|
It's a drama about what might have happened if NASA of the 60s had leapt immediately from the Apollo program to an interplanetary generation ship. Mad Spacemen.
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 10:41 |
|
|
haveblue posted:It's a drama about what might have happened if NASA of the 60s had leapt immediately from the Apollo program to an interplanetary generation ship. Mad Spacemen. And their solution is to build a Saturn V in space? SyFy I guess...
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
No, it is a colony ship which contains a Saturn V for presumably getting back home vOv
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
Jewcoon posted: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. Pish and tosh Sir! The  way - I went to the VAB and designed a quadruple 2.5m anti-matter + thermal rocket combo with a TWR round about 48. Bi-propellant RCS and a couple of wacking great reaction wheels finish the thing off. A senior port on the rear allows fresh tanks to dock on and be ejected once empty.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. Do as haveblue said but either go out and get it before it comes into the SoI or intercept once it's inside. If you try and go where it says it will be once it enters the SoI you will be disappointed. The transition over the SoI can throw the orbit way off and leave you (like me) with a ship halfway to the wrong place.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
Ratzap posted: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. Fly up a bunch of smallish probes with just a claw, some RCS and a huge reaction wheel. Dock them over the asteroid's surface (and attach them if you have KAS)and then you should have significantly more turning power. Their RCS will also help!
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
Geirskogul posted:Can not play KSP without KAS. Is there a way to remap key controls for KAS? I use the numpad for steering my rockets. The fact everyone forgets that left handed people actually use the numpad for things never fails to piss me off.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
SocketSeven posted:Is there a way to remap key controls for KAS? I use the numpad for steering my rockets. A significant chunk of keyboards lack numpads (most laptops, cheapo/minimalist desktop keyboards, etc.). Combined with the smaller population of lefties, it's always going to default to a right-handed setup that ignores numpad bindings.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
Is that why KAS defaults to numpad bindings for all many of its features, eightbit? 
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
SocketSeven posted:Is that why KAS defaults to numpad bindings for all many of its features, eightbit? Reading failure, the main game is going to default to righties and KAS adapted so that the majority of people don't have to mess with controls that apparently can't be remapped?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
Several camera controls in KSP also default to the numpad, I'm pretty sure. 
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
Palicgofueniczekt posted:And that sort of fuel based failure is what some here find as unfulfilling gameplay. You have to have fuel based failure in some degree. If I slap a tiny 1m fuel tank and try to go to Duna, the game telling before I launch that I don't have enough fuel is probably the best it's going to get. Staging and docking wouldn't make it impossible to predict fuel usage. The only variable would be the user's ability to fly like Mechjeb. If you can't, then practice good engineering and have a safety margin for your fuel. I just don't really know what the alternative is. If you don't bring enough fuel you won't be able to get to where you're going. That sucks but what do you want exactly? Having the game tell you how much fuel you've got and what you'll probably need doesn't seem like a big deal.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
I decided to take a family portrait: Voyager approaching Jool  Gravity slingshot  24 years later...    Still a lot of sunlight that far out  Where the pictures were taken:  The legend  Did this using the Distant Objects mod.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
drunkill posted:No, it is a colony ship which contains a Saturn V for presumably getting back home vOv The Saturn V is there to tie it to 60's NASA. If it wasn't it would just be generic grey block ship #5.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
Zero One posted:I decided to take a family portrait: Pale Distant objects enhancement is pretty rad.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
Today I learned in FAR that the words "High Dynamic Pressure" should be feared and that aggressive aerobraking is dangerous. How did I learn that? With my spaceplane arrowing into a mountain, with half of its wings at 1km/s. I didn't get any good screenshots since it was night, but its probably my favorite learn-by-failure experience in KSP so far.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
The Meat Dimension posted:Today I learned in FAR that the words "High Dynamic Pressure" should be feared and that aggressive aerobraking is dangerous. How did I learn that? With my spaceplane arrowing into a mountain, with half of its wings at 1km/s. I imagine that FAR showed that for a frame or two as I performed an aggressive aerobrake at 3200m/s and lost the majority of the vehicle that didn't have the dV for a proper reentry from Duna. It takes a long time for a pod to slow down from speed like that
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 05:36
|
|
|
Here's something cool: A better view of the Dragon V2's interface.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
Elukka posted:Here's something cool: A better view of the Dragon V2's interface. Guys, guys… this is where HAL comes from. Someone installs a Siri-like app on a spacecraft. edit: I found this a bit earlier with the uncropped picture and gave it a bit of a once-over to try and bring up some details. 
Okan170 fucked around with this message at 18:31 on May 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
"Current Deltav: 5m/s"? Underengineered as all gently caress, revert flight to vehicle assembly.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:"Current Deltav: 5m/s"? Underengineered as all gently caress, revert flight to vehicle assembly. I think that's the amount needed to deorbit, not the current available. Don't see current anywhere.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
"Trunk release" ?!
