tseitsei89

Members
  • Content count

    266
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

137 Excellent

1 Follower

About tseitsei89

  • Rank
    Sr. Spacecraft Engineer
  1. Steeper reentry causes overheating issues for this design. But I found a netter logic for the braking burn and no I get quite good results longitude wise. And yeah I will add some vernor engines to try and hit the correct latitude also. I'm slowly getting there...
  2. I don't doubt that even in the slightest. That was just a proof of concept. To get a good score I would have to build a much much larger plane obviously. It was just to show that landing speeds of ~20m/s (and probably even less) are very easily achievable. But as @herbal space program pointed out a copter is probably way better at this. Since you can effectively get "propulsion" from KSP style reaction wheels if that is still considered an "unpowered landing" in your books. It kind of is unpowered but it also kind of is equivalent to using an electric motor in real life so not really unpowered in that sense Don't really know what to think about those but that is your decision to make anyway.
  3. You might be right here. I didnt even think about copters since I have not built those ever...
  4. http://imgur.com/aIJkkTv Quick and dirty plane just to show that you can land planes quite slowly without damage. Obviously using ore tanks is not good because they have very high density but this was just a test and it can be easily scaled up. This is nice concept since you can always quite easily add mass to the plane and then just smack in more and more wings until it has enough lift to fly VERY VERY slowly Of course at some point it becomes so big that it becomes fragile but that is the problem with all crafts if you try to scale up
  5. Yep. Big wings and stall at the end was what I was thinking.
  6. Ahh true. Sorry my bad. But you can also land quite slowly with a plane if you just add enough wings. So I still say that planes are probably best in this
  7. Yeah so a plane is even more OP since you can easily land at 150+m/s. Remember that you didn't specify VERTICAL velocity. So horizontal speed of the plane also counts.
  8. Not directly fitting to the challenge but,I tried to make a Falcon 9 like booster using kOS. Best I have managed at this point is a booster that can put any (reasonably shaped) payload that weighs under 45 tons to orbit (SSTO) and then the booster deorbits and does a powered landing somewhere in the KSC area. The problem I am facing is that, even when I am running exactly the same script starting from exactly the same orbit, I get about whole runways worth of distance between different attempts... So sometimes it lands very near the shoreline and sometimes it lands in the middle of the KSC buildings and everything in between. If I could just get it to start the "landing burn" / "final hovering" stage with 0-100m (horizontally) or something like that from the launchpad everytime I'm quite sure I could write a script that could hover it above the launchpad and land it smoothly. But hovering from 1km+ away would just waste enormous amounts of fuel. Not really sure how to proceed at this point. But yeah it could quite easily orbit many satellites and return safely near the KSC at this point.
  9. Yes this is a thing. That is why there are 2 modes on the navball speed indicator: surface and orbital. Surface shows your velocity relative to the surface of the planet and orbital shows your speed relative to the (imaginative) surface off the planet that is not rotating at all. So if you are landed on a planet surface speed says your speed is 0m/s (obviously since you are on the surface) and orbital speed says your speed is the speed at which the surface of the planet is rotating. But there is still a reason (IRL reason) why your craft wont land back in the same exact spot if you just launch it straight up. It is quite hard for me to explain it without a picture but I'll try: 1. First let's assume that the rotational speed of a given point on planets surface is 100m/s. And R is the distance from center of the planet to the surface of the planet. 2. Let's then say you launch a ship straight up so that you fly high up in to the atmosphere and hit the ground again after 100 seconds. During this 100s the spot on the surface you started from has moved 100s*100m/s = 10km, which in other words means that the planet has rotated 10km/R radians. Simultaneously during this time your ship is has also traveled 10km BUT since your craft is above the ground at some given height (let's call it h). And this in turn means that it will have rotated less radians around the axis of the planet than the surface has since the distance from the planets center has been R+h (which is obviously larger than R) at any given time --> 10km/(R+h) < 10km/R. And because of this difference in rotational speeds the craft will not land back to where it started. EDIT: plus what @somethingsaid above about the higher atmosphere and friction between different atmospheric "layers".
  10. It scans one of those "strips" every orbit since your satellite is in polar orbit and uses NARROW BAND scanning. Each of those strips represents one orbit of your satellite where the NARROW BAND scanner scans one of thos NARROW BANDS directly below your satellite. And new strips appear in different places every orbit because the planet/moon underneath is rotating to a new position. After enough orbits you wont see the strips anymore since they overlap everywhere and you get a full coverage scan of the planet/moon.
  11. I have a script somewhere that can get to orbit, transfer to mun, circularize and land to any given spot near the mun equator (with less than 1m error). I just need to find it and write the return part of the script. I wont be doing transposition docking since that is totally unnecessary. I will probably write a proper rendezvous and docking script at some point though.
  12. hi. I am just in LKO docking another module to my next huge grand tour mothership. @Cunjo Carl where are you?
  13. Agreed. Scoring like this is just stupid...
  14. Yep. Just stacking a long mk3 cargo bay full of command chairs on decouplers and parachutes seems easy enough... Definitely needs a limit...