IncongruousGoat

Members
  • Content count

    312
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

303 Excellent

1 Follower

About IncongruousGoat

  • Rank
    Steely-eyed missile man

Profile Information

  • Location Utopia Planitia, building spaceships
  • Interests Thinking of things to put in this box

Recent Profile Visitors

1625 profile views
  1. @Weywot8 Thank you. I'll have to recalibrate things to fit with RSS, which wouldn't appear to be properly set up (for example, 1969 in-game is an optimal launch window), but this should help greatly.
  2. To address your points in order: 1. In short, your rocket is aerodynamically stable if the center of lift is below the center of mass. Looking at the screenshot you posted, your fins are too high up. Nominally, you want fins as far down as possible. 2. It would seem you've been fed bad (or at least outdated) information. Before the 1.0 update overhauled the aerodynamics model, the optimal time to start your gravity turn was anywhere between 5 to 10 km up. However, since 1.0, the optimal time to start a gravity turn is typically closer to 1 km. 3. Sorry about that. I got a bit carried away with the physics, and anyways it's all conjecture based on some effects I've noticed while flying rockets that completely lack roll control in Realism Overhaul, combined with what I know of classical mechanics. It may or may not reflect what's happening in your case. 4. You're right. It does sound odd. As I said, all my conclusions were conjecture-it could be something else entirely that's causing the rotation you're experiencing. Hope the advice helps, such as it is.
  3. That's what I normally do as well. The problem is, as I said, that Principia simulates the Moon's nodal precession, which causes the relative inclination of the Moon and the Cape to vary over an 18-year cycle, over the majority of which you have to launch to the Moon similarly to how you would if you were launching from Baikonur.
  4. Currently studying at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, pursuing a B.S. in computer science. Planning on getting a career working on embedded systems, hopefully for the space industry.
  5. Nope. Not the ITS, anyways. You can get water, and therefore hydrogen and oxygen, but there's no source of carbon. In fact, as far as I can tell, there isn't an ounce of usable carbon, elemental or otherwise, on the entire Moon.
  6. Land? Probably. Land and return? Probably not. The problem with the Moon is that there's no possibility of any fuel manufacture happening there, ever. There's no carbon, what hydrogen is present is needed for the water the colonists will be drinking, and the rest of the oxygen (that which isn't in the water) is trapped in metal oxides in the regolith.
  7. Pity ITS doesn't have enough delta-V to actually land and return on its internal stores. Those people who actually want to colonize the Moon (although the motivation there is beyond me) would jump on a chance for cheap tickets to the surface.
  8. No, since you can always do a Baikonur-style transfer, where you launch such that your TLI trajectory intersects the Moon's at the Moon's ascending or descending node. The question is how to figure out when those transfers are available.
  9. I'm currently playing with RSS, RO, RP-0, and Principia installed, and I'm considering the problem of launching to the Moon from Cape Canaveral. Now, as most RSS players should know, in regular (non-Principia) RSS, the minimum relative inclination between the Moon and Cape Canaveral is a constant .23 degrees, which makes it easy to launch from the Cape to the Moon. However, Principia simulates lunar nodal precession, which means that the minimum relative inclination between the Cape and the orbit of the Moon varies between .15 degrees and around 9 degrees over an 18-year cycle. The question then becomes, is there a way to compute lunar launch windows from the Cape, taking into account both the nodal and apsidal precession of the Moon, as simulated by Principia?
  10. What's happening here sounds like a combination of a bunch of things. First off, it sounds like your rocket is not aerodynamically stable, which explains why it keeps deviating north. It wants to point in any direction other than prograde, and any deviation northwards, however small, will lead to an escalating precession in that direction. Exacerbating this problem is your gravity turn. You're starting it way too late-you should be starting it more around 100 m/s and 1 km up. Starting it as late as you do causes increased aerodynamic load on the rocket, which worsens the instability, and hence the precession. The rotation itself is probably caused by transfer of angular momentum to the least-moment spin axis (i.e. the longitudinal axis of the rocket). The spin stopping is probably due to SAS properly compensating for the spin once the rocket has left the denser parts of the atmosphere. Or it could be something else entirely. Screenshots of your rocket, in the VAB and in flight, would be helpful in figuring out what's wrong.
  11. Well, except for that one... I hesitate to call it a planet, being more a disc than a sphere, where the LDBW extends everywhere due to the sheer improbability of the place's existence.
  12. As far as I know, RP-1 isn't hypergolic with any storable propellant. There are probably additives that'll make it hypergolic with N2O4, but after digging through Ignition! I can't find reference to any that don't substantially alter the composition of the propellant, and thus mess up the fuel you're trying to burn in the MVac. So it would seem that swapping the propellants around like that isn't really possible, at least not in any useful way.
  13. Not really. As I understand it, the things that were destroyed by the Amos-6 explosion were strictly service structures. Substantial pad upgrades (to allow it to handle FH, for example) would require rebuilding the flame trench, which would be way too expensive for any potential benefit to offset. Also, why would they upgrade it? They already have a perfectly good FH pad at LC-39A, and they're building their own facilities for ITS at Brownsville.
  14. It's invaluable for small, lightweight landers due to its pancake-like form factor. So, for something like this:
  15. Extending & qualifying @suicidejunkie's advice, you need the R&D facility to be at least level 2 in order to transfer fuel in flight. Since it sounds like you're being limited by the size of your vehicle, I advise a pad/VAB upgrade, followed by building a bigger rocket. You can go pretty much anywhere with 1.25m parts, it just takes a lot of asparagus.