• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

56 Excellent

About Weywot8

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast
  1. But what's interesting, somewhat perversely, is that his craft file kills the loading of all ships when I transfer it to my own game save - it kills VAB and SPH when copied into those folders and kills it when put in individually in the saved game ships folder and also the stock ships folder. So the issue lies within the craft file itself - but I gave up given the ship size. One question would be when/where did @antipro Alt-F4 ,while in VAB view ? I Alt-F4 from the intermediate menu (Valentina) and nothing bad has ever happened.
  2. Sorry to disappoint haven't done this yet - replying to the thread so I can follow all the potentially cool answers which I can imagine would include flight paths for reducing dV needed multi-stage resupply/ISRU mission plans detachable boosters like in the Star War prequels where you leave the interplanetary return home stage (tanks +/- engine) in orbit of Eve, land and return in a much reduced size ship from shedding all the Eve ascent stages, dock with the return stage - go home, PROFIT! variant of SSTOs maybe?
  3. Guessing we are still on different wavelengths - to clarify for @Spricigo, Why enter a 72x11,500km orbit, effectively 'circularising' at 72km first then boosting to 11,500km Ap when we can skip the 'circularisation' and just launch a rocket from the surface to give us an elliptical 'orbit' of dimension of [some negative number] x [some number smaller than 11,500, say 8000] km, that puts the orbital velocity at 175m/s at Apo? The 'circularisation' step seems a bit arbitrary as we will be reversing the orbit anyway (Pe of 72 km goes down to -600 km(?) before going back up again) - this whole circularisation is what threw me off and then got misapplied at various points), and being able to rescue/plan launches destined for lower orbits makes this sort of maneuver increasingly useful. Said another way, if we were planning to do this reversal all along, why waste dV 'circularising' at 72km the wrong way when we would spend an equal amount reversing that velocity as well, forcing the effective altitude for efficient reversal all the way out to 11,500km? this 'reverse direction' maneuver using ~350m/s is doable and I've actually done it at altitudes much lower than 8000 km (there was a retrograde KEO/GEO contract) as part of the whole "Oops oh *&%!...OK, well that worked out", hence assumed this was what @Reactordrone was referring to. Thought perhaps Reactordrone had worked out 8000km as a sweet spot for doing this. So in figuring out how useful this can be, without raising Ap above final orbit, the follow on question is how low can Ap get for this to still work for Kerbin, which I assumed required an additional constraint of how inefficient/efficient (steep) one normally launches - otherwise it probably degenerates on one extreme into the bi-elliptic transfer for maximum savings on the plane change (agree with you there) and launching directly West at the other extreme. Also Kerbin's atmosphere tends to force retrograde launches into a steeper, less efficient ascent profiles to safely 'add' 350m/s dV to the launch without blowing up/excessive drag, so the penalty is more than 350m/s dV, unless the prograde launch was pretty steep to begin with. The actual problem then becomes an iterative numerical exercise, optimizing for the lowest orbital height where reversal dV= (the most efficient retrograde launch profile dV)-(most efficient prograde launch profile dV) to that lowest orbital height but Jeb would go and just fly the damn thing with MOAR boosters.
  4. Not unless you've planned ahead and attached a small probe core to your tanks+engine section. (& usually some batteries and SAS) But that's more funds burning up in the atmosphere unless you also use mods like Stage Recovery (then also add lots of parachutes or use the Real Chutes mod & install less chutes.) But I agree that space tugs are the way to go in the future - if you use it to mostly de-orbit tanks and engines, the tug could go on forever by transferring leftover fuel from the tanks to the tug first. If it's only ever going to de-orbit [tanks + engines] sections, you could even do a mini-Control Claw with a bare minimum of Claw, medium SAS wheel, battery, solar panel, probe core, tiny fuel tank and a Terrier engine/3-4 Spiders. Once you Claw on the [tank+engine], you are able to ignite it's engine, adjust Pe to deorbit, top off Mini-Claw ship's fuel tanks, detach, adjust orbit of Mini-Claw. Rinse, repeat. Depends, you aren't igniting the engine in this move (doing it with engines on is hard - we aren't that desperate?) If the station's SAS can rapidly turn the station in a few seconds from prograde to retrograde/prograde to radial then if you decouple as the station is turning, you are essentially flinging the tanks+ engine hard enough to change the Pe + taking advantage of decoupling force. Only works if you are in a rather low orbit, strong enough SAS.
  5. Ah, not circular orbit then, I see where I went wrong now . But then, why enter a 72x8000(or 11,500)km orbit in the first place if we are going to reverse in the end? I had assumed Reactordrone's logic was maximum efficiency by reversing at the Ap of your launch trajectory before circularisation - or for the more orbit minded, in an elliptical 'orbit' with a -ve Pe given that the 'parabolic' surface trajectory of a launch is actually an ellipse with the center of Kerbin as one focus. Same reasoning applies, just not constraining Pe to +ve values.
  6. Hmm urm, well, I supposed I assumed @Reactordrone knew what he was talking about and work things out from there to the only logical scenario where what he said was true . I'll admit probably jumping the gun with "if @bewing likes it, it has to be correct" (at least in some form or another, right?) ----> going by your logic instead, for reversal at 350m/s budget or less simply means altitude where orbital velocity = 350/2 = 175m/s and anything above that. A bit of a rehash of the plane change at infinity = 0dV problem/solution. In that case, you might have converted km vs. meters wrong somewhere - because the Mun's orbital velocity is ~550m/s, Minimus' is ~275m/s...so almost halving it again to 175m/s should put it 'out there somewhere' with an SMA ~4x that of Minimus: certainly not in Kerbin's SOI. Unless I've seriously mixed up the numbers or missed the point again. Let me know if get something else by a different method. But it's all cool otherwise.
