbits to show in the map or plan an intercept using maneuver nodes. Bring LOTS of deltav. A good number of asteroid trajectories are ridiculously inclined--not to mention the amount you'll need to actually move the thing.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 04:55 |
|
|
KSP.jpg (some siffy show coming soon) E: I expect pictures of a replica in KSP when I wake up. drunkill fucked around with this message at 19:16 on May 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 19:13
|
|
