Since the 1.0.1 release the linear RCS thruster has become the worst thruster in the game. So, in a fit of 'What If?' I tried to build a stock rocket which would launch a payload to orbit using this utterly terrible system.
Oh there were the guy who used the Kerbal physics bug with ladders to go to space and visit the Kerbal moon in a vid back in the days - no I don't remember who, but I'm certain there's still a non propulsion solution. I get back with a reply if I find it. ;)
I have to imagine the Scott Manley 1mil sub special will be something like launching a gigantic play button made out of cubic octagonal struts into orbit around the mun.... hard mode: as an SSTO
BTG02 because Scott is 40-43 with two kids, and a job in Apple. He doesn't want ridiculous titles like "WORLD'S TALLEST LAUNCH CLAMPS" (Kuebelkoops in a nutshell)
There's a guy that went to the Mun and returned with ONLY srb's. including landing, *and* a low-mun-orbit rendevous and docking. Yes, *only* srb's. Will update post if i locate the video (And no, im not talking about the good old easy day, as per Scott's youtube tXU67_cE3ss )
Mountains are not stable, they vulnerable to landslides and it also add a lot of cost to make a tall concrete structure and have a rocket on top of it. One more problem, rockets are not light, it'll be hard to transport it
Holy shit i just realized that console version of KSP is unmoddable :O Poor guys! edit- dont get me wrong its still pretty fun game and i got around 500 hours in stock but the other 1000 hours are modded gameplay.
species Not only is it unmoddable, but it's buggier than an ant hill and stuck on an outdated version. I also suffer from the lack of a good PC, but it's better than no KSP right? I often quit the game for a few days when my saves get deleted after they accumulate too much memory, but I keep coming back because I love it to death. I pray the dev team takes some time to fix the console version.
I made it about 6 months (no idea on actual gameplay time) before I started getting mods. I think I found out that my buddy played and he suggested MechJeb. I have since had a love/hate relationship with MJ.
If you search for "odyssey by bill, book 14 bradley whistance" you can find someone who did it in v1.13 using stock parts but he pushed the limits by starting from a mountain top.
How I've missed your KSP videos and your delightful accent and phrasing, Scott! I may have been elsewhere for a time, but I love that you're still at it! Cheers!
"I want this to be accessible to everyone, especially those players on the consoles." - Says someone barely getting a frame per second on PC. Yeah... That's not happening.
I made a game called sinking simulator, which can easily run 500k particle ships on a decent graphics card, or even millions if you got a crazy good one.
This is a lot less of a problem with normal rocket engines, which lose less efficiency while in atmosphere or may even gain some depending on their type. I would guess getting so much materiel up a mountain is harder than just packing another 500kg of fuel and oxidizer
sitrilko It's because the height gained would be so little compared to what the rocket needs to get to orbit. It's not worth it when you also factor in transportation.
Scott Manley Yeah, of course YOU would say that XD Just kidding, obviously. But since I am not as informed as I would like about the gaming business in the 90s, what exactly do you refer to with the term "predatory tactics"? I'm asking out of genuine curiosity.
I won't do that to myself, my Xbone crashes at least once an hour (and it's only a few months old), I can't imagine the problems I'd have trying to launch some of my ships on a console. Plus my computer is much more powerful than my Xbox.
You say that like they stopped doing that since then. Doesn't anybody remember the X-Bone's original terms of usage? Their recent purchase of the Mono platform (this could impact the future of KSP and other Unity-based projects)? The "telemetry" scams and back-patches for Win7 through 10? Anyhow, I'd say that the EEE tactic and "Windows Tax" stuff was a lot worse than the web browser silliness. Including IE* is very important for Windows: To this day, it remains the best browser to download another browser with. (* = Counting Edge as IE for the sake of simplicity. It's actually slightly better at downloading other browsers than true IE)
I cant believe that worked........ what a shocking upset! Kinda want to see you do this again, but launch from a a piggyback plane from much higher in the atmosphere.
'y'sure that one doesn't know it? "My Face When I learned a thing" => "You should've seen my face when I learned a thing" seems a reasonable use case, I'd say.
Face visibility doesn't matter, as the sentence can be construed as both "Look upon my face when" and "You should've seen my face". It's a mite flexible like that. Heheh, normie. I'm from the internet, kid. Also, I'm not sure "redundant" means what you think it does.
