Blaarkies

Members
  • Content count

    521
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

200 Excellent

1 Follower

About Blaarkies

  • Rank
    Junior Rocket Scientist

Recent Profile Visitors

1879 profile views
  1. None taken What i need is to get 58 upgrades, through the course of finding ALL the "easter egg" sites in the kuniverse. So we have: 16 green Randoliths Kerbin: 5 (or 6?) Monoliths, (1 Temple, 1 UFO...) 3 Mun Monoliths, (3 arches, 1 memorial site) 1 (or 2?) Minmus Monoliths ... There are so many easter eggs, but i only want the KerbNet ones to count. If it isn't on the KerbNet map, it shouldn't give an upgrade...any idea how many KerbNet anomalies there are in total? EDIT: "the Space Program's own DSN groundstations" are also lit up with the anomaly detector...i guess we gonna have to count those as well
  2. I understood you want to test the aero-drag and gravity-drag variables. It seems you are more interested in the aero-drag for this, as if you want an answer about "what is the perfect TWR to set this rocket to?" The short answer is: As fast as the craft's terminal velocity. Thats all, it is the perfect speed where the sum of gravity-drag and aero-drag are at a minimum. To estimate this speed, get your fully fueled craft to about 40km altitude and let it fall nose first. That should give you a good idea of how much it's terminal velocity is (keep in mind, the massive booster you need to get the craft up there should be detached. Also, terminal velocity changes with air pressure and the mass of your craft) I would advise removing the "space" part in the experiment as that can easily add to confusion (above 40km up to the 600km result). You want to know how fast you should go through the atmosphere on your way to orbit, so that you save as much fuel as possible, right? So then, decrease the fuel amount to about 1/4. The rocket should burn out before exiting the atmosphere. (because if you burn outside the atmosphere, you could just as well do this on the Mun...less variables there) Why i am mentioning all this is because using different SRB's will lead to using different Isp values on the experiment...you will need to add another column to the results table for that. Going straight up makes the engine's Isp value change with respect to altitude, and this rate of change depends on the TWR. Also remember KSP has a weird aerodynamics model where drag is created based on open nodes (the bottom node on engines). This shouldn't be a problem for you as that is part of what makes each engine good/bad, but keep it in mind when doing aero experiments.
  3. Read my previous post. I want to try a career with only these monoliths to upgrade my science tree
  4. Oh, so a constant dv but at higher TWR goes further than a 1.01 TWR?...you just proved the Oberth effect For what you are testing, using the same Kickback IS inconsistent. Who would throttle at 10% when they have a Vector engine attached? If you are only going to use 10% thrust, then rather use a 1/10 of the engine (that is really hard to calculate with SRB's), thus saving on engine mass. Please don't take this the wrong way, this is meant as constructive criticism. Here comes the constructive part : Use a LFO fuel tank, and an engine cluster underneath. Don't change the fuel level. Use a single type of engine to remove the Isp variable. Leave the throttle 100%. TWR comes at a price of dry engine mass. Add more engines to the cluster for higher TWR Remove engines for lower TWR The engine parts will add drag (in stock KSP). Aero-drag is another variable here that muddles the TWR results, but aero-drag is also a cost of more TWR. That should give you much better results, but you still need some "to-orbit" trajectory else you are just testing the Oberth effect with a 20km layer of atmosphere. What i mean is the Kinetic Energy Equation(1/2 * m * v^2): Throw a 1kg ball upwards at 10m/s. Calculate the energy Now throw a 1kg ball upwards at 11m/s. Calculate the energy The 10m/s ball could achieve 5.097m altitude with that speed The 11m/s ball could achieve 6.167m altitude with that speed Thats 20% more height, by just adding 10% more speed The faster they go, the more that ratio differs even by 1m/s changes. That is what you are seeing in the rocket, and it IS really cool that you went and did that in KSP...no better way to see stuff like this than with your own eyes!
  5. Hmm, 58 tech nodes, but only 16 rocky balls to land on...is there a mod that grants this tech upgrade ability to the old static Monoliths? If we can get those rookie numbers up to the near 50's it should be possible
  6. How many randoliths are generated in a career game? Would it be possible to play career with only the first anomaly-detecting probe core unlocked, and explore for tech upgrade randoliths, not using any science for the tech tree at all?
  7. Did this just become a thread of "What is the worst blunder you have achieved?" ...? Ok how about "Learn to do test runs on launchpad" medal... Build a little RCS space tug-boat craft that klaws onto bigger ship and moves them to the space station. Add lots of RCS fuel (Monopropellent) and lots of RCS thruster blocks... Vernors are stronger, let's use them. Some time later after rendezvous, this thing doesn't budge one bit because Vernors use LFO rocket fuel, not the MonoProp that RCS blocks use
