Kerbal Space Program

Darg said:
You'd probably get away with a couple of RCS linear thrusters to move a vehicle like that around.
Click to expand...

I thought about that, but I took the lazy option and just bolted the rover on to the side of the lander with a radial decoupler. For some reason or another the RCS tanks wouldn't snap to the decoupler so I thought "Meh, screw it" and just went with the rocket engine version. I also wasn't absolutely sure that RCS would cut it, though looking back I've no idea why, the gravity on minimus is tiny.
 
Art said:
I'm surprised how easy Minimus is, I was expecting something a lot harder than the Mun.
Click to expand...

I'm not. The gravity is so low, and there are large areas which are perfectly flat and are at exactly 0m altitude, landing there is a doddle. And it requires very little extra delta-v to reach compared to the moon, which you save from the much easier landing anyway. Also, the return trajectory only costs 200 to 300 m/s if you do it right, whereas from the Mun, it's close to 550m/s.
 
40eARl.png.jpg

First bits of my station up and docked. I think i might have overkill with the solar power.

Also got an unmanned probe around the Jool system, but the moons managed to destablise the orbit, so now it's heading into the Sun :(
 
Darg said:
Ion engines **** me off, they have to make it so you can accelerate time while they're active!
Click to expand...

You can still do physical time acceleration up to x4. Press alt+. and alt+, instead of just . and ,

It's still not brilliant, but it's better than nothing. Agreed, the "no time acceleration while under thrust" thing should have an exemption for ion engines.
 
SlyReaper said:
You can still do physical time acceleration up to x4. Press alt+. and alt+, instead of just . and ,

It's still not brilliant, but it's better than nothing. Agreed, the "no time acceleration while under thrust" thing should have an exemption for ion engines.
Click to expand...

Ah thanks for that, that will help a bit atleast, I took my probe on a trip to the red planet with ion engines, took absolutely forever. Also the acceleration provided by 4 RCS 4-way thrusters was far greater than the ion drive so that's mainly how I got out there!
 
Two times is about the max, if your using SAS/mech job ect. Otherwise it all over compensates. It's not really an issue, now you can do node, it tells you how long the burn will be, set it up and go make a cup of tea or something, come browse on these forums or whatever.

Kerbal is a game that requires time. But a lot of that time does not need to be spent starring at the screen.
 
Art said:
I thought about that, but I took the lazy option and just bolted the rover on to the side of the lander with a radial decoupler. For some reason or another the RCS tanks wouldn't snap to the decoupler so I thought "Meh, screw it" and just went with the rocket engine version. I also wasn't absolutely sure that RCS would cut it, though looking back I've no idea why, the gravity on minimus is tiny.
Click to expand...

Don't you know? Minimus is made from Mint Ice Scream. :p
Hence the really weak gravity on it.
You should visit IKE; 20M/s to stable orbit. :D
 
The most interesting part is there's a new snowball-like planet called Eeloo - a Pluto analogue. It's in an inclined elliptical orbit in a 3:2 resonance with Jool, just as Pluto is in a 3:2 resonance with Neptune. I'm actually a bit disappointed they didn't put more gas giants in before starting on the ice dwarfs. I would have liked to have seen a Saturn analogue with loads of moons and a ring system.
 
SlyReaper said:
Maybe, but they'd have to move Eeloo further out to accomodate it. I don't know how feasible that is.
Click to expand...

easy, they will be testing Eeloo where it is, then it may become a 3:2 resonance with the Saturn clone later in the game, rather than with Jool. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom