Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[nogoodnames]

Speaking of lost kerbals, one of mine was just eaten by Australia. Nezy Kerman and Jeb had just de-orbited after recreating the Gemini-Agena Target Vehicle docking. I was aiming for the Pacific but didn't bother to check where they would actually land and they ended up coming down over Western Australia. Nezy went EVA whereupon she was immediately swallowed up by the dusty earth as if the subcontinent itself were some kind of carnivorous entity. Jeb went out after her and managed to set foot on Australia and live to tell the tale because he's a BadS. Totally not because I still had time warp on when they landed and only turned it off after Nezy died, nope.

[Gabeux]

Jeb is missing. I don't know what happened. I closed the game with a rocket on the launch pad so I could launch the next time I played. It wasn't there when I loaded the game up, and Jeb is listed as MIA in the Astronaut Complex.

Yesterday Valentina EVA'd inside the moon when she softly dropped from the stairs. I hit warp and she fell below the ground. Then I quickloaded and she was still dead and MIA, even without autosaving/quicksaving.
Restarted the game and everything was fine. So there's definitely some really weird bugs.
I'm happy though, that nowadays I'm using quicksave/quickload to not die to bugs 70% of the time. The last 30% no one should know about. 
-

Shameless plug here, but since I don't really run a youtube channel (only post things when I really want to record/edit) maybe it's fine:
I had an idea for a KSP video but haven't recorded or edited in a long while, so I decided to go with something "simple" (in-game) to warm up and relearn stuff.
Turns out even simple things can take a loong time to record/edit/render/publish in this game.
If you find it in you to watch it, feel free to criticize. I tried to keep the video short as hard as I could, but maybe I shouldn't..since I was trying to make a more 'atmospheric' video.
I'm posting here because I know exactly ZERO people who play KSP. 

Here's the link.

[timferius]

So, last night right before bed, I went from unmodded KSP to:
KAS
KIS
Joint Reinforcment
KW Rocketry
New Horizons
Kerbal Engineer
Chatterrer
Kerbal Alarm Clock
Kerbal Construction Time

I'm looking forward to giving this a shot tonight.

[LoSboccacc]

you might want to get contract packs for some of those mods. are you using ckan? they are easier to find that way

[timferius]

I had no idea what ckan was until like, five minutes ago... That seems a lot easier ha.

[MarcAFK]

I had issues that only 64 bit KSP can resolve, Seems stable enough, time to break things by installing MOAR mods.
Edit: It feels weird using 6gb of ram, but it's more stable now. I had a few bugs on the first load after crashing a shuttle, but theres been nothing like a few hours later.

[nogoodnames]

So I've completed a few probe missions to the Moon vaguely following the Luna program and now it's time for a manned mission. I've put together a prototype lander that should be able to get the job done:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

It's based on the Soviet LK lander, mostly just because I have the Antares LK crew capsule unlocked but not the FASA LM. Ironically it will launch from Cape Canaveral and probably use the Apollo Command Module.

It has more than enough delta-V for the landing and ascent but I doubt I'll be able to fit a rover or anything else on it without a major redesign. It's already pretty heavy as is; and considering how kerbal rockets under-perform compared to their real-world counterparts, the one I'll need to launch this mission is going to be even bigger than a Saturn V.

[Gabeux]

That looks cool! Real life based ships always makes my eye shine. Also, I think I saw this screenshot/design somewhere. Did KSP feature it somewhere? I follow their facebook page (which always makes me want to play the game), so maybe it was there.
I might be COMPLETELY wrong though..


I've been planning to get a basic mining outpost on the Mun (Minmus will be where I put serious mining and stations later on).
Do you guys do the ore refining in orbit? Is it too much work having a mining outpost/space station?
I'm planning to drop a modular base, each module having wheels (storage/mining/refining, maybe a power plant), and a truck that will go EuroTruck Simulator on the drop zone, and probably have a Skycrane thingy nearby too.