  8. So if you are in a transMunar orbit, and you start at the periapsis then it should take you +-3 days to reach Ap, right? But when you warp you orbital parameters/angular speed around the planet, you induce phantom gravity on your ship only. If you doubled your speed (with the special warping), then how is it possible that your trajectory curves twice as fast? (orbit lines are still in the same place, but you are moving faster through them). By doubling gravity for that warp period you get a similar trajectory based on the velocity (for arguments sake, ignore the square inverse fall-off). This seems like overthinking it, but when the result is not explainable with realistic orbital mechanics...it is no longer realistic orbital mechanics. Try this though experiment: From LKO, burn to get a minimum encounter with Mun. See the trajectory lines in map view, going behind Mun with a Pe of 100km, and getting a gravity assist all the way to a transMinmus orbit. Those lines seem static, a perfect representation of the "future". Now (still at Kerbin Pe), special warp 2x. While you are moving faster, the Mun is still moving at 1x and thus every second that you are warping, you gaining on the Mun, lowering you Pe without any fuel usage. Imagine how the post Mun encounter trajectory changes (the transMinmus orbit trajectory). Lower Mun Pe means stronger slingshot, means going way past Minmus, even escaping Kerbin SOI. How can we use this special warp while expecting an encounter/intercept/rendezvous? If we activate this warp, it will literally warp our future trajectories if they are dependent on a second gravity source. That's all fine, we can learn to get used to it for the sake of multiplayer...or can we? That would mean ignoring launch windows all together. Don't launch to where Duna will be in 5 Kerbin months, but launch to where it will be in 5 minutes, since that is how much IRL time it might take to get there, and if we get this wrong then there is no more warping that will help us...we will have to wait it out until we enter Duna SOI
  9. Sounds like playing with HyperEdit? Maybe you meant escaping Kerbin with a trajectory that has a future encounter with Duna...do you know how many people have it hard just getting an actual duna intercept from LKO? A lot of players just fix this in interplanetary space to get the encounter
  10. It sounds like Vernors will do you better, since you are already using bad Isp engines for the gimbaling they provide. Place them almost on the sides of the engine itself and launch with RCS, then you have even more gimbal at 70-90' angles without constantly using fuel through them
  11. Are you aiming dead prograde through the launch? Going 5degree off-center from the prograde marker causes flips with most rockets. (use the SAS-aim-prograde mode) If you can shorten that fairing tower you should have less problems to begin with. A brute force fix is to install Vernor RCS ports at the bottom, pointing in cardinal directions. Launch with RCS enabled then this will help a lot
  12. The way i understand this is by fast-fowarding the "Mean anomaly", basically an angular measurement of how far the craft is in it's orbit. It is not really increasing speed, only orbital parameters. Problem: In LKO, trying to go to the Mün. Get the Ap about 45degrees in front of it and launch - Halfway into the trans-lunar orbit(i got SOI encounter icons showing), i decide to warp 2x > Now i reach Ap in 1/2 the time, but the Mün still takes 1x time to get there...meaning i suddenly don't have an encounter anymore
  13. Would it not be better to use 3 Darts at that point? 1t less mass and more TWR, and less part count...but that high tech tho
  14. About the runway: -The amount of polygons would certainly be a challenge...fast CPU but bumpy ride, or smooth ride and lose a few FPS? (I am unsure how much performance KSP loses due to static buildings though) -KSP wheels are better than ever, but they may not be ready for this yet. Slight continuous turning with keyboard controls is going to flip a few planes until they reach the critical speed required to follow the bank. -Some spaceplanes really don't like turning sharply, but 3.5km diameter should still be enough though...unless this is done to scale following the rest of KSC. Bonus: Free NASCAR track around the KSC!!!
  15. If it wasn't for game bugs, then no reverting would actually be fun (it is nerve wrecking). But having parts go poof, spazzing out for no reason, spacplanes rolling left because of an open anntenae inside the closed cargo bay...thats what revert and F5 is for Edit: Remember it is ok to point 20degrees up from prograde, the losses are less than we think: -cos(20')=94% of thrust still happens in the prograde direction -cos(30')=87% of thrust still happens in the prograde direction Going further than that induces greater losses though, but if you can keep your craft out of the atmosphere at that price(6% efficiency) with super efficient engines like nukes...you still win. Just remember to be consistent. Rather point 20degrees off prograde for 3 minutes, than to point 40degrees off prograde for 1minute(the 40' burn is going to be more risky and less efficient) This pointing upwards thing is what real rockets(at least the last stage of them) do to get into orbit as well. They don't have enough TWR to finish the orbit insertion burn before they reach Ap, they have to constantly raise the Ap to stay up there longer, to gain orbital speed. We in KSP often have too much TWR to finish that long before reaching Ap