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
Is any of that actually hooked up to anything or is it just a silly photoshop graphic designed to make the screens look useful? Also having all your instrumentation on screens seems really silly, as if the backlight goes or the screen connection goes or it just gets damaged you lose a massive chunk of display. One would think it'd be better to make a proper electromechanical interface for some of the important stuff at least.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
All modern aircraft use similar MFD graphics displays. They have analog backups, but those are mostly there to make the monkey feel better.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
Contrary to what most people seem to think, aerospace MFDs don't fail much. You know what does? Analog gauges. loving constantly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
Gau posted:All modern aircraft use similar MFD graphics displays. They have analog backups, but those are mostly there to make the monkey feel better. I know that, but aircraft also have big windows and you have a lot of feedback from all your senses when flying. Spacecraft are much more precise, you have to do almost everything by the instruments, so I'd have thought the instruments would be a bit more involved than some flatscreen monitors with seemingly no redundancy at all. It doesn't look like a real spacecraft, it looks like a model, where's the compartments for storing things? Where's the attachment points for everything so it doesn't float around in microgravity? Can you access any of the electronics in case it breaks and you need to fix it? I have a really hard time believing that they're planning on firing that thing into space as a real functional vehicle. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 01:29 on Jun 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
It's pretty clearly missing various things in the cabin. The walls are the bare structure and there's no storage or anything but that's basically just furniture. Otherwise it's a real spacecraft as far as I know. I wouldn't be surprised if it was missing some bits internally but what's there is flight hardware. It looks like there's four identical screens that can likely be used to display whatever is needed. That's a lot of redundancy and I'd expect the chances of all of them failing are tiny, and I'm certain the odds of a mechanical device failing are higher. Even then there's another layer of redundancy because these things are usually ground controlled and automated rather than manually flown by a pilot. It could full well just not have the console at all and just be essentially a cargo capsule carrying people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Is any of that actually hooked up to anything or is it just a silly photoshop graphic designed to make the screens look useful? The center panel is all physical buttons and override displays for showing alarms in case something were to kill the displays, it also covers the essential vehicle functions. The actual maneuvering controls themselves are also physical. The displays are simply providing extra information and ways of using it, but they aren't essential to flying the vehicle.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
Maybe I'm just grumpy about things that look like iPods, I hate form over function design.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
Why would you assume it's form over function? Dragon is a very practical design.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
I'm not sure blue LEDs around the viewports and swathes of black gloss paneling is entirely practical. It looks like it was designed by alienware.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:One would think it'd be better to make a proper electromechanical interface for some of the important stuff at least. We are very very close to having self-driving cars, why does a self driving rocket leave anyone so gobsmacked? It's an easier problem -- there's no traffic to speak of, you don't have to follow a trail of asphalt, and the only road laws are Newton's. Yes, there are plenty of heroes of the space race who made the right decisions with manual controls to save the day, but the only reason they needed heroics was the state of the art in computers was so primitive. If a couple talented amateurs can make MechJeb auto-land an arbitrary spacecraft at an arbitrary location on any of KSP's simulated worlds, and it doesn't crash 9 out of 10 times, I'd think the real deal could take care of the other 1. Admittedly I wouldn't want to use MechJeb's docking program IRL, but that's because it tries to do in 5 minutes what the real spacecraft take their sweet time getting right. --- So about KSP: this is a project I'm keeping an eye on. NASA's mission control software is open source, and the guy who makes Telemachus is trying to set it up to work with KSP! e: OwlFancier posted:Maybe I'm just grumpy about things that look like iPods, I hate form over function design. Klyith fucked around with this message at 01:56 on Jun 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I'm not sure blue LEDs around the viewports and swathes of black gloss paneling is entirely practical. e: Though so far the heat shields have been tiled so it might not actually be in place there. e2: Actually, yeah, it looks the same as this, which is a base structure for the Dragon 1 heat shield. The tiles then go on top of that. Elukka fucked around with this message at 02:03 on Jun 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
Everything around the display is made of shiny black acrylic. Not sure that's exactly practical, or even attractive to look at after about five minutes, as it'd get scratched to hell and covered with fingerprints (from the look of the chairs I assume the pilots aren't wearing suits when flying) but it looks *cool* on the promo pictures I'm sure. Acrylic is also kinda heavy if it's thick enough to be solid, so I'm not sure why it's being used to surface the console. Bah, I dunno, I don't buy PCs that look like that because it makes me think that whoever built it cares more about how it looks than how it works. Give me a sheet of industrial beige metal covered in ventilation plates and screws any day. Solid and practical, ugly as gently caress but who cares so long as it works. I'd rather fly in the soyuz than that thing, the soyuz works and wasn't designed with looking pretty in mind.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 02:02
|
|
|
I really don't see what difference the choice of paint for a panel edge makes. Surely focusing on that is focusing on form? We're not talking about PCs, we're talking about a spaceflight company whose entire design philosophy is about simplicity and practicality - they don't go for cutting edge propellants or engines at all costs, they pick a point that's good enough, they make conventional rockets and capsules, not spaceplanes, etc. They're basically the most Russian designs to have come out of the US.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
I know I can't tell anything about the function of the craft from looking at the pictures, I'm sure somewhere there's someone actually thinking about how to get it into space without setting fire to it in the process, I mostly just don't get the advertising. To me, that says 'we like making science fiction sets, please give us money so we can fire them into space and pretend we're astronauts'. It just give off such a... not taking it seriously impression to me. It doesn't make me want to go to space in it, it makes me want to run screaming before they try to take off with me still inside it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I'm not sure blue LEDs around the viewports ... is entirely practical.  what blue LEDs
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
I would love love love to be able to focus the camera on nearby ships without changing the craft I'm controlling.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:
The exterior viewports. Hadlock posted:Looks like something out of the new goddamn Star Trek movies. Did they consult JJ Abrams on this thing
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The exterior viewports. What the sam hell is wrong with blue LEDs in flight hardware? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 10:41 |
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEQrmDoIRO8 This is the advertising. Musk is almost entirely focused on its functional aspects, rightly so because it's a pretty impressive spacecraft and the first real advance in the field for decades. It does have some flashy lights and smoke effects though! There's nothing about the spacecraft that's form over function.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 02:20
|
|