KingKaos they have the same thrust- 2kn. In a vacuum. ion at 1atm= 0.05, linear rcs port 0.83kn. ion engines cannot possibly take off in a rocket, spaceplane works though
With mods it's relatively simple. Just put a craft in geostat orbit containing a module that has some code borrowed from extraplanetary launchpads that can spawn ships. A button at the space centre lets you load a ship from a craft file similarly to the launchpad/runway. And when you press launch, the mod switches to the vessel in geostat orbit posing as a space elevator and loads the ship on a platform. A small station keeping script constantly makes sure that while the "elevator" is technically a ship, it is constantly repositioned to act more like an elevator. If you allow mods without restriction. Anything becomes possible. It's like having God on your side personally altering physics to suit your needs.
"Nearly infinite thrust" - Scott Manley 2017 I'm going to rephrase this statement a little bit: "A little bit more thrust and we have got infinite thrust" :D
Yesterday i was near the Kennedy space centre and i found a sheet of metal in the ocean whilst diving, and i pick it up and realised it was a part of a rocket. Its now on display in my room.
Or maybe he meant the engine with the lowest specific impulse. Ion drives still have a specific impulse of around 700 if I remember correctly. EDIT: They have a specific impulse of around 700 at sea level, but have one of 3200 in vacuum.
Barely, and it's gotta be from a height. I was involved in that little investigation. Ions have just barely too little thrust to get even a tube bristling with basic fins (the highest lift:mass ratio part) off the ground. The drag proves to be a real buttock.
Challenge:go to all planets (moons if you want to) no refuel and in first person mode only, using weakest engines, cheating not allowed. No sort of cheating allowed. :3
I use them in all sorts of ways. Adding thrust to rcs for heavy crafts, using them as main engines on tiny probes, sstos and shuttles, or adding rcs on crafts that arent symetrical
So, how close is this to real-world physics*? Or, is this just an exploit of the game's programming? *This is just a topic for discussion. I'm not going, "Holy shit! You can do this in real life?" lol
Not even close to real-world physics. Stacking engines on top of each other is not feasible in the real world. Rockets generate thrust by using Newton's third law of motion and expelling tons of gas. If those gas particles hit a part of the rocket (another engine) then it will slow the rocket. Think about someone using a fan to blow on the sail of his boat. That person wont be travelling very far, nor will he go very fast. He's better off forgetting about the sail and turning the fan around to push propel his boat.
Krazy_Tom Biggest obstacle would be orbital velocity. In KSP orbital velocity is about 3400m/s but irl about 8000. Twice the dv means a payload fraction nearly 9times more (e^2). In terms of using monopropellant, a lot of missiles used to use it (now use solid) but had dedicated engines rather than millions of thrusters. Realism overhaul and "Things KSP doesn't teach" is a good starting point for any game/reality debate, the principles can apply to most issues
Anton Markov safety, cost and logistics, mainly. Building a space center on the shore is very convenient - sea is useful for shipping and dropping used or malfunctioning stages, plus more stable weather and usually easier access to high-capacity transport infrastructure. It's too much of a hassle to launch from the mountains to justify a couple of kilometers higher start.
what is your computer like? I had a spacecraft with 2,700 parts and it was hitting 2 fps, its just a mid-grade i-5 with built in graphics card and 8 Gb of ram.
"colour" a non merican I see, perhaps these words will help. Trump, American slavery, Brexit, master race-Hitler. Not many brown people involved in power there. The OP was about the master race for fucks sake read behind his thinly disguised lines.
Suggestion which others probably already made: build a big solar-powered crawler, stick the rocket on top of that, and just drive to higher ground. Mostly Kraken-proof, and only slightly more time-consuming.
I'm led to wonder how much better the LV-1R Spider would fare. A quick glance shows the LV-1 Ant would actually be a lot worse, for the first few stages at least.
interesting. I've just recently built a Minmus miner probe only from RCS since I need those anyway to dock to the orbiting return vessel. Gravity there really is ridiculously low.
Is it possible to make something like stanford torus AROUND planet? Will this hoola hoop be messed with the gravity? should it be built like many sections at the same time or it won't land on top of the planet if constructed sequentially?
Can't help but think the first launch that used 5-6 extra units of monopropellant before staging carrying all that dead weight somehow had more to do with the extra 20km than the height of the second launch which transitioned perfectly into the second stage. Just my opinion.
I've done things like this. I used those little orange ones that you can fit to the side and I put a shit load around the outside of the most squat rockomax(whatever) fuel tank and just shooped the woop.
I have been wondering if it is possible to make a fast moving sled mounted at about a 60 degree slope to launch standard rockets. In the game getting the clamps to hold it properly at an angle might be tricky. The point would be to imagine that the sled is powered by something like EMALS for space craft and thus providing at least a little bit of initial thrust from electrical power. As this video shows raising the platform even a little bit seems to help so giving it a shove instead of a high platform should do something potentially useful.
