Spricigo

Members
  • Content count

    711
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

226 Excellent

1 Follower

About Spricigo

  • Rank
    Jeb's disciple

Profile Information

  • Location Not here

Recent Profile Visitors

1438 profile views
  1. Well, in some sense I really am. But my intent its more to add to what you said and offer a more ample view for the OP (or anyone interested). The request for a craft file is because I find interesting (an opportunity to learn) to try designing/optimizing a ship according with a different 'directive' than mine and what works to someone else its a good starting point. Also I'm curious if for a reusable lander parachutes will be an advantage or a hindrance (at this point I'm slightly more inclined to think it will save more in the long run.)
  2. Be careful there! The Oberth Effect its the fact that if on object change its velocity there will part of the change in kinetic energy will depends not only in the change in velocity but also on the initial velocity of the object. OP's issue is probably the fact the burn its not instantaneous, resulting in the maneuver happening along a curved trajectory. Doing the maneuver at a fixed direction means velocity and change in velocity are not aligned at all times, so part of this change in velocity is change in direction rather than change in intensity. On the other hand doing the maneuver following prograde / retrograde part of the final burn will be in opposite direction of part of your initial burn, cancelling each other. Its really a lose-lose situation, in any way the maneuver will be less efficient than the theoretical instantaneous change in velocity predicted. If you go higher this will be less pronounced, but also less Oberth.
  3. If you don't mind, send a picture or a craft file and set some performance parameter you want it to meet. Let's see what we can design within those parameters.
  4. Actually I suggest to bring less parachutes than for Kerbin. Parachutes also have mass and so requires fuel to move all the way to Duna. But just a few can ditch most of the velocity allowing for a trivial burn to finalize the landing.
  5. Because I don't need to use action groups to run experiments. Also the buttons gives a visual cue, appearing only for available experiment with now-zero science points. And, finally, the report has its uses also.
  6. Part sniping : trying to click on elusive parts of the craft to access an option. With [x]Science there is a small window with clickable buttons for running available experiments.
  7. Unfortunately, so often is how these kind of conversation goes. BTW as user of [x] Science, I endorse your recommendation. While I use more to avoid the need for part sniping.
  8. @GoSlash27 hint: check his staging. I support @Lelitu's idea, getting the periapsis . But save before, in case you end up unable to get back to the pod, or with a periapsis too low. I also hope this is not one of the flammable vessels you mention in the other thread ( if is leave it alone until you can get a rescue ship meet then.
  9. Also don't have eyes sharp like that, but KER says 215kN. That's how I know.
  10. @FullMetalMachinist he is using the Swivel. And I suggested to use the Reliant instead. Notice that I did it because I also suggest to design the rocket to be aerodynamic stable and capable to do a gravity turn, hands free, from the launchpad. (Also provided a working example a few posts before and again in this one) @jonpfl there is no dumb questions. 1.yes. center of drag and center of mass. I flipped enough rockets to learn how to eyeball it with some accuracy. In the editor, bottom left, there is 3 circular icons , the one with a weight symbol toggles the CoM indicator. Drag need to be estimated based on the exposed area (and some perks of KSP's drag model) 2.the only way to move it around its by moving around the mass/draggy parts. (e.g. fins at the rear, using less/lighter engines) 3. Lighter by 1750 kilograms. One way to increase deltaV it's to reduce dry weight (everything except fuel) . 4.using the rotate toll, the globe icon at top left. The four icons are for place, translate, rotate and reroot. You will need a Launch Stability Enhancer (Also known as Launch clamps, technology node General Construction required)to keep it in position until launch. Otherwise you will need to do the initial tilt manually (which is not as reliable as launch clamps) I will again offer kerbalx.com/Spricigo/Orbiter-Zero It fly itself to space. You just need a astronaut (a scientist or engineer will do) to point prograde near apoapsis. Also cheaper and carry more passengers than your current design. Also stable at reentry.
  11. At 65km the atmosphere is very thin, so it will take a while to slow down enough. Also watching it from the tracking station will not work, the craft will be put on rail and the aeroforces not calculated, so you need to be there to watch it If there is risk of running out of electricity arm the parachutes (check if they are set to deploy when safe).
  12. You have CoD in front of CoM. Your rocket want to fly tail first. The solution it's to move the CoM upward or the CoD rearward. My suggestions: change a Swivel for a Reliant get rid of the 2nd (-1,75t at launchpad), put only 4 basic fins at the bottom fuel tank, put the cabin on top of the pod (for stability at reentry), remove 2 hammers. Tilt the rocket 5° in the editor and use a Launch Stability Enhancer to hold it before launch. Launch it (unkerbaled) and let it go. Just stage when SRBs burn out. DONT TRY TO STEER IT. Depending on the result of the test flight you will adjust the initial tilt: Started to fall before reaching space? Tilt up (more vertical) Reached space but run out of fuel before orbit? Tilt down (more horizontal) Once you get the correct angle you may archive a 75x75km orbit with 200-300m/s for return. Edit: notice I didn't tested it myself, maybe it still flip (drag from exposed parts of the cabin). Also settings fuel priority so lower tanks empty first help to maintain the CoM forward.
  13. You may always do the math yourself with the rocket equation
  14. That would fit "too narrow" by my standards. Mostly because I'd rather take the performance hit during lift off than the increased reentry time. (As my posted craft shows) I still think it may not slow down enough, but will be happy if you prove me wrong.
  15. +800kg, for a craft that small it may cut a lot of the deltaV budget. Post a picture and give us more detail, so we can try to diagnose what is wrong. maybe all you need its a few pointers in the right direction.