I'm trying to do a whole Career mode playthrough using minimal mods (currently only Kerbal Engineer, Kerbal Alarm Clock and SCANsat because I love maps and satellites so much), so I wonder if it gets "too much" without some sort of automation/autopilot.

I'm not too good at the game (I can do pretty much everything, but I don't feel like I do it optimally, and I do a lot of trial and error with designs), so I take it intentionally slow with science advancement so I can familiarize myself before going too crazy.

[nogoodnames]

Also, I think I saw this screenshot/design somewhere. Did KSP feature it somewhere? I follow their facebook page (which always makes me want to play the game), so maybe it was there.
I might be COMPLETELY wrong though..

Thanks! The capsule and a few other parts are from the Tantares mod which has parts dedicated to recreating Soviet/Russian spacecraft. You could use those parts to create a pretty accurate scale replica of the LK. I had to take some liberties with my version since I was restricted by the parts I had unlocked and the extra fuel necessary to get stock-balanced craft working with Real Solar System. It's kind of midway between the Soviet LK and the Apollo LM.


And speaking of performance requirements in RSS, the service module on this thing is going to be absolutely massive. Even with just a minimalistic command module it's still has to either be a multistage deal or mass something around 200 tonnes. This rocket is going to be ridiculous. I wish RO would hurry and update so I could get realistic rocket performance.

Edit: Actually no, not that big. I was including the delta-V for a Translunar injection when that should really be handled by the uppermost stage on the rocket rather than the service module. That will knock off about 3000 m/s and a lot of the mass but it will still need to be pretty massive.

[MarcAFK]

USI exploration parts are quite small and allow some really cute designs, however Henvis Kerman thought they could be made smaller, Taking the Micro Ducted fan from USI:E and reducing it in size by a third we have the Nanofan producing a whopping 3 thrust! And then it's baby brother the Pictofan with half the power again.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Henvis Kerman looking like a boss on his shiny new airbike.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Handles very well, top speed approximately 70 m/s

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Coming in for a landing on the VAB helipads, we see the fans RCS thrusters at work.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

He checks the mechanical and electrical systems.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The 5 and a half minute flight has used .18 fuel out of the tank of 9, giving approximately 4.5 hours of flight time (Probably not, we also used quite a bit of battery power) He checks the fuel cell, working at 30% which is the most it can do being a 1/3 rescaled cell, worryingly the landing has drained the batteries by 50% with the added RCS thrust, the next revision shall have a more powerful fuel cell and carry less unneeded fuel.

[forsaken1111]

That's adorable. Did you scale the thrust down appropriately when you miniaturized the fans? I'm kind of surprised that they worked so well.

[miauw62]

That's pretty cool. Airbikes are cool.

[MarcAFK]

Yeah, the USI Microfan produces 15 thrust, mine make 3 and 1.5 respectively, they have the same thrust to weight as the ant which has 2 thrust. In comparison a basic jet engine weighs as much as a LV-30 and produces the same thrust.
However I'm certain they are unbalanced in regards to fuel use, they're proportional to the USI Microfan, but it's values must be wrong too.
The ant uses 0.058 fuel a second,If it made 3 thrust it would use 0.087, the Nano uses .4 electric charge a second. The fuel cell requires ..... .00169 fuel a second for 1.5 electricity. That's .00045 fuel a second....
It uses 0.5% as much fuel as a liquid rocket engine.
Now we compare a jet engines 19200 isp to the ant's 315 isp and find the jet is 60 times more efficient. Or uses 1.6% as much fuel. So right there it needs to use 3 times as much fuel, but when we consider how much more efficient jet engines are to electric motors......
EDIT: a KSP Basic jet engine is twice as fuel efficient as a modern very high tech high bypass jet engine
EDIT: I'll probably just make fuel cells use more fuel :p

[forsaken1111]

Eh, at some point you have to make concessions for fun because in reality airbikes are not a real thing.

[puke]

They're not?

I'm pretty sure they are.  I played a lot of Aces of the Pacific as a kid, and fondly remember dive bombing runs using the air brakes on a Lockheed P-38J.

Also:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_brake_%28aeronautics%29