  7. Hmm, looks like you need to check for the Filter Extensions mod, update for version 1.3 perhaps? (Assuming it's not just that you are on simple display mode and not clicked on the arrow button on top )
  8. Yup, it automagically disappears. Some advantages - less clutter in your screen, although Cpt Kerbalkrunch makes a good point about having them just not show up in the tracking and map view less clutter in your save files (it all adds up and bogs down the loading of saves) better frame rates - KSP has to draw orbits and simulate stuff when they get close enough less chance of actual collision - I had a rescue mission explode from collision with a Mk1 cockpit that a previously rescued kerbal showed up in. if you are unlucky and have too much debris, contracts requiring you to rescue a Kerbal and retrieve their 'hulk' (trashed ship) can automatically fail when KSP auto-deletes the 'hulk' upon entering physics range But it can be nostalgic to come across your debris in solar orbit, 'commemorating' that interplanetary mission or have some float about the Kerbin-Minimus orbit only to get an unexpected notification that 'X' debris has just collided with the Mun. Quite realistic. I deorbit (crash) my big stuff where possible and only terminate very small debris in orbit and the leftover debris landed on planets/moons from the crashes. With regards to your tanks + engine : Orient your station so that the decoupled part will thrust retrograde. Fire it up ever so slightly and quickly decouple. Assuming the decoupled part is symmetrical, it will gently deorbit itself. Edit: If your station gets in the way, you could also try "swinging" it from retrograde position if your station has enough SAS power (decouple as you swing it 'down' towards Kerbin) if that make any sense
  9. It kinda depends on how inefficient the launch is though - back in the day with 'thicker' atmo, a much steeper (theoretically inefficient but the best possible with drag + heating) launch profile was the way to go - this would give the perfect profile for reversing at apoapsis ~8000km because the horizontal velocity remaining for a steep ascent was low enough, i.e. ~175m/s before circularisation burn. The current atmosphere is pretty realistic so more horizontal profiles (20-35 degrees) starting from 25-35km (like SpaceX's) can save an extra 250-350dV which also leaves a much higher horizontal velocity for the same altitude so we'd need to go higher before it becomes optimal. So strangely enough, if Chad is normally inefficient with his launches, Reactordrone's method is the way to go. Otherwise, launch West. There must be some Math-fu to work out what's best because launching straight up to 8000km and letting gravity stop you there, then going west - would that be even more efficient?
  10. Community resource pack (CRP) adds definitions for all the non-stock resources used by many (all?) of the KSP mods. USI Tools might trigger the appearance of all non-stock resources used by the USI pack including things like Karbonite, Gypsum, etc. ( sound familiar or am I really off-base here?) To make use of those, the are parts in the full USI suite of mods.
  11. As a last resort, Hyperedit in conjunction with save game file (SFS) edit? It's a hassle but if you really want your Kerbals and rover back. Hyperedit an distinctly one-of-a-kind name object into the right location, landed, upright. F5, quicksave game open save game folder, find appropriate saved game open Quicksave SFS saved game in Notepad Ctrl-F, Find that one-of-a-kind name vessel copy the orbital data of vessel, landed status, etc (all the relevant bits) Ctrl-F, Find your stuck rover replace orbital data, etc, paste in copied version delete Hyperedited vessel (or you'd have two objects in the same spot - KABOOM!) save file open Quicksave LOADME file in Notepad open https://md5file.com/calculator check the box for MD5 hash, uncheck the others if you want drag and drop the edited Quicksave SFS file copy MD5 hash output replace MD5 hash output if Quicksave LOADME file with new hash Save, close Load Quicksave in KSP PROFIT!!!
  12. I've seen the hulk and occasionally the kerbal as well fall through the surface of whatever planet/moon they were spawned on - guessing it's when they spawn slightly below ground level.
  13. The altitude and latitude of the gravity assist, as well as passing (exiting) 'in front' or 'behind' the planet all affect the final outcome. A bit over simplified but infront/behind ---> if you speed up or slow down after exiting the SOI altitude/Pe ---> how much you speed up/slow down + new heading in plane of orbit lattitude ---> inclination change of plane of orbit So reproducing a gravity assist need quite a bit of tweaking - you'd probably be better off tweaking for the outcome to set the gravity assist rather than trying to reproduce the exact same assist conditions to get the same outcome (which as you've experienced can vary widely from minor differences in the assist conditions)
  14. Nice ship! The LET pack has really long 8m retractable ladders, greatly reducing part count. Just delete the non-ladder parts you don't need I suppose.
  15. Try practicing docking at a much higher orbit, the higher the better - ++500km or so above Kerbin or better yet, Minimus. In low orbits, as you try to approach the target, you are also making changes to your orbit that will rapidly pull you away if you don't dock quickly. Keeping that in mind, if you have control of both ships, then try to orient and approach the docking port from either or direction. Movement in this direction just changes your inclination, orbital period stays relatively the same for a given dV. From the sounds of things, you are doing an approach with a large / component so paradoxically, as you try to slow down/speed up, your orbit changes alot, and it pulls you away relative to the target. At higher orbits, there is a much larger window for this sort of maneuver to work before your new orbit takes over. Stick with MechJeb and make a note on how they time their rendezvous burns and pick up some tricks there. Also, to practice the docking part of docking, use MJ's maneuver planner to auto-execute the following. set up Hohmann transfer to target fine tune closest approach to target (50m) match velocities to target at closest approach. This gets you 50-65m within you target with almost zero relative velocity. Perfect setup for manual docking practice and figuring out what works and what doesn't. Once you figure it out and get the hang of it, docking in lower orbits is more